Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/24

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] 50/2.8 Elmars...
From: s.dimitrov at charter.net (Slobodan Dimitrov)
Date: Fri Feb 24 18:12:49 2006
References: <A11B782A-6CE4-4D4B-B133-CFE5710163DD@cox.net> <9b678e0602241649r6826cc55o9dbfe8c42d46c8c6@mail.gmail.com> <78011695-EB4E-409E-9C05-61D39635C336@charter.net> <9b678e0602241803g41fab82bu99f965917c1ff5a6@mail.gmail.com>

...and I thought I was a stranger in a strange land whose voice cried  
out in the godforsaken wilderness...oops...never mind...wrong list.

Slobodan Dimitrov
Studio G-8,
Angels Gate Cultural Center
http://sdimitrovphoto.com





On Feb 24, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Don Dory wrote:

> Slobodan,
> Well, you are just preaching to the choir on that suggestion.   
> Summarits
> have a wonderful look wide open to 2.8, but then so do Summars, and  
> the
> early uncoated Elmars.
>
> Don
> don.dory@gmail.com
>
>
> On 2/24/06, Slobodan Dimitrov <s.dimitrov@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand, a new Elmar-M and a Summarit just might be a
>> killer combination.
>>
>> Slobodan Dimitrov
>> Studio G-8,
>> Angels Gate Cultural Center
>> http://sdimitrovphoto.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Don Dory wrote:
>>
>>> Steve,
>>> I know that others have chimed in, but the newer version is by far
>>> preferable if you are after cutting sharp images on film.  Besides
>>> multicoating which doesn't add much to a triplet, Leica moved the
>>> aperture
>>> ring and vastly improved the performance of this ancient design.
>>> But heck,
>>> used Elmars are pretty cheap so buy a post war one and a current
>>> one.  :)
>>>
>>> Don
>>> don.dory@gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/24/06, Steve Barbour <kididdoc@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is there any optical difference between the old chrome 50/2.8
>>>> collapsible Elmars of the 1950's to 1974,  and the newer 50/2.8
>>>> Elmars which were issued starting sometime in the 1990's...
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone experienced in using these lenses see any  
>>>> differences in
>>>> the photos from them?
>>>>
>>>> Which vintage is preferable if in good shape, and the cost not
>>>> considered?
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate your advice, Steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more  
>>>> information
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

Replies: Reply from don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory) ([Leica] 50/2.8 Elmars...)
Reply from jsmith342 at cox.net (Jeffery Smith) ([Leica] 50/2.8 Elmars...)
In reply to: Message from kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] 50/2.8 Elmars...)
Message from don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory) ([Leica] 50/2.8 Elmars...)
Message from s.dimitrov at charter.net (Slobodan Dimitrov) ([Leica] 50/2.8 Elmars...)
Message from don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory) ([Leica] 50/2.8 Elmars...)