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

[RezaLoghme]

I’m considering adding a Leica 11831 50mm Elmar (the black, collapsible version from 1994-2007) to my kit and would appreciate hearing from people who have used it.

My current 50mm is an early 1970s Summicron-M. I also use a late Summilux-R with an R-to-M adapter. What I’m trying to understand is whether the Elmar-M 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.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I had the 50mm f2.8 on an old M2 and it hardly ever came off that camera. Both the camera and lens are long gone, but I have seriously thought about getting the 50mm f2.8 is m39 mount for my last Leica rangefinder camera the very old IIIa. Yes, I know it should have the 50mm f3.5, but I want the 2.8 version.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I had the 50mm f2.8 on an old M2 and it hardly ever came off that camera. Both the camera and lens are long gone, but I have seriously thought about getting the 50mm f2.8 is m39 mount for my last Leica rangefinder camera the very old IIIa. Yes, I know it should have the 50mm f3.5, but I want the 2.8 version.

Are you talking about the 11831 version from 1997-2004 we are discussing here?
This thread is about the 1990s lens, not LTM or vintage.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Are you talking about the 11831 version from 1997-2004 we are discussing here?
This thread is about the 1990s lens, not LTM or vintage.

Nope! Sorry, I'm talking of the early version.

 

[4season]

11831 was my first brand-new Leica lens, and at 750 USD, I thought I was spending a fortune . Compared to an older Canadian 50 mm Summicron, I recalled flare resistance of the newer lens being superior, but otherwise, it was simply a nice, compact, lens. Collapsing it on a digital M body isn't recommended.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Collapsing it on a digital M body isn't recommended.

Source?

 

[4season]

Source?

Leica rep.

 

[RezaLoghme]

OK then.

 

[250swb]

Collapsing it on a digital M body isn't recommended.

It is recommended, or at least it isn't one of the lenses listed in the manuals of digital M's that can't be collapsed into the body. Many say it shouldn't be mounted in it's collapsed position on both film and digital bodies, but that is a 'just in case' and if the owner can't line the lens up square and scratches the paint inside or bends the rangefinder arm. But even if somebody tried to mount it collapsed at an extreme angle the rear of the lens cannot touch the shutter or sensor. I regularly use this lens on my M10 as well as my film M's and mount it collapsed if it comes out of the camera bag that way. The same applies to LTM Elmar's, Summitar's, and collapsible Summicron's.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I think its the 90mm collapsible that should not be collapsed on a digital body, at least 1 second of googling brings that up.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I have now bought a NOS example, 1700 EUR but with all the trimmings.

 

[RezaLoghme]

It arrived! What a charming little thing. First test showed impressive sharpness and high contrast.

Without the lens hood it is a bit fiddly to retract it. And the "lock" mechanism does not "click" but rather "hmmphfs" into position. Lionfield would "approveh" with 7/10.

On the M6 and sans hood, it transforms the camera into a very pleasant travel companion. With a black 14312 nylon strap, it has the nerdiness of a geography teacher with a beige anorak and Wallabees. In a good way.

She came to stay!

 

[RezaLoghme]

After a week in a country somewhere far away, my love for the Elmar-M is somewhat lukewarm. I am going to let sleep for a while and go back to my GOAT of budget Leica lenses, my V3 Summicron 50/2.

In short, the pull-out mechanism is ok but not great. And collapsing it saves a bit of space, but not much.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I think it is a matter of approaching the lens with the right mind-set. It is not a six-shooter you pull out of your holster when an interesting subject apprears. I think the right way of using it is to enjoy its (hood-less) compactness when travelling, and then mounting it and getting ready for a photo walk, lens fully erected (with hood).

Image quality is great, and at least to my eyes, it delivers much sharper contrasts that my V3 Summicron-M.

 

[Arthurwg]

Just wondering, how would this lens compare to the LTM version? Same optics, performance?

 

[RezaLoghme]

Just wondering, how would this lens compare to the LTM version? Same optics, performance?

Unfortunately I dont know. But as mentioned a couple of times, this is about the 1990s lens and I guess its formula and materials differ from the older verions.