lxmike
M2 fan.
Does anyone use, have owned or an opinion on the Leitz 3.5cm Elmar, if anyone has any shots they could post I would be more than greatfull
Beemermark
Veteran
The Leica reputation was made on this lens. Buy it, you won't be disappointed.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
^^^+1
William
William
lxmike
M2 fan.
thankyou chaps, I'll keep an eye out for a good condition one
sanmich
Veteran
Interested too...
Could someone elaborate on the different versions?
coated/ uncoated/ red dial (and others?)
Could someone elaborate on the different versions?
coated/ uncoated/ red dial (and others?)
Luddite Frank
Well-known
We're talking about the 35mm wide-angle Elmar, right ?
"The Leica reputation was made on this lens. Buy it, you won't be disappointed."
I thought the Leica reputation was founded on the 5cm (50mm) Elmar ?
"The Leica reputation was made on this lens. Buy it, you won't be disappointed."
I thought the Leica reputation was founded on the 5cm (50mm) Elmar ?
Arvay
Obscurant
Me as well.
And for the price of 35 Elmars being sold on ebay a good modern Biogon could be bought...
greyelm
Malcolm
Just for information, the codeword for the Elmar 3.5cm is Ekurz (presumably nickel) and Ekurz chrom (presumably chrome)
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Oops. I thought it was f/3.5 for the 50mm version. I have no personal experiance with the 35/3.5 and am looking for a Summaron version rather than an Elmar because the optical design of an Elmar is ill-suited to wide angles in general.
Sorry about the confusion.
William
Sorry about the confusion.
William
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
For a 35mm the Summaron is the better lens!
jbr
Established
Elmar 3.5/35
Elmar 3.5/35
It needs tweaking. On a digital M it's a marvel.
See here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1414252&postcount=28
Elmar 3.5/35
It needs tweaking. On a digital M it's a marvel.
See here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1414252&postcount=28
Last edited:
Dralowid
Michael
The 3.5 35mm Elmar comes from a prevoius age and shows it. The 3.5 50mm Elmar is a different story. For 35mm the Summaron is a whole different kettle of fish.
Michael
Michael
lxmike
M2 fan.
Aye Michael, but unfortunately a whole different kettle of pounds/dollars
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
I don't think the results I got with an 35mm Elmar on my LTM Leicas were that great. I felt it performed better on my Epson R-D1. This could be down to the quality of my lens or that I'm just a lousy photographer.
Leica IIIa + uncoated 35mm f/3.5 Elmar, crappy scan
Commemoration at the War Memorial in Helvoirt (NL)
Testing the uncoated 35mm f/3.5 Elmar on an Epson R-D1
Leica IIIa + uncoated 35mm f/3.5 Elmar, crappy scan
Commemoration at the War Memorial in Helvoirt (NL)
Testing the uncoated 35mm f/3.5 Elmar on an Epson R-D1
Luddite Frank
Well-known
For the last two years or so, most of my film photography has been with my Leica III and an uncoated Elmar 35mm from around 1940.
Contrast is pretty low, but generally the 4x6 pics have been acceptable from a sharpness standpoint.
It seems to produce sharper images than my Canon 1.8 / 35mm ( which may need collimation).
Most people who shoot LTM tend to regard the Elmar 3,5 and Hektor 2,8 wide-angles as collectors pieces, rather than great shooting lenses.
This would seem to be borne-out by Leica replacing the Elmar 35 with Summaron after only about 16 years, while they revised and continued the 50 mm Elmar for 50-some years ?
I am curious that the Elmar 35 seems to produce better results on digital cameras ?
Contrast is pretty low, but generally the 4x6 pics have been acceptable from a sharpness standpoint.
It seems to produce sharper images than my Canon 1.8 / 35mm ( which may need collimation).
Most people who shoot LTM tend to regard the Elmar 3,5 and Hektor 2,8 wide-angles as collectors pieces, rather than great shooting lenses.
This would seem to be borne-out by Leica replacing the Elmar 35 with Summaron after only about 16 years, while they revised and continued the 50 mm Elmar for 50-some years ?
I am curious that the Elmar 35 seems to produce better results on digital cameras ?
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
The f3.5/35 Elmar draws better on my M8 then on the LTM bodies..........BUT the f3.5/50 Elmar is a GREAT LENS all the way around, digital or film, doesn't matter.
The f3.5/50 is what made the company and it's great name in the 1930's and 40's, that lens with a IIIC are amazing tools
Tom
The f3.5/50 is what made the company and it's great name in the 1930's and 40's, that lens with a IIIC are amazing tools
Tom
lxmike
M2 fan.
Looks like I am going to have to invest in a Elmar 5cm 3.5, (coated then)
John Shriver
Well-known
I got a 35/3.5 Elmar as a curiosity. Contrast is low, curvature of field at wide apertures is pretty severe. Sharp corners aren't its specialty. Leica's period instructions said that like all "ultra wide angle" lenses, you should use it wide open only if "absolutely necessary".
The lenses I use to get results are the Canon 35/2.8 and 35/1.8. I'm sure the 35/3.5 Summaron is a fine lens, but I don't have one.
The lenses I use to get results are the Canon 35/2.8 and 35/1.8. I'm sure the 35/3.5 Summaron is a fine lens, but I don't have one.
Red Robin
It Is What It Is
Dralowid, what is that lens that you have pictured?
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
Just picked these two beauties up from the evilbay, awaiting them in the mail.......
0Q~~_12.JPG)
A "wartime" 1942/3 issue f3.5/35 Elmar and an original era correct Leitz UV filter, I still need some caps and I can't wait till these get here, YAY!!!!!
then it's picture TEST TIME with them both on my M8
Tom
A "wartime" 1942/3 issue f3.5/35 Elmar and an original era correct Leitz UV filter, I still need some caps and I can't wait till these get here, YAY!!!!!
then it's picture TEST TIME with them both on my M8
Tom
Last edited: