JimG
dogzen
I'm really enjoying my new 5cm Elmar. Mostly I like it because I can easly slip camera and lens in a coat pocket as it's so small. I know the 35 is even smaller but some people have said they got poor results with this lens. Any opinions? JimG
FrankS
Registered User
I've read that the 35mm Elmar was replaced by the 35mm Summaron and that this was a great improvement. The Summaron is also very small, and is above reproach with regards to image quality. This may be a better choice, as the 35 Elmars are desired by collectors due to their rarity.
FPjohn
Well-known
Curved...
Curved...
Hello:
My 35mm Elmar is moderately sharp at f6.3 and above. It exhibits field of focus curvature so flat subjects up close can be a no-no. They are very small!
yours
Frank
Curved...
Hello:
My 35mm Elmar is moderately sharp at f6.3 and above. It exhibits field of focus curvature so flat subjects up close can be a no-no. They are very small!
yours
Frank
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
For a small classic 35mm I would go for the 35 Summaron for the same reasons as FrankS stated. I have one and it is not much taller than my 50 Elmar collapsed. It is coated and not foggy and does well with colour C41 film.
Bob
Bob
John Shriver
Well-known
The Tessar formula is stretched by using it for a wide angle lens, and it shows in the Elmar 35. It's beautifully made, of course, but is indeed quite soft in the corners wide open, with a moderate dose of light falloff. Fine lens for travel shots, stopped down a few shots, to be enlarged to 4x6, but not for critical enlargements.
The price/performance ratio for the Elmar is really bad, because it's a "gotta catch em all" collectible. A 35/3.5 Summaron, especially the earlier A36 filter version, is almost certainly cheaper than the Elmar, and undoubtedly better. The late E39 filter Summaron is more pricey, and the (genuine) 35/2.8 LTM Summaron is crazy expensive ($ thousands).
I got an Elmar instead of a Summaron, but it was because I wanted a period peice set of lenses to go with my IIIa. But I was very patient to get one for $140 on eBay (from Latvia), most of them were selling well north of $200.
The price/performance ratio for the Elmar is really bad, because it's a "gotta catch em all" collectible. A 35/3.5 Summaron, especially the earlier A36 filter version, is almost certainly cheaper than the Elmar, and undoubtedly better. The late E39 filter Summaron is more pricey, and the (genuine) 35/2.8 LTM Summaron is crazy expensive ($ thousands).
I got an Elmar instead of a Summaron, but it was because I wanted a period peice set of lenses to go with my IIIa. But I was very patient to get one for $140 on eBay (from Latvia), most of them were selling well north of $200.
Ronald M
Veteran
You are getting good advice so far. Go for a Summaron 3.5 or 2.8 if you want to spend a lot of money. Not worth it in my opinion. I did not like mine.
Lookat CV 35`s in screw mount too. Or old Canon or Nikon.
Lookