Leica LTM 5cm f/3.5 elmar coated, uncoated question

[ediz7531]

Hi All,

I'm looking to dip my toes into the rangefinder waters (SLR shooter all my life so far), and I thought I'd start with a IIIf. I'd probably get the 50mm f/3.5 Elmar. According to Erwin Putts this lens would not yield as much difference between the coated and uncoated versions. I'm wondering if people who own or have used both versions would comment on this.

Many thanks!

Ed

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I'd get the coated one. They don't really cost more and are a better lens for most work. I have an old pre-war Rolleiflex with an uncoated Zeiss Tessar, a lens that is similar to the Elmar. Its fine for B&W work but not so much for color.

I have two Leica IIIf bodies, and I love them. If you get one, be aware that virtually all of them need their shutter curtains replaced and the rangefinder's beamsplitter mirror replaced. Without that, the rangefinder's secondary image is very dim and hard to see. I would not buy one that has not been recently overhauled with new curtains and beamsplitter.

Don Goldberg, famed Leica repairman, sells screwmount Leicas that he has rebuilt, and his prices for them are reasonable (about $400) when you consider that if you buy one elsewhere its probably going to need repair and that costs over $300!

https://www.dagcamera.com/store/c8/Leica_Screwmount.html

He hasn't got any available now but check back often, he adds new ones as he gets them done. I bought one of mine from him, and the other one I have was rebuilt by him.

 

[splitimageview]

Definitely coated.

Be discriminating in your search; many are hazy or scratched.

 

[Beemermark]

Because the Elmar has only 4 lenses the lack of coatings is less critical than a lens the has 6, 7, or 8 elements. Overall condition is of more importance than the lack of coating on this lens.

And don't let Chris scare you off. In my life I've probably owned over a dozen screwmount Leicas, and I've never had a beamsplitter fail. Often the mirrors are dirty and a CLA will take care of that. The IIIF is the same vintage as the Leica M3 & M2 and they still work admirably. True, any camera going on 50 years old needs a good CLA. Youxin Ye charges $170.

 

[splitimageview]

In my experience, nearly all Barnacks that I've acquired have needed beam splitters as the RF patches were too dim to use. Luckily they are very inexpensive ($10 from nobbysparrow on ebay, he's sold nearly 1,000 pcs over the years and likely supplies all the usual CLA techs.)

 

[mcfingon]

I have the uncoated (1935) and coated (1946) Elmars. If you’re shooting in bright light like we have in Australia, the coated will help improve clarity in photos by reducing flare. My IIIf and III Leicas both needed new beam-splitter mirrors. The III didn’t need new curtains. Maybe they made ‘em better in 1933.
John Mc

 

[ediz7531]

Thanks all for your input!

 

[charjohncarter]

I'd get the coated, I've used mine since 1964, And only had one flare during that period.

1964 by John Carter, on Flickr

That was taken in 1964 and I thought OH NO a problem but it has never repeated. Also never used a hood.

 

[Timmyjoe]

John, that looks like a double expose with the second shot being of a lit match or candle. Cool shot.

Best,
-Tim

 

[charjohncarter]

John, that looks like a double expose with the second shot being of a lit match or candle. Cool shot.

Best,
-Tim

But I broke down outside of Willows, CA in 1964 and spent the day with Joe Crete while he repaired my car. It was Leica IIIf and I wouldn't know to do a double exposure. But it was a problem day so maybe. Nice thought, one I hadn't considered.

 

[MrRom92]

1946 coated elmar, I only had a lens flare once. Was shooting a waterfall while traveling in Hawaii this past summer, so pretty sunny conditions, and the shot was more than salvageable. Not a concern IMO

 

[Beemermark]

I never had a problem with flare with an un-coated Elmar, or FED for that matter. 90% of the time (with any lens) I use my hand or hat as a shade. Re-thinking my comment about beam splitters (having had dozen of Barnacks but never needed one replaced) I guess in retrospect most of them wern't really that old when I owned them. Shutter curtains are another story.

 

[Erik van Straten]

According to Erwin Putts this lens would not yield as much difference between the coated and uncoated versions.

Never believe anything that Erwin Puts has written. His books are full of his own fantasies.


Erik.

 

[grouchos_tash]

I had a 1930s Elmar that was uncoated on the front element and had damaged coating on the rear haha. I used the VALOO hood with mine which made adjusting aperture much easier and I never had any issue with flare 🙂

Untitled by Gary Harding, on Flickr

 

[retinax]

I'd get the coated, I've used mine since 1964, And only had one flare during that period.

1964 by John Carter, on Flickr

That was taken in 1964 and I thought OH NO a problem but it has never repeated. Also never used a hood.

This looks more like a light leak to me. One from the back, so that the orange base of the film tints it, it's the typical color. Unless of course this was slide film.