• How does the rendering compare to a 1970s Summicron in everyday use?
• Do you notice a meaningful difference in contrast or tonal character?
• Is the collapsible form factor genuinely useful, or more of a historical curiosity?
• Are there situations where you prefer shooting with the Elmar even if you have a faster lens available?
I've had both, but now only the Elmar
. the Summicron is a bit softer, the Elmar has more bite
. yes, as follows from the first, the Elmar is more contrasty. At 5.6 though, you won't be able to guess which one it is.
. genuinely usefull, the size of the Elmar is much easier to bring everywhere and thus much more suitable for street work for instance, but also for landscape given the image quality.
The Elmar-M 50mm has IMO the best price-performance ratio of all M lenses. It is my only 50mm because when I want less depth of field I take the Summilux 75, for portrait, people and stills for instance.