Differentiating Elmar versions

R

ra1nforest

Newbie
Local time
12:36 AM
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
6
View My Gallery
Dear friends,

I am currently considering getting an Elmar 50/3.5 but am having troubles with the various versions. Off hand, I remember versions like the chrome, nickel, red scale, coated and uncoated, so on so forth.

Personally, I do a lot of darkroom work and am inclined towards a more classic, old-European touch without the harshness and sharpness of modern lenses.

I have here a few pictures taken by others that encapsulates the kinda look I'm looking for:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21652620@N08/2197819835/in/set-72157603534668426/
taken with a 35mm Elmar according to the photographer.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21618643@N00/368195508/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21618643@N00/428766592/
taken with a 50mm Elmar according to the photographer


I personally own a Summitar 50/2 but personally find it too sharp when stopped up (f/5.6 to 8). Understand this sounds ironic but I personally prize photographic character over sharpness anytime.

Any advice, help and comments are most welcomed. I thank you for your time and help in advance 🙂

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
I can't give you any advice unfortunately, but it's nice to see someone else who prefers character over sharpness 🙂

I've got a Summar sitting here that i'm going to try out once my Leica IIIc arrives back from repair. Should be fun experimenting with it's crazy flaring and softness.

Having said that, have you considered checking out a Summar instead of an Elmar? They are generally disliked lenses due to their oddities, so you can pick them up rather cheaply when compared to other Leitz lenses.
 
Last edited:
The last red scale elmar will be like the Summitar at equal stops and other versions of the coated elmar are very close.

Buy an uncoated elmar if you like the 35 elmar pics. All 35mm elmars are uncoated.

The other possibility is a 1.5 Summarit. This lens maintains the look even stopped down.
The problem is finding a decent one. They tend to have internal fog and have extremely soft coatings that damage with the least amount of pressure. A lens shade is required. There is an uncoated version called a Xenon. 73 mm Hectors also nice. Also a 85 mm 1.4. All will offer the look you want

Then you can get into the Russian lenses wich I know nothing about

I did a test one time and all the coated lenses looked the same at equal stops.
 
Very Early versions (20s) seem prone to flare. 30s versions are fine and 'creamy'. Postwar seem more contrasty probably due to coating. Later lenses go down to 22.

Final version, so called Red Scale is said to be best but to be honest results look same as previous version...also price is inflated.

Condition is all and coating helps...if that is what you want...otherwise stay with pre war chrome for cheapest and the appropriate look.


Michael
 
pre-war lenses for pre-war results. My summitair of 1940 always gave me those results as the early post-war elmars of 1948. You get the same result with the Industar 22, which has less coating than the post war elmars, and therefore is quite low in contrast and provide I think what you are looking for. I have also the 35mm elmar but it has hardly any sharpness, therefore I hardly use it (if interested, let me know). See my gallery for shots with my 1940 summitar (which renders quite different compared to the post war summitar) and shots with Industar 22


1940 Summitar


1951 Industar 22
 
Last edited:
I'm just running a roll of film through my Leica I standard C with an unnumbered Elmar (11 o'clock, no pin release). It's from probably about 1931 -- funny that I've had this super outfit for about five years and this is the first roll of film I'm putting through it. in any case, i'll post a few shots from the lens once I get the film processed to give you an idea of the quality.

As another complete aside (sorry, I tend to do that a lot!), I've been trying to calibrate my Hugo Meyer Megoflex with it, but have reverted to using the FOKOS rangefinder. Interesting how taking pictures in such a 'stripped down' method can slow you down, which can often be a good thing when trying to make somewhat meaningful imagery.
 
Without starting another thread maybe someone can help me with something. I have a 50 Elmar I can't find the date of manufacturing.

89XXX

The f stops are 3.5, 4.5, 6.3, 9, 12.5, and 18. MTRs not FT.

I have the redscale on my IIIf and it is a sharp lens. Probably not what you're looking for. I don't want to say the other Elmar I have isn't sharp. Just can't remember since the last time I use it. I know it wasn't so soft I would never use it again. Just haven't since I sold my IIIc.
 
CLE-RF said:
click here to see your lens manufacturing date

Simple Google search!
Click to expand...

hmm... prewar elmars which are numbered (some are not) had at least 6 digits.

If you can read German, there is a nice discussion on elmar serials here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...torica/42454-elmar-3-5-ohne-seriennummer.html

if you can't, I can tell you is that what I found interesting in the discussion is that it seems to be quite clear that a lot of old elmars and other Leitz lenses, were 'refitted', to be able to use them on more modern cameras (like elmars that sat on the Leica I, were made fit to use on Leica's with a rangefinder, or were rebuild to get an international f-stop numbering or got a feet in stead of meter scale)
 
Last edited:
I have been reading up on these as well and would love to purchase one for the same reasons mentioned by the OP. Does anyone know of a reputable place to buy these? I'm always cautious of ebay.
 
Reputable sellers? There's many. KEH. George Ury. Igor's Camera Exchange. B&H. Ritz Collectibles. MW Classic Cameras. Photo Village. Tony Rose/Popflash. Kevin Cameras -- but only if you want collector grade at collector prices.

Also, it's not that hard to figure out who's a straight shooter on eBay, and who isn't.
 
Ron (Netherlands) said:
hmm... prewar elmars which are numbered (some are not) had at least 6 digits.

If you can read German, there is a nice discussion on elmar serials here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...torica/42454-elmar-3-5-ohne-seriennummer.html

if you can't, I can tell you is that what I found interesting in the discussion is that it seems to be quite clear that a lot of old elmars and other Leitz lenses, were 'refitted', to be able to use them on more modern cameras (like elmars that sat on the Leica I, were made fit to use on Leica's with a rangefinder, or were rebuild to get an international f-stop numbering or got a feet in stead of meter scale)
Click to expand...

I looked over my lens with a loupe--I have to. 5 digits.

I'd like to hear more about what they said. I can't read German.
 
It's a bit like buying old cars...don't hold out for a particular model, go for the condition first.

Apart from the condition of the glass, make sure that the front flange is not bent (common), that the aperture moves easily (they can get stiff particularly if the front flange has been bent) and that the lens extends tightly. There is a piece of felt or something in there that if worn will make the thing sloppy.

Sometimes early lenses are difficult to CLA because things have siezed up so try and make a judgement. Some early ones have no slots in the ring retaining the front element which can make things a bit tough.

Elmars that have been converted or have no serial number are no better or worse. There may be a slight price premium for lenses with no infinty lock or with the infinity lock at 11 o'clock. Metres or feet should make no difference.

My favourite lens and THE Leica lens...worth a try

Michael
 
I, too, admire your search for character in a lens. Though the Elmar 3.5 may not "keep up" with many lenses in sharpness, focus speed, ease of aperture setting, flare, etc. it still seems to have been enough for the photographer in the last two examples you've mentioned. By the way, the photographer of those two is our very own and very capable Tuna. Here is his gallery on RFF.

Maybe the images by Tuna indicate that it isn't the glass but the photographer who uses it? Could this be another photographer v. gearhead discussion brewing?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom