Leica LTM Considering acquiring a 3.5cm Elmar

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
lxmike

lxmike

M2 fan.
Local time
12:15 PM
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
4,137
Among other lenses l really like my uncoated leitz glass, l have an uncoated 5cmm 3.5 Elmar and a 5cm Summar, l really fancy adding a wider lens and l am leaning towards a 3.5cm lens, how do people find the uncoated 3.5cm Elmars
 
I agree with Roger on this issue; the old 50mm lens tend to be OK but not the wide angle lenses.
 
A very good lens. Brilliant. Sharp in the corners. No distortion.

Leica II, Elmar 35mm f/3.5 (nickel, 11-o-clock, coupled), 400-2TMY, gelatine silver print.

Erik.

42744620302_28ce7d12c3_c.jpg
 
I have one and love it. Shooting black and white, it produces easy to print negs. Tiny and sharp. If 3.5 is wide enough, it will complement your Summar. A vastly underrated lens.
 
I find mine pretty good. Not as sharp as a Summaron 35mm f/3.5 but pretty good. Also, you got to love the size! :)

Regards

Marcelo
 
What a coincidence that you should ask. I'm just waiting for delivery of this one
I'm really a 35mm guy & the tiny size will make my iii the ideal pocket camera. I had a choice of the summaron 3.5...but size won out here when i was making my decision. My standard 35mm on both M and LTM is a 2.8 summaron....but it's a hefty lens on the iii.
Erik...thank you for the example photos. They're very fine.25F82210-6026-449F-BBB2-DA444281A108 by , on Flickr

A7315EEE-6067-42CC-81F2-E7CB94070C2C by , on Flickr
 
I have one that I got in an estate sale Leica bundle. I think it's got very slight haze, but I tend to use my Summaron 2.8 A LOT, so the Elmar doesn't see much work. Mayble I'll shoot a roll with it this weekend. I don't have a hood for it, so I'm a little concerned about flare.
 
I've had 1935 uncoated 3,5cm Elmar for many years and have not been impressed with it; especially when compared to the standard Elmar from the same era. It would certainly get the prize for being the original "pancake" lens

Leica%20II%20%26%2035mm.jpg


but put the correct viewfinder on the camera and you get a bit of an awkward lump.

Looking at the prints and the lens I think it needs cleaning but that will have to wait until I'm rich enough...

In the meantime I'll go on using the Summaron.

Regards, David
 
I've got both the SBLOO & the tiny voigtlander 35/28 mini finder. The voigtlander and a iii makes it a very sleek package. I'll be prepared to send mine for a cleaning if need be.
 
I had the 3.5cm Elmar for many, many years. Never really got on with it. The Summarons are from a different age and something well worth having.

Currently have the 2.8 Summaron with an M mount that is removable exposing ltm.
 
I've got a 2.8 summaron LTM with M adapter as well. Love that lens, but it is a more substantial size kit for an everywhere/all the time camera. I don't use a 50 much so the iii black with the tiny elmar 35 is ideal for me for that purpose...and if the results are like Erik's or Michael's i'll be very happy
 
That Summaron is a lovely lens, never regreted buying it and it fits all my Leicas, film; digital and LTM...

OTOH, I did some tests with it years ago and used an Olympus XA to duplicate the shots and exposure etc and the XA lens is just as nice. Make what you will of that.

Regards, David
 
The problem that a lot of people seem to have with this lens is fogging. The glass elements are tiny and are placed close to the f-stop. The lubricants from the mechanism evaporate and end up on the glass surface.

Bring the lens to a professional tech to bring it back to life.

Erik.
 
David, For me it's not just about the lens. I had a Yashica T, Zeiss tessar lens in a Miyazaki M mount....but couldn't get it in a screw mount. Sometimes I use a 21, recently a 28, sometimes a 50 and frequently a 35, almost always with filters....so an XA doesn't fit my needs, however good its lens might be.
 
Eric, You're absolutely right. It's a lovely lens & tiny. I shot one test roll of FP4+ all wide open. I printed a variety of images at 8x10". Here's one. I'll use it for a month & then send it in for cleaning. Setadel Studios said there was some light haze...but I couldn't see any even shining a light. The images shooting into the sun just have that '30s lens character. Lovely little lens & perfect on the iii black.

unnamed-11 (1) by , on Flickr
 
I had the chance while in Seattle to take a 2nd roll with the 35mm Elmar. I had some strong light conditions which i had been looking for & some opportunities to see if i could get the lens to flare, & see if there was any haze. On the first roll I shot everything wide open. This time I shot quite a bit at f9, with and without the yellow filter. The negatives are hanging to dry and look promising. There doesn't appear to be any haze. I'll have to print some up to 11x14....but this does seem to be an under-rated lens.

unnamed-13 by , on Flickr
 
These exercises in what is best are really what do you like: high contrast, low contrast, color rendition, and probably some etc. I bought a copy of the Tessar Elmar 35mm f 3.5 by Canon which is not considered a great lens by many. But here it is wide open (f 3.5) from about 6 feet:

Neopan Acros 100 expired by John Carter, on Flickr

The Serenar 35mm 35mm f 3.5 has (by luck for me) the tonality I like with both Tmax 100 and Trix. So even though everybody hates this lens I like it, but that is just my taste. It also has a tonality that I like with C-41 and E-6. So eveyone has to choose what they like, but choose for yourself.

Mine does have a problem with with haze which luckily is easily cleaned by me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom