I am considering changing my current Summicron 50mm for a new collapsible Elmar 50 (for reasons of compactness) and have been told that the Elmar is not as good as the Summicron, though is still a very good lens. Has anyone had experience of both lenses? Thanks

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), March 12, 2002

Answers

many Guys said the Cron is above La Elmar BUT....You should look at Mr.Glenn Travis 's pics along this thread ...below it's amazing sample ....

-- Puchong Lau (doctorpuchong@hotmail.com), March 12, 2002.

Though I have not personally seen the collapsible Elmar 50mm, my feeling is that it's probably a lens best purchased by someone on a very tight budget, maybe as their first "starter lens" for the M system. But to trade in a faster f/2 Summicron to gain some compactness, I can't imagine that you'd save more than about 1 inch in your camera bag, or maybe a few grams of weight that you can't sense anyway. The small Elmar may also be a great lens, but I don't see any advantage if you already have the Summicron, other than to just have something new.

-- Steve Brantley (sbrantley@nccommerce.com), March 12, 2002.

You might want to check the "My Next Lens" category below for recent threads comparing these two lenses. In my experience if you leave the Elmar-M hood attached it is not much more compact than the latest Summicron-M. Without the hood attached the lens is not as easy to open. You lose a full stop and add a few seconds to setup time.

I didn't see any performance difference, but tests and other users generally find the Summicron a better performer at wider apertures. Others see a distinctive look to the Elmar-M and prize it for that look.

The best way to figure out if the size difference makes a difference for you is to try one out. I've found that for real compactness you need to look at wider lenses: 35/2.0 Summicron-M (pre-Asph), 40/2.0 Summicron/M-Rokkor, 35/2.5 Cosina-Voightlander Pancake. The M-Rokkor with its small folding rubber lenshood is the lowest-profile combination I've found.

-- Paul Brodek (pcb@skyweb.net), March 12, 2002.

This subject comes up regularly. I copies a test from Popular Photography which they did on both of these lenses. It is on a thread that is about 220 lines down (as of today, Mar 12, 2002), under "Leica M", in the archives. It is getting so full of entries that it is difficult to search for any particular entry.

I bought the 50mm Elmar-M at the time because the price was right and I had already tried the 50 cron before. In practice, the only difference you'll see will be at f/2. I believe rigid mounts are easier to use than the collapsible ones. The 50 cron has 8 aperature blades and the 50 Elmar has 6. It is difficult to set precisely as you get to the smaller f-stops, as it wants to drop into the nearest full click. Let's say, you want to use f11.2, or f11.7. I don't remember such a trait with the 50 cron I had (from the mid-70s).

If you want to look up that entry under "Leica M"' it is titled: "How about the new version Elmar 50/2.8 collapsible?"

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), March 12, 2002.

Go to nemeng.com/leica and < B>use the search box at the bottom of that page to search greenspun.com for "50 elmar" - you will get literally 100s of links to read on this discussed-to-death-5-years-ago-topic.

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), March 12, 2002.