LEICA 50mm f/2.8 ELMAR-M (1994-2007) Ref. 11831

[RezaLoghme]

I’m considering adding a Leica 11831 50mm Elmar (the collapsible version from the 1970s–80s) to my kit and would appreciate hearing from people who have used it.

My current 50mm is a 1970s Summicron, which I know is technically the stronger lens. What I’m trying to understand is whether the Elmar brings something different enough in practice to justify owning both.

For those who have experience with the 11831:

• 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?

Not looking to start a lens hierarchy debate — just interested in practical impressions from people who’ve used both.

Thanks in advance for any insights.

 

[Nitroplait]

I’m considering adding a Leica 11831 50mm Elmar (the collapsible version from the 1970s–80s) to my kit and would appreciate hearing from people who have used it.

My current 50mm is a 1970s Summicron, which I know is technically the stronger lens. What I’m trying to understand is whether the Elmar brings something different enough in practice to justify owning both.

For those who have experience with the 11831:

• 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?

Not looking to start a lens hierarchy debate — just interested in practical impressions from people who’ve used both.

Thanks in advance for any insights.

I have both (Cron 50/2 v3 and Elmar-M 50/2.8 1994-2007). I like both. The latter has a slightly more modern crisp look to my eyes, but eventually it boils down to the differences between a double-gauss and Tessar style lens.

 

[RezaLoghme]

"double-gauss and Tessar style"
And these differences are....?

 

[Paul Howell]

Was there improvements in coatings?

 

[Nitroplait]

"double-gauss and Tessar style"
And these differences are....?

Do a little searching if intersted in the differences.

Was there improvements in coatings?

Yes, they are more than 10 years apart.

 

[otto.f]

• 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.

 

[RezaLoghme]

The 50mm Elmar collapsible is one of the best lenses ever manufactured. Don't be put off by the 3.5 maximum aperture, this lens is unique and never equalled to this day.

As per the thread title this is about the 2.8f lens from 1900s onwards.