megido
Well-known
The uncoated Elmar looks great with contrasty film like Pan F too.
A question to owners of both the first Elmar (50 3.5 v1) and the last one (50 2.8 v2)
- Thread starter Juan Valdenebro
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 36
- Views 3K
charjohncarter
Veteran
Thanks, I'll look into the hood.
x-ray
Veteran
I know you're talking about Elmar's but I have a very old Russian collapsible. It's visually exactly like my 1930 Elmar that I used to own. When I had my M9 I tried it on it and was stunned at how good it was even wide open. It actually might be better than the v1 Elmar I had. It was certainly no worse.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Thank you all...
Yet using a 35, I started playing around with an Industar 50 on another camera (it's a collapsible 3.5) and that's how I started enjoying a 50 for street... Before, long ago my Nikon 50 1.4 Ais was my most used lens then, when I had never used a RF, and after using RFs my main 50 has been a Jupiter 3, a very good one (1955 KMZ) that was shimmed, optimized for close focus (1-2 meters) and checked with a digital M: it has an amazingly soft bokeh at f/2, and very sharp too, and that's what I've used it for mostly, portraiture... Suddenly, one day I started to use it for street instead of the Russian collapsible, just to be able to do street and portraits with the same lens (I carry ND8 and ND64 filters). I talk about all this because some time ago I read an old post by Brian Sweeney on another forum and he commented he compared an Elmar and an I-50 and their results were really identical... So I took the time to do the same photograph at f/8 with my I-50 and my J-3... When I received that I-50, years before, I checked it immediately and its focus was spot on at f/3.5 focusing close, and I found it sharp... When I compared it to the J-3, I did shots at 2, 4 and 6 meters, the same image with both lenses at the same aperture, and at all three distances sharpnes was the same, but the J-3 gives more detail in general, maybe microcontrast? some rough edges are well captured by both lenses, but less contrasty surfaces were clearly better with the J-3 at all three distances... Then I thought, "well, maybe Mr. Sweneey's I-50 was better than mine...", even though mine is also a KMZ one from the 50's, like my J-3... So that all made me think "hey, I was really happy using my collapsible, but now that I saw my J-3 draws every image in a clearer way, maybe I just need a better collapsible...". But I want it to make a really flat camera, not one with a short lens on it, and that's why I'm trying to learn how to get a good LTM one... Then I heard about etched haze, and I got frozen...
Yet using a 35, I started playing around with an Industar 50 on another camera (it's a collapsible 3.5) and that's how I started enjoying a 50 for street... Before, long ago my Nikon 50 1.4 Ais was my most used lens then, when I had never used a RF, and after using RFs my main 50 has been a Jupiter 3, a very good one (1955 KMZ) that was shimmed, optimized for close focus (1-2 meters) and checked with a digital M: it has an amazingly soft bokeh at f/2, and very sharp too, and that's what I've used it for mostly, portraiture... Suddenly, one day I started to use it for street instead of the Russian collapsible, just to be able to do street and portraits with the same lens (I carry ND8 and ND64 filters). I talk about all this because some time ago I read an old post by Brian Sweeney on another forum and he commented he compared an Elmar and an I-50 and their results were really identical... So I took the time to do the same photograph at f/8 with my I-50 and my J-3... When I received that I-50, years before, I checked it immediately and its focus was spot on at f/3.5 focusing close, and I found it sharp... When I compared it to the J-3, I did shots at 2, 4 and 6 meters, the same image with both lenses at the same aperture, and at all three distances sharpnes was the same, but the J-3 gives more detail in general, maybe microcontrast? some rough edges are well captured by both lenses, but less contrasty surfaces were clearly better with the J-3 at all three distances... Then I thought, "well, maybe Mr. Sweneey's I-50 was better than mine...", even though mine is also a KMZ one from the 50's, like my J-3... So that all made me think "hey, I was really happy using my collapsible, but now that I saw my J-3 draws every image in a clearer way, maybe I just need a better collapsible...". But I want it to make a really flat camera, not one with a short lens on it, and that's why I'm trying to learn how to get a good LTM one... Then I heard about etched haze, and I got frozen...
Last edited:
fad gadget
Established
I thought I saw one at Tamarkin last week in the "connoisseurs corner" section, it was $100.
It's called a "valoo", the standard Elmar cap also fits when it's in place.
cheers/k.
fad gadget
Established
You can also check Red Dot Camera's in London, a lot closer to you than the US, or Canada and they generally have top notch used equipment.
cheers/ken.
Ronald M
Veteran
Have one each. The uncoated never goes on the camera. The coated Red Scale is better, more deep shadow detail, more detail in highlights. Still a little old fashioned image, but nice.
50 2.8 is much like the Summicron , the first not collapsible one. It has some handling issues like rotating barrel as you focus.
People who like un coated have never done a side by side of a challenging scene.
