Larry Dawson , Feb 18, 2008; 05:39 p.m.
I have been looking through Bower's book on Leica Lenses, but not finding an
answer to my question.
What is the difference in lens structure/formulation between the elmar
and the elmarit?
I have a couple of 5cm elmars, coated and uncoated. My sole elmarit
is an M mount, while both elmars are SM.
Lary
Christopher A. Junker , Feb 18, 2008; 06:05 p.m.
Your two Elmars are the original Leica lens originally formulated at least as far back as the 1920's. Many variations have come and gone over the years as optical glasses for lens elements required slight changes in the lens design. The coating slightly incereased contrast and limited flare, but the overall image character didn't chnage much over the years. Overall, slightly soft, low contrast until stopped down, with really nice smooth images when stopped down to 5.6, 8-11. The 2.8 50 Elmarit had it's origins in the mid 1950's as an attempt to gain another stop in lens speed. In the original version, it is slightly better than the 3.5 Elmar, but I couldn't tell the difference when stopped down. Later updated designs of the 2.8 50 Elmarit for the M series give really nice sharp images and it is a small, compact lens ideal for travel.
John Boyle , Feb 18, 2008; 07:01 p.m.
Leitz called most of their f2.8 lenses Elmarits, although the 50mm f2.8 was still called an Elmar. The Elmars were f3.5 or f4 lenses. Brian Bower's "Leica Lens Book" has diagrams showing the structures of most of these lenses. You did not mention the focal length of your Elmarit lens.
John Shriver 
, Feb 18, 2008; 08:33 p.m.
Leica lens names that are used on more than one lens are normally related to maximum aperture, not the optical design.
| Name | Widest aperture |
| Summilux | 1.4 |
| Summicron | 2.0 |
| Summarit (new) | 2.5 |
| Elmarit | 2.8 |
| Elmar | 3.5 ~ 4.0 |
As noted, the 50/2.8 Elmar is an exception, being a redesigned 50/3.5 Elmar.
Peter , Feb 18, 2008; 09:45 p.m.
Another good source of very detailed information on the variations between Leica lens models (and within models over time)is Erwin Putts book the " Leica Lens Compendium." Mr Putts has very kindly also made this available online in a free download version so you do not have to fork out the full cost of a hard copy bound volume.(Without pictures I am afraid.... I suppose its not a bad way to advertise the book.) It should tell you what you want to know and a lot that you do not (its detailed.) I have the outlaid the "dosh" for the book and can say its a bit of a hard read (hes a technical guy so his writing style may not be the most enthralling) but a must for a Leica enthusiast.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/download.html
John R. Fulton Jr. 
, Feb 19, 2008; 06:01 a.m.
John S. - Don't forget the Summarons. Either 2.8 or 3.5 and I believe only in 35mm focal
length.
Martin Tai 
, Feb 19, 2008; 06:36 a.m.
Elmarit M 21/2.8 8 elements in 6 group
Elmarit M 28mm/2.8 8 elements in 7 group
Elmarit M 90/2.8 4 element 4 group
Elmarit M 135/2.8 5 elements 4 group
K. Owen , Mar 02, 2008; 03:02 a.m.
Seems the older coated Elmars are described as having softer coatings, I'd venture to say many nowadays have some kind of mark: scratch, cleaning smudge or haze, etc.
None the less, I'm looking at a Leica iiic with an uncoated Elmar, described as a clean lens, no smudges, etc. as a first Leica for me. I'll email for a closer, dead on pic of this lens, try to get a better look. I'd read a thread here about "don't get these older rangefinders for a first Leica", but if I can get it for not too much money, send out for a CLA eventually, I have a few light meters-a Seikonic that is a great spot meter and a smaller Weston...
I like the small size of these cameras, and after looking at a few samples from a few Leica i,ii,iii models as well as others and the different lenses-albeit on the web, seems many have nice shadow detail, along with a nice fine resolution-they are different.
