50mm f/3.5 elmar no serial number - any shooters out there?

[john neal]

I'll post a pic of my 11 o'clock bell-push example shortly - 1932 and no serial.

For now here is one shot with it - Plus-X with uneven devlopment, I'm afraid, due to a rather old batch of D76

 

[yossarian123]

Received the lens back from DAG last week. Cosmetically, the lens looks better than it did before, the haze is gone and focus seems a bit smoother. I'm in the process of scanning some film, but so far the hyper-sensitivity to light sources seems to be fixed as well. Overall, I'm very happy so far.

 

[Moriturii]

Well mine is up for sale, I don't have a LTM to M adapter, I'd love to use it, it so incredibly small, remarkable by todays standards, put it next to a 70-200mm VR II lens and you'll be laughing.

 

[Nikon Bob]

yossarian123

Good it worked out for you. Be sure and post a few examples when you get the chance.

Bob

 

[yossarian123]

yossarian123

Good it worked out for you. Be sure and post a few examples when you get the chance.

Bob

Will do. Weather and work have been conspiring to keep me inside, this is not conducive to shooting with an f/3.5 lens.


M3_20111225_NEOPAN_400_elmar50_20 by SL_Photos, on Flickr

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I had one; bought from Berlin and arrived in bits. DAG supplied one part, Malcolm Taylor the other and cleaned and reset it and it was a very nice lens but I sold it as I've enough of them and didn't want to be tempted to buy a 1932 body to go with it.

I've had several pre-war, uncoated lenses with a little haze on them - often almost invisible. They have all cleaned up nicely. Although, like others, I've put the 30's 35mm Elmar into the display and left it there...

Regards, David

PS Are you sure about the serial number being missing? They are usually on the rim of the lens.

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Only used one for test shots. They are just very little bit better than the Industar, i.e. the post war coated ones. But I rather prefer to use Leitz lenses with more resolution for my day to day picture taking, like the Summitar and Summicron. The only elmar I regularly use are the 35mm and the 90mm.

 

[john neal]

PS Are you sure about the serial number being missing? They are usually on the rim of the lens.

Only from c. 1932 David, before that, 50mm ones at least are unnumbered.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Only from c. 1932 David, before that, 50mm ones at least are unnumbered.

Thanks for that bit of info. I always wondered about that as I have one without the serial number.

Bob

 

[raid]

My Elmar 5cm 3.5 (on the Standard) works well for me.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

Only from c. 1932 David, before that, 50mm ones at least are unnumbered.

Leitz produced objectives without serial numbers right up through the modern era. My red scale Elmar is ***without*** a serial number. In its day it was sold with a Focomat Ic. Glass was expensive. Since an amateur was either shooting or enlarging the idea was that one could use the same Elmar between camera and enlarger--- Leitz also made enlarging specific objectives (including several versions of enlarging Elmars) through much of their history. Focomat Ic enlargers were typically sold without glass and the standard was to use the taking camera lens. Instead of an enlarging specific lens the original owner of my enlarger selected to purchase an Elmar--- times have, of course, changed and instead of the "original" Elmar I use a Focotar-2 and set the Elmar aside.
Why no serial numbers? I was told that Leitz spares came that way.
P.S.: In my youth I shot quite a lot with an early uncoated Elmar. Though oxidation it was "coated". Results were top.

 

[Dralowid]

It has been said that a red scale Elmar without a serial number could possibly be a factory 'converted' earlier lens.

This would of course go against the legend of red scale lenses having slightly different specifications...I just don't know...obviously more modern coatings, f22 etc...

That the factory converted or modernised lenses is without doubt. See my avatar for an early version.

Michael

 

[Mudman]

I have a wonderful 5cm Elmar from 1939, uncoated. Sharp as can be, low contrast but an excellent lightweight lens.

 

[David Hughes]

Only from c. 1932 David, before that, 50mm ones at least are unnumbered.

Thanks John. I wish I'd known that earlier. I had to make a rough production number for the lenses produced in 1932. Then, on the grounds that each camera would have a lens, as camera numbers were known, I then could see that my one (either 115xxx or 151xxx) was within the year's output and therefore 1932.

As I said it was a nice lens but too tempting to get a 1932 body for it, so I sold it.

Regards, David

 

[johannielscom]

All shots with Leica II (1932) and unnumbered, nickel, 11 o'clock, uncoated Elmar 50/3.5:

20111218-35RolleiRetro400S@800-3050 by Johan Kuiper, Portretteur.nl, buzzardkid, on Flickr



20111218-35RolleiRetro400S@800-3045 by Johan Kuiper, Portretteur.nl, buzzardkid, on Flickr



Assen, view from the new museums planted roof by Johan Kuiper, Portretteur.nl, buzzardkid, on Flickr

All shots Rollei Retro 400 @800. Developed with a self-tweaked development scheme, see the Flickr comments.
​

 

[Luddite Frank]

Weren't some of the "un-numbered" Elmars actually numbered somewhere inside the barrel, either in pencil or scratched-into the brass ? (And require some disassembly to read the number ?)

Don't remember where I read this...


I have a Leica II s/n 77xxx with 11 o'clock nickel Elmar 5 cm s/n 99xxx, both dating from 1932. The lens's s/n is stamped on the thin rim around the front element.

 

[l.mar]

I have one. It's a wonderful lens. (Taken with "0" serial number nickel-plated 50mm Elmar (distance scale in cm), Tri-X in D-76).

 

[yossarian123]

Still getting used to mine and all of it's quirks, love the rendering though.