Fuji X-E2 | 35mm f2.8 Elmarit-R v.1 (1970)
This is a long delayed ceremonial first post from this lens, as well as a bit of a mini-review. I've had this 1970 35mm Elmarit-R since April, and I loved it from the first use, but in a year of endless crises it never felt like the time to post about a new lens, and I found that I was having great difficulty focusing on doing any "real" work that involved more than a phone edit. So I haven't used this lens much, and I haven't really shot much in general, I've barely done any editing, and I'm far behind on posting, but it's not for lack of enthusiasm for it. This lens renders beautifully, has wonderful contrast and color, and performance is high when stopped down.
The disparity between how it's viewed and what I saw in samples made me want to advocate for the Elmarit. When I purchased this lens, I wondered, "can I redeem the Elmarit-R v.1," which is treated so dismissively by established internet opinion, at least compared to the later reformulations? In my own mind, which is really the only one I was looking to convince, I feel I've already done that in spite of my limited use this year. There is much repeated complaint about its lack of sharpness in the corners wide open. But I studied the lens in great depth before buying, and I came to believe there was more truth in the minority opinion: This lens is not perfect wide open, but it's a solid performer with excellent contrast and a character to its rendering that is somewhat lacking in the flatter and more clinical rendering of the more respected later versions. While it's less well suited to being shot wide open, in addition to being slower, I actually feel that this 35 Elmarit-R delivers more appealing results than my 50 Summicron-R v.1, with more character and preferable rendering. So as much as I respect and admire Dr Walter Mandler, clearly Rudolf Ruehl is owed more respect than is given.
I've written elsewhere about how I regard 50mm equivalent lenses as a field of view that is boring but very useful, so I've ended up with a number of them. The enjoyment I've gotten using this one on my Fujis has made me wonder if it's the FoV or just that I've been disappointed by the rendering typical in these lenses. My plasticky little Nikon 35/1.8 served me well for a couple years, and I used it for nearly everything; I think my issue was more to do with my poor view through the little viewfinder on my lower-tier DSLR than a real problem with the lens. When I went to Fuji I of course got the instant classic 35/1.4, used it 95% of the time for the first six months, but ended up disappointed in its flat rendering, strange color, poor mid-shadow contrast, and clunky ergonomics. I switched to the Zeiss Touit 32/1.8, and found the optics so vastly preferable, despite not being as satisfying as my vintage Contax lenses, that it became my only 50mm-e for the next few years, despite slower and less reliable focusing, reduced resolution stopped down at infinity, and some bugginess in the electronic aperture ring. The Touit doesn't excite me, but I find it optically adequate in ways the XF wasn't for me. But the Elmarit gives me a 50mm-e lens I can feel enthusiastic about. It's heavy, not sharp corner to corner, and rather slow, but it's wonderful to use and gives character and depth I don't see in the others. Someone said that "nothing paints a sky like a Leica lens," and I'm finding it to be true, on skies, seas, and whatever else: it renders refined gradients in areas that look relatively flat and lifeless through the modern lenses.
My tastes and priorities are certainly not everyone's, but just as I find it perplexing that there's such fawning adoration for the XF35/1.4 (which is nevertheless truly excellent in its way, but it's not perfect), I think it's a disappointing oversight that so little respect is given to this fine little Elmarit.
Incidentally, I considered addressing my lack of a vintage 35mm a year or so prior, and since I'm so impressed by my 70s-era Zeiss 25 and 50, my first impulse was to look into the somewhat affordable 35/2.8 Distagon. I studied it and found that results were consistently a little flat compared to the 25, which I have, and the 28, which I'm not interested in, so I forgot about it. It reminded me of the dull modern lenses I was trying to get away from. Despite the low opinion of it, this Elmarit-R tends to be more expensive, so I didn't consider it seriously at the time. When I finally did, I saw rendering much more in line with what I'd hoped to see from the Zeiss.
(DSCF0250c sh62)
