50/2.8 vs 50 summicron

[morocco]

OTHER than size and price, are there any other properties of the 50

2.8 that would make someone choose this current elmar over the

current summicron?

 

recent posts mention a short focus throw (is this true? (dis)

advantageous?) and "zeiss-like" contrast (is this criticism or

applause?)

[jay_.]

The focus throw is about the same as the most recent Cron including the tabbed one. "Zeiss-like contrast"??? What a pile of crap, probably comes from people who've never used the lens parroting Erwin's "brittle crispness" or however he babbled it. It's a Cron minus the top stop, period.

[frank_horn]

I have used both the 1970s 'cron and the current Elmar-M. I had gotten out of Leica for a short time. Got M4-P. Needed a lens and decided to buy a 50 Elmar-M at a camera show. They did not have the 'cron. The little Elmar is retro-looking. Cheaper than the 'cron. Has only 6 blades in apeture vs. 8 for the 'cron. I can't altogether agree with Jay that it is just a 'cron that only goes to f2.8. There is a difference, but I can't really define what that difference is. It is just as sharp as the 'cron, in what it resolves. The color rendition is neutral, like the 'cron. The 'cron MIGHT have a tad bit better contrast. People have posted studies in lens comparisons on this board, but I have not yet seen a 'cron vs. Elmar-M test. Such common lenses, too.

 

Having used both, if I were just starting to put together a kit, I'd opt for the 'cron for the main reason that it is more user-friendly, doesn't cost much more, has f2 and can be set more finely at apetures over f8.

[furcafe]

I don't have either lens, but the summicron & elmar are different designs (I know the elmar is a tessar variant), so I would assume they would provide different looks (all else, like coatings being the same), just like a Sonnar, Planar, & Tessar all provide different looks. Whether the difference is significant to you is another matter.

[gee-bug]

I have had both the 50 Summicron and the 50 Elmar. The images from the Elmar look different. They have a similar quality (contrast/color rendition) as those from my old Yashica T4 Super, which has a Zeiss Tessar. I believe that <a href="http://www.jamiedrouin.com/newwork.htm">Jamie Drouin</a> uses the 50 Elmar quite a bit, and to great effect.

[dennis_couvillion]

I have had both the Summicron and the Elmar. Both asre sharp. Color rendition from the Elmar is a bit warmer. I think the Elmar images look different from the Summicron images. The Summicron is ultra-sharp, such that under certain conditions the images look almost artificial. It's hard to describe but you'd know what I'm talking about if you saw it. I found the Elmar images a tad softer, more like an older Leica lens. That's not to say it's not sharp because it is, but it's just different from the Summicron. I got rid of the Elmar and kept the Summicron because it was a stop faster. But I sometimes wish I would have held on to the Elmar too. You will not be disappointed with either lens.

 

Dennis

[bob haight]

Most of the dealers I spoke to over this years ago all said the cron outsells the latest Elmar by a large margin. I had the Elmar and even with a detached element it looked fine to me but I was only doing slides at that time which I rarely enlarged. The dealer took it back and sent it back to Leica after I dicovered the defect. But, the Elmar basically costs as much as the cron and people are somewhat lazy, don't want to open and set the lens all the time. I think 2.8 is slow for a standard lens, at this point.

[dennis_couvillion]

One thing I forgot to mention. The Elmar focusing was the smoothest of any lens I have ever handled, and I have handled a lot.

[brien_m]

I have found the elmar and summicron are only similar in price in Europe. In NA, the Elmar is consistently several hundred dollars cheaper. That is a significant difference considering the elmar is only US$600 or so and the summicron is typically $1000-1100. To me, the small size when collapsed offsets any disadvantage of having to extend the lens prior to shooting.

[diego_k.]

I have the Elmar, had the DR cron, tried the modern cron and have the contax planar 45G. The 2 I liked the most are the planar and the elmar, having very similar profile. I do think that the elmar is more zeisser. and a great overall lens.

[daniel_fusion]

Combine the best of both lenses and have a look at the Summicron 2,0 - 50 collapsible.

[melvin_bressler]

Bill: for what its worth, I used a 50 mm 3.5 Elmar LTM for years, and then got the Elmar 50 mm 2.8 M mount. When shooting BW,there is no noticeable difference from f 4.0 and smaller. Generally, the Elmars are very sharp as to detail, and have a relatively flat field and show almost no vignetting, even wide open, and almost no flare. BUT, in low light they tend to be 'flat' and lack contrast, especially from wide open through say f. 8. I now have the most recent 'Cron 50 mm, and it is more contrasty throughout, especially indoors, when compared to the other two.

 

When shooting color, the contrast depends more on the type of film than the lens, at least IMO.

 

However, I got the 'Cron for the extra stop, and if that's not important to you, save the money, you won't notice the difference.

 

I am constantly amazed how damn good that 50+ year old Elmar is.