[Leica]Elmar 50 3.5 vs Tessar 50 2.8

["Dan S" <dstate1@hotmail.com>]

In a recent lapse of good judgement I picked up a mint condition Contaflex, 
with 50mm Tessar 2.8, 85mm Pro-Tessar and all the "goodies" including 
closeup lenses, filters etc.

First of all, yes, I am a sucker.

Second, I am really amazed by the performance of this camera!

I have been using a IIIF with Elmar 50 3.5 for years, and always assumed it 
to be the pinacle of old, small 50mm lenses.

Here are a few observations about the Tessar in comparison to the Elmar.

Sharpness:  At all apertures the Tessar shows higher resolution than the 
Elmar.  Field flatness is also better.  While the Elmar shows a certain 
level of "softness" in the image when set wider than F8, the Tessar seems to 
be extremely sharp from F4 through F11.

Contrast:  At all apertures the ELMAR shows higher contrast, but is also 
more likely to flare in adverse conditions.  The difference in contrast is 
most noticible when printing B&W.

Distortion:  Not a problem for either lens.

As for the PRO-TESSAR 85mm F4:

This lens compares favorably with my 90mm Elmar F4.  It actually shows 
slightly higher contrast, but not the amazing resolution of the Elmar.  It 
is much less likely to flare.

If anyone else has used the Contaflex I'd love to hear their opinions, 
particularly in comparison to older Leica equipment.  It's no work of art 
and it sounds like a bear trap, but I am really suprised how well is 
actually works.

Best wishes
Dan States

PS, I am really amazed at the light meter on the Contaflex.  It actually has 
produced excellent exposures...All from an external, battery free meter.  
Yikes!







______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com