Elmar 3.5/35 Serial#1434xx which year?

[jbr]

Hi all!
I picked up an astonishing clean Elmar 3.5/35 with serial # 1434xx and would like to know in what year it was manufactured. This list of LTM Serial numbers: http://www.forloren.dk/lbf/leica_lens_serial.htm starts at Serial # 156001 for the year 1933... Can anybody help me? Thanks!

 

[peter_n]

The list in the Hove Leica Pocket Book 7th ed. also starts with 156001 in 1933.

 

[archive59]

I was under the impression that Elmars produced before 1933 were not marked with a serial number, but this seems to indicate differently.

 

[David Hughes]

Well, that's within 13,000 of the start of 1933 and so my bet would be on 1931 or 1932. Someone might just have camera production figures for 1932 and that would place it a little nearer/better.

You'll find the serial number on the black rim of the lens opposite the aperture lever. Very small figures about a mm. high or even smaller.

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

That's interesting. I'm quoting "Leica the first 70 years" when I add that about 22,000 model II's were made in 1932 and so a lens within 13,000 of the start of '33 must be '32. But that assumes that they made lenses and bodies in the same quantities and at the same time. Figures fo the rest of the bodies suggest about 26,000 made in 1932, overall. I can't imagine they made lenses one year and bodies the next! ;-)

So my money's now on it being a 1932 lens.

Regards, David

 

[jbr]

Thank you all for your feedbacl and for the interesting informations!

I mounted the lens on my M8 and am really very impressed. I will show some results later!

 

[jbr]

First shots with the Elmar

First shots with the Elmar

As promised, here a first test shot, wide open, mounted on my M8.

First, the raw DNG file, no postprocessing.

For the non-digital shooters: the DNG (digital negative) file contains the image data more or less how they have been registered by the sensor in the camera. A certain amount of postprocessing in the digital darkroom, involving sharpening and some contrast-, white balance- and brightness adjustment is always necessary to obtain an acceptable result.

Here is the final result after the postprocessing. Not bad, I find, for an almost 80 year old...