3.5cm Elmar f3.5

[brusby]

1938 3.5cm Elmar f3.5 uncoated @ f8, on M9. Three vertical images merged, so it's not typical but is still a decent indicator of what this lens is capable of.

The glass was badly fogged from 80+ years of off gassing from what I assume were the original whale oil lubricants when I got it, but it cleaned up nicely. 'Thought I'd post some examples from older lenses with clean optics and without motion blur in case anyone is interested in references.
L1000961 by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[brusby]

I believe this is one of the smallest Leica lenses, certainly the smallest 3.5cm. Doesn't collapse or extend.
3.5cm Elmar f3.5 1941 coated
3.5cm Elmar f3.5 made in 1941 by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[brusby]

M240 1941 Leica 3.5cm Elmar f3.5 coated
M2400348 by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[brusby]

Unique flare pattern
3.5cm Elmar f3.5
M2400370 by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[brusby]

M240, 1941 3.5cm Elmar f3.5 coated
M2400414 by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I've got a 1939 edition of this lens. It's fun to shoot as it really slows me down to the point I have to think about the image.
Nice shots, thanks for posting them.

 

[brusby]

I've got a 1939 edition of this lens. It's fun to shoot as it really slows me down to the point I have to think about the image.
Nice shots, thanks for posting them.

Very nice! I agree, it is fun to carry around and shoot. I'm still trying to get a feel for using it. Seems to like being stopped down more than a stop or two if there's anything important that needs to be sharp in the outer third of the frame. 'Really like the super small size.

Is yours coated or uncoated? They're both capable of really nice images.

My '41 is coated but the '38 isn't.

Thanks for the nice comment!

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I loved mine. (lens from 1933).... a stellar performer for a much maligned lens

 

[fdu]

Redwood City by f_du, on Flickr

1948 according to Leica Wiki, IIIf

 

[maddoc]

201811-01-II-P3200TMZ-1600-35ELM-13 copy by Gabor Samjeske, on Flickr

Leica II (D), Tmax3200 (HC-110 "B"), Elmar 3.5cm f/3.5

My copy of the lens is uncoated, chrome version and no serial number. DAG nicely cleaned it.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Very nice! I agree, it is fun to carry around and shoot. I'm still trying to get a feel for using it. Seems to like being stopped down more than a stop or two if there's anything important that needs to be sharp in the outer third of the frame. 'Really like the super small size.

Is yours coated or uncoated? They're both capable of really nice images.

My '41 is coated but the '38 isn't.

Thanks for the nice comment!

To tell you the truth, I'm not really sure if it's coated or not.

 

[brusby]

To tell you the truth, I'm not really sure if it's coated or not.
View attachment 4840594

Hmmm, I can't say for sure from your pic. According to the 1939 date it coulda been either coated or not. My '38 is not coated but the '41 pictured above is. I see a bit of yellow/red color on your glass, which normally I wouldn't expect to see on uncoated glass. But, I don't see much of the typical blue coating. Might just be the angle. It's pretty apparent in my photo of the '41 lens at the top of this thread -- particularly in the bottom reflection.

But if I had to guess I'd say yours is probably coated. Might just need to view at different angles to see if the coating becomes more clearly visible.

 

[Miles.]

Hmmm, I can't say for sure from your pic. According to the 1939 date it coulda been either coated or not. My '38 is not coated but the '41 pictured above is. I see a bit of yellow/red color on your glass, which normally I wouldn't expect to see on uncoated glass. But, I don't see much of the typical blue coating. Might just be the angle. It's pretty apparent in my photo of the '41 lens at the top of this thread -- particularly in the bottom reflection.

But if I had to guess I'd say yours is probably coated. Might just need to view at different angles to see if the coating becomes more clearly visible.

Looks more like bloom on an uncoated lens to me, but I’m happy to be wrong!

 

[brusby]

201811-01-II-P3200TMZ-1600-35ELM-13 copy by Gabor Samjeske, on Flickr

Leica II (D), Tmax3200 (HC-110 "B"), Elmar 3.5cm f/3.5

My copy of the lens is uncoated, chrome version and no serial number. DAG nicely cleaned it.

Looks like a very nice copy. One achilles heel of these old lenses is internal reflections from bright point sources of light -- sometimes exacerbated by haze and sometimes just from no coating or degraded coatings. When I first got my coated '41, one of the first photos I took was a test for exactly that in the third photo in this thread of the fishermen and illuminated light poles. I was looking for halos around the point light sources. Yours is doing really well for an uncoated lens.

 

[brusby]

Looks more like bloom on an uncoated lens to me, but I’m happy to be wrong!

A definite possibility. My uncoated copy doesn't have that, but it's entirely possible it was cleaned off by a previous owner(s). I'm curious.

 

[David Murphy]

Super photos all. This lens continues to amaze me,

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

So, I dug my lens out of the cavern of a cabinet that I keep it in and stuck it on my A7ii.
Here's a shot I just took, f3.5, 1/160th sec, ISO 2000, hand held, no flash, SOOC.


I focused as best my old eyes can on the words "The car you've lusted after...". Front window curtains are 3/4's closed since I've got the tv on opposite them.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Still wide open, ISO 100, 1/164th sec. Bright sun.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

The magic of f6.3...

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

And finally with a filter that I think is an 'A' filter, that has what looks like haze in the middle of it, still shot at f6.3.