The Elmar M made 1990`s is a modern rendering, very sharp, out of focus falls off fast like all new Leica lenses, good flare control. I have two and will never sell.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Some people consider haze and etched haze are caused by whale oil based lubricants used in lenses back then, slowly vaporizing through decades; some others swear it's not that because some surfaces far from lubricant areas get seriously fogged; some technicians say it happens depending on where the lens has been stored, and humidity; I've even read some types of old glass can be harmed by common air (oxygen)... Yesterday Youxin Ye told me he's never been able to find any pattern around lenses that can't really be cleaned: it happens here and there with different production periods and serial numbers, and visually there's no way to tell apart lenses with haze that wil be totally cleaned from lenses with haze that will never go... 🙁
x-ray
Veteran
For many years I shot product catalogs on large format. One of my favorite lenses was a 12" series III Dagor probably made in the 1920's to early 30's. Obviously it wasn't coated but the glass had started to oxidize and form a natural coating referred in the industry as " bloom ".
Youxin is correct. Many times I've seen two lenses that have seemingly identical haze before cleaning; one will clean up and be perfectly clear, the other, not so much.
The older uncoated lenses seem to be more prone to permanent haze. This is just my informal observation. The only uncoated lens I currently own is a 1940 Summitar, which has a faint swirly haze inside that doesn't affect anything. It looks like moisture that dried out in a circular pattern, a water spot of sorts, but it is so faint that it has no effect on contrast.
You can find good glass for a good price if you are patient. Ask the seller to do a flashlight test.
I acquired a coated 50/3.5 a few months ago that has perfect glass, no haze, no scratches or so-called 'cleaning marks' for $200. Cosmetics and mechanics are perfect.
As for hoods and attachments to adjust the aperture- nah. Those completely ruin the entire reason for this lens: tiny size! Live with a little flare sometimes or use your hand to shade. The VALOO is heavy too, in addition to its size. I'd rather shoot a collapsible Summicron or Summitar with a hood and get more speed than compromise the small form factor of the Elmar.
The older uncoated lenses seem to be more prone to permanent haze. This is just my informal observation. The only uncoated lens I currently own is a 1940 Summitar, which has a faint swirly haze inside that doesn't affect anything. It looks like moisture that dried out in a circular pattern, a water spot of sorts, but it is so faint that it has no effect on contrast.
You can find good glass for a good price if you are patient. Ask the seller to do a flashlight test.
I acquired a coated 50/3.5 a few months ago that has perfect glass, no haze, no scratches or so-called 'cleaning marks' for $200. Cosmetics and mechanics are perfect.
As for hoods and attachments to adjust the aperture- nah. Those completely ruin the entire reason for this lens: tiny size! Live with a little flare sometimes or use your hand to shade. The VALOO is heavy too, in addition to its size. I'd rather shoot a collapsible Summicron or Summitar with a hood and get more speed than compromise the small form factor of the Elmar.
Dralowid
Michael
For those of you unable to cope with the aperture tab this may prove useful...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Leica-Ern...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649
And then there is the C&P hood which is much lighter than the Valoo chunk which was originally intended for darkroom use.
However, when all said and done, Splitimageview is right...anything on front of an old Elmar gets just in the way.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Leica-Ern...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649
And then there is the C&P hood which is much lighter than the Valoo chunk which was originally intended for darkroom use.
However, when all said and done, Splitimageview is right...anything on front of an old Elmar gets just in the way.
fad gadget
Established
The valoo may be a bit on the heavy side, but it balances out the lens very well when it's on an M body.
It's very impractical to be street shooting with a collapsed lens anyway.
By the time you extend it and lock it into place, and if there's direct sunlight use you hand to shade, there's a good chance the moment's passed.
I keep mine extended with a cap, or if it's harsh sunlight with the valoo on, and remove it and keep it in my pocket when not in use.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I used to think coated ones were a safer bet too, but it seems it's coating, precisely, where fungus live, 'cause that's the food they like, and fungus produce acid after eating coating, so that acid etches glass making it uncleanable. (Info by Dante Stella).
I've seen far more vintage Leica lenses with haze than with fungus. Faint haze will have essentially no effect (it's difficult to quantify the various degress of haze, but what I call 'faint' can only be seen under LED illumination.) Light haze on these lenses will have little effect on contrast as they are low-contrast lenses already; if it does, it often can be rectified in post. Moderate or greater haze is harder to overcome.
traveler_101
American abroad
traveler_101
American abroad
Coated = not a modern coating, therefore older character is preserved while contrast is boosted somewhat.
Not as impressed with the results from this lens in harsh light and I suppose the uncoated would fare even less well under such conditions, but I do not own one.
Not as impressed with the results from this lens in harsh light and I suppose the uncoated would fare even less well under such conditions, but I do not own one.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I just want to thank everyone's comments and kind advice...
