Leica LTM 3.5cm Elmar

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
For reference these are with a (borrowed) 35 3.5 summaron if I recall - M6 and Tri-x developed in Tmax RS.

soccer_fans.jpg


oreo.jpg


Savage_Macht6.jpg


Bari.jpg
 
There are two books Leica owners need (apart from the instructions) published years ago by Hove Foto Books called "Leica Accessory Guide" and "Leica Pocket Book". Both appear from time to time on ebay and elsewhere and often go unsold at very low prices.

For example, my copy of the pocket one shows the Elmar in 35mm to have been first produced in 1932 when 1,958 of the were made and so on up to 1950 when a handful were produced. It also shows prototypes that only exist in Leica's museum. And the 1924/25 Anastigmat, that someone was asking about.

Could I possibly suggest, in the politest possible way, that the purchase of these two is far more important (even an investment) than money spent on lenses?

Regards, David

PS Back on topic, after reading the thread I think I'll be getting my Elmar 3,5cm f/3·5 completely overhauled. It's obviously needed; although it will never match the 1990's version...
 
Last edited:
JSU said:
"...the optical design of an Elmar is ill-suited to wide angles in general."

Not my experience at all. The 35/2.8 Elmar is superb and still enjoys a solid following in the market. This for reasons other than being an economy version of the Summicron. They are very sharp and very well corrected.
Click to expand...

There is no 35mm 2.8 Elmar. That is the 50mm 2.8 Elmar you are referring to.
 
The "wartime" f3.5/35 Elmar just came in the mail today and it is beautiful.......as soon as I have samples shot with the M8 I'll post :)


Tom
 
I have a 1950s Red Scale Elmar 50/3.5. The Red Scale is more sought-after and uses different glasses to earlier models although opinions differ as to whether this makes a difference.

Anyway, it folds down almost flush with the camera body and is very sharp at mid-apertures. Single-coated and contrast is medium. Watch out for separation of the cemented pair due to a balsam fault - this shows up as concentric rings under the "flashlight test". I had my lens cleaned and recemented for a ridiculously low price - about 40GBP, I think.

The Elmar 35/3.5, as with all Leica's early wide-angle efforts, isn't in Summicron territory for performance. The Summaron was a lot better, although my Summaron is a bit soft in the corners even at f/11.
 
Last edited:
35 Elmars are good for paper weights, unless you like no coating, field curvature, and not very sharp.

35 3.5 Summaron is a pretty nice lens and I use mine a screw mount cameras.
 
35 Elmars are good for paper weights, unless you like no coating, field curvature, and not very sharp.
Click to expand...

I can second that, I have one too. What I really like about it is it's size. I have some Lomo results with it, but I always shoot it WFO, may be I'll give it a chance and stop it down. When my IIIa will return from CLA pit stop I'll shoot and post some if the tread is still on.
Regards,
b.

Here's sample:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=150035&nocache=1
 
Last edited:
I'm glad to hear others mention the curvature of field - I thought there was something wrong with my adapter. Here are a couple of examples from my 3.5cm and NEX-3.

12637852-lg.jpg
 
Thanks js - aside from the corners (which look kind of cool in the right situation), I've been very happy with the lens's performance. Of course, others using digital have said the same thing, while the film people seem less satisfied.
 
Quite welcome. Yes, I think for digital these old lenses give you a way to make your camera look less digital... plus, using 60-80 year old lenses on a digital is just kind of cool. I'm not looking for a perfect lens, I'm looking for imperfection when I buy something like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom