doubs43
Well-known
Two days before Christmas I bid on a 135mm f/4.5 Elmar lens. The serial number shows that it was made in 1935, uncoated of course. It's exactly what I was looking for to complete my set of uncoated screw-mount lenses from 35 ~ 135mm.
It arrived today and the condition can only be described as VG-Exc. It shows use as the focusing collar paint is thin with brass showing through. The glass is unmarked and the remaining painted areas are nearly perfect.
A total of only 5,200 135mm Elmars were made before the war between 1931 and 1936. The 135mm f/4.5 Hektor replaced the Elmar with production of the Hektor beginning in 1933 and continuing into M-mount. A total of 100,000 Hektors were manufactured.
How "rare" is the 135mm f/4.5 Elmar? The highly collectable 73mm Hektor is actually more common with 7,000 having been made! The 105mm f/6.3 "Mountain Elmar" saw a production figure of 4,000. The 135mm Elmar falls between those two classics in numbers made. However, it's doubtful that anyone - collectors included - will ever pay as much for the Elmar as for either of the other two. It simply doesn't have the pizazz or glamour of the other two.
I've taken a couple of pictures with the Elmar and as soon as I develope the negatives, I'll scan and post them.
Walker
It arrived today and the condition can only be described as VG-Exc. It shows use as the focusing collar paint is thin with brass showing through. The glass is unmarked and the remaining painted areas are nearly perfect.
A total of only 5,200 135mm Elmars were made before the war between 1931 and 1936. The 135mm f/4.5 Hektor replaced the Elmar with production of the Hektor beginning in 1933 and continuing into M-mount. A total of 100,000 Hektors were manufactured.
How "rare" is the 135mm f/4.5 Elmar? The highly collectable 73mm Hektor is actually more common with 7,000 having been made! The 105mm f/6.3 "Mountain Elmar" saw a production figure of 4,000. The 135mm Elmar falls between those two classics in numbers made. However, it's doubtful that anyone - collectors included - will ever pay as much for the Elmar as for either of the other two. It simply doesn't have the pizazz or glamour of the other two.
I've taken a couple of pictures with the Elmar and as soon as I develope the negatives, I'll scan and post them.
Walker
Last edited:
reagan
hey, they're only Zorkis
Interesting. Thanks. Throw in a pic of the lens too.
R
rich815
Guest
Cameraquest says this about it:
135/4.5 Leitz Elmar(1931-1936): an early uncoated black lens. Not great in the sharpness department, but it can give interesting effects. Watch for fogging. Lens head removable for Visoflex reflex housing.
With the Thambar he mentions in his description that it is: "expensive collectible". Since he fails to mention that for the 135 Elmar it likely is not that interesting for some reason to collectors despite its "rarity".
According to the Leica Screw Mount Lens Price Guide (http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/c.htm) it is described as "slow and so-so quality with a average going price of $100.
135/4.5 Leitz Elmar(1931-1936): an early uncoated black lens. Not great in the sharpness department, but it can give interesting effects. Watch for fogging. Lens head removable for Visoflex reflex housing.
With the Thambar he mentions in his description that it is: "expensive collectible". Since he fails to mention that for the 135 Elmar it likely is not that interesting for some reason to collectors despite its "rarity".
According to the Leica Screw Mount Lens Price Guide (http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/c.htm) it is described as "slow and so-so quality with a average going price of $100.
doubs43
Well-known
Rich, in general I agree with all of the information you've posted about the Elmar. While I haven't developed the roll of film with the shots I've taken with it, I suspect that it's not the sharpest 135mm lens ever made. Then again, neither is the Thambar which increases it's "mystique".
I noted that the 135mm Elmar isn't exactly a flashy or exotic lens and lacks the attraction that the 73mm Hektor and 105mm Mountain Elmar have. Still, I'm pleased to have gotten it as few are offered. It also filled a vacant spot in my uncoated lens line-up.
Walker
I noted that the 135mm Elmar isn't exactly a flashy or exotic lens and lacks the attraction that the 73mm Hektor and 105mm Mountain Elmar have. Still, I'm pleased to have gotten it as few are offered. It also filled a vacant spot in my uncoated lens line-up.
Walker
rich815 said:
Last edited:
ajvo
Established
doubs43!!
There is no 73mm Thambar lens. The only Thambar ever made is a 90mm (9,0cm) f:2.2 and it is very rare. Less than 2.000 lens made in late 30´s (screw mount). A very good to excellent Thambar lens with original filter and lenshood should worth from US$1500 to US$2000
There is no 73mm Thambar lens. The only Thambar ever made is a 90mm (9,0cm) f:2.2 and it is very rare. Less than 2.000 lens made in late 30´s (screw mount). A very good to excellent Thambar lens with original filter and lenshood should worth from US$1500 to US$2000
doubs43
Well-known
ajvo said:
ajvo!!
Quite right. I was thinking of the 7,3cm (73mm) Hektor. Apologies if this has confused anyone. I've edited my previous posts to correct my mistake.
Damn! I was perfect until now!
Walker
Last edited:
R
rich815
Guest
Walker, I'm sorry if I sounded negative, did not mean too. Was just sharing what I found. I have no doubt it will be an enjoyable lens. I have a 135/4 Nikkor in Leica screw-mount that gets poo-poo'd a lot yet it produces some beautiful images for me using an adapter on the M3 and MP. And for the $75 I paid I'm VERY happy! I imagine a hood might help the performance of your Elmar. Best of luck with it. Please share your images when they are developed.
doubs43
Well-known
Rich, no need to apologize. I didn't take your reply as negative at all. What you posted is undoubtedly true and you presented it factually without judgment. I agree with the information you found and it helps put everything into perspective. I won't judge sharpness or performance of my particular specimen until I develope the film and see what it does.
I would never poo-poo your Nikkor as I know what it's capable of doing. I once owned a 135mm Nikkor marked "Made in Occupied Japan" that I wish I'd kept. It was solid brass and chrome and weighed a ton which is why i sold it but I now realize that was a mistake. I also have a Canon 135mm f/3.5 lens in LTM that is in excellent condition. I won't make the same mistake with it as I did with the Nikkor!
The shots I took with the Elmar were with a hood. Contrast should be helped a little, I'd think. With shipping, I paid $71 for the Elmar which is reasonable, I think. The same seller had a 135mm f/4.5 Hektor that sold a few minutes later for $36, not including shipping. Shortly after that another Hektor from a different seller and in seemingly poorer condition sold for $78. Made no sense to me.
Walker
I would never poo-poo your Nikkor as I know what it's capable of doing. I once owned a 135mm Nikkor marked "Made in Occupied Japan" that I wish I'd kept. It was solid brass and chrome and weighed a ton which is why i sold it but I now realize that was a mistake. I also have a Canon 135mm f/3.5 lens in LTM that is in excellent condition. I won't make the same mistake with it as I did with the Nikkor!
The shots I took with the Elmar were with a hood. Contrast should be helped a little, I'd think. With shipping, I paid $71 for the Elmar which is reasonable, I think. The same seller had a 135mm f/4.5 Hektor that sold a few minutes later for $36, not including shipping. Shortly after that another Hektor from a different seller and in seemingly poorer condition sold for $78. Made no sense to me.
Walker
rich815 said:
reagan
hey, they're only Zorkis
I find Walker's thread and info noteworthy simply because I see the history of some of the gear quite interesting as well as their performance. "Not great in the sharpness department..." as various lenses might be described, is not really a deterant for me, most of the time. For my interests, there are so many other qualities I also enjoy in a lens and a photograph, tack sharp detail is not always a priority. So again, thanks Walker and those who contributed here. I hope others will add more info of this type here at RFF in the future, especially concerning the older LTM gear.
ChrisN
Striving
Speaking of "mountain elmar" - one on ebay item # 7578650575
No one should PooPoo a 135/4 Nikkor in LTM!!!!
It is a rare collectable and I would love to find one for $250 let alone $75.
Walker,
It's hard to explain why collectors go after one rare item and not another. SOmetimes they just "wake-up" and realize it's rare, then watch out. I think with the 13.5cm Elmar it is because the 13.5cm focal length is not currently popular. Many lenses going cheap, and 135 is often seen as the realm of the SLR. The second reason is the revival of the Elmar name in the 135 F4 Elmar in the 50's that supplanted the 135/4.5 Hektor. Adds to the confusion that the original was different.
I bought a pre-production Nikon F2 Photomic for $75 at a show. It was one of the first 1,600 with a metal advance tip and no steel inserts for the strap lugs. This is after I told the very knowledgeable seller that it was very early, 7101xxx. Later, I discovered the tip was made of metal, not plastic like the regular ones. Posted that on nikonhs.org and then...
Again, I just make this stuff up as I go along.
Brian
It is a rare collectable and I would love to find one for $250 let alone $75.
Walker,
It's hard to explain why collectors go after one rare item and not another. SOmetimes they just "wake-up" and realize it's rare, then watch out. I think with the 13.5cm Elmar it is because the 13.5cm focal length is not currently popular. Many lenses going cheap, and 135 is often seen as the realm of the SLR. The second reason is the revival of the Elmar name in the 135 F4 Elmar in the 50's that supplanted the 135/4.5 Hektor. Adds to the confusion that the original was different.
I bought a pre-production Nikon F2 Photomic for $75 at a show. It was one of the first 1,600 with a metal advance tip and no steel inserts for the strap lugs. This is after I told the very knowledgeable seller that it was very early, 7101xxx. Later, I discovered the tip was made of metal, not plastic like the regular ones. Posted that on nikonhs.org and then...
Again, I just make this stuff up as I go along.
Brian
doubs43
Well-known
Good points, Brian, especially the one about the revival of the Elmar 135 f/4 that replaced the Hektor. Collectors, regardless of what they collect, can be fickle and illogical at times. Sometimes there's no explaining why one item is considered desireable while another of equal rarety or usefulness is not.
IMO, few people made the connection between the Elmar f/4.5 and limited production. Just the name "Elmar" probably stopped most potential bidders right there. My one concern in bidding was a Korean who I feared had deeper pockets than mine. However, looking over his previous buys, it was clear that he was looking primarily for bargains and wouldn't go too high. I was lucky and he didn't. When a seller is willing to ship world-wide, bidding can get crazy!
Walker
IMO, few people made the connection between the Elmar f/4.5 and limited production. Just the name "Elmar" probably stopped most potential bidders right there. My one concern in bidding was a Korean who I feared had deeper pockets than mine. However, looking over his previous buys, it was clear that he was looking primarily for bargains and wouldn't go too high. I was lucky and he didn't. When a seller is willing to ship world-wide, bidding can get crazy!
Walker