Finally, trying to avoid etched (uncleanable) haze lenses, and after reading for a week I guess all that's available on the web about elmars, I decided to look for a red scale Elmar in screwmount (with the original aperture tab, instead of the "new" aperture ring) because:
1. The reason for an Elmar IMO is getting one with the first design: really collapsible.
2. Surprisingly several users report their early 50's red scale Elmars as very sharp at f/3.5, and a little better than their own 2.8 ones at all apertures up to f/5.6, and then they're both the same at f/8 and f/11, so if by any chance I need to open it once a year, I'll do it with confidence.
3. The formula was a bit improved in 1951, maybe with the use of computers but without changing minimum focusing distance or low speed, so those late Elmars retain the same zero distortion and great performance through all their range, being truly the highest expression of Barnack and Berek's efforts...
4. I imagined as a new mount appeared right then, maybe some of those lenses were soon stored by their owners, who might have gone for a faster one in M mount, while some late production red scale elmars remained clean and well stored.
5. Then I started looking for RS Elmars made just a litle before the M mount... When I checked their production years, starting after the 1951 formula recomputing, I was interested in getting one made in 1951, 1952 or 1953. Then I said, oh, I'd really love one that was born the same year as my mother, 1952... Then I said, maybe asking for one from that year precisely, and also totally clean as new, was asking quite a bit too much...
But I kept the faith and... I found one! Serial number above one million.
I ordered it today from the Leica Store in San Francisco: no cleaning marks, no scratches, no separation, no fungus, no haze at all! I couldn´t believe it...
This may be a happy ending story!
By the way (it's a diamond/rhombus one, just before the triangle ones) Elmars' versions, and their slight variations, keeping the same general optical idea, make an interesting subject... Even more in the light of a whole new era: the use of computers to improve design for the first time, and in the presence of a new mount and overlaping versions that include (I remember comments by Erik van Straten) Leitz factory re-using already mounted glass: coating old lenses' glass and placing that glass into new units: it sounds so hand made... Maybe mine's one of those... But hard to know for sure as it's numbered, and most conversions have no number: maybe not all diamond/rhombus elmars were renewed lenses: perhaps just some of them, as Leitz made diamond RS Elmars for a few years, and during those years that was their "new" Elmar... Anyway I guess being that clean (and truly short) my lens will be just fine for ISO400 film at 1600 and for carrying... Now it's travelling to a relative's home in LA, and I'll wait for their next trip to bring it here in person... I've had enough mail problems already as to risk a clean lens from 1952, so when I get it I'll share how it performs...
Thanks again everyone for guiding me!
J.
Finally, trying to avoid etched (uncleanable) haze lenses, and after reading for a week I guess all that's available on the web about elmars, I decided to look for a red scale Elmar in screwmount (with the original aperture tab, instead of the "new" aperture ring) because:
1. The reason for an Elmar IMO is getting one with the first design: really collapsible.
2. Surprisingly several users report their early 50's red scale Elmars as very sharp at f/3.5, and a little better than their own 2.8 ones at all apertures up to f/5.6, and then they're both the same at f/8 and f/11, so if by any chance I need to open it once a year, I'll do it with confidence.
3. The formula was a bit improved in 1951, maybe with the use of computers but without changing minimum focusing distance or low speed, so those late Elmars retain the same zero distortion and great performance through all their range, being truly the highest expression of Barnack and Berek's efforts...
4. I imagined as a new mount appeared right then, maybe some of those lenses were soon stored by their owners, who might have gone for a faster one in M mount, while some late production red scale elmars remained clean and well stored.
5. Then I started looking for RS Elmars made just a litle before the M mount... When I checked their production years, starting after the 1951 formula recomputing, I was interested in getting one made in 1951, 1952 or 1953. Then I said, oh, I'd really love one that was born the same year as my mother, 1952... Then I said, maybe asking for one from that year precisely, and also totally clean as new, was asking quite a bit too much...
But I kept the faith and... I found one! Serial number above one million.
I ordered it today from the Leica Store in San Francisco: no cleaning marks, no scratches, no separation, no fungus, no haze at all! I couldn´t believe it...
This may be a happy ending story!
By the way (it's a diamond/rhombus one, just before the triangle ones) Elmars' versions, and their slight variations, keeping the same general optical idea, make an interesting subject... Even more in the light of a whole new era: the use of computers to improve design for the first time, and in the presence of a new mount and overlaping versions that include (I remember comments by Erik van Straten) Leitz factory re-using already mounted glass: coating old lenses' glass and placing that glass into new units: it sounds so hand made... Maybe mine's one of those... But hard to know for sure as it's numbered, and most conversions have no number: maybe not all diamond/rhombus elmars were renewed lenses: perhaps just some of them, as Leitz made diamond RS Elmars for a few years, and during those years that was their "new" Elmar... Anyway I guess being that clean (and truly short) my lens will be just fine for ISO400 film at 1600 and for carrying... Now it's travelling to a relative's home in LA, and I'll wait for their next trip to bring it here in person... I've had enough mail problems already as to risk a clean lens from 1952, so when I get it I'll share how it performs...
Thanks again everyone for guiding me!
J.
Last edited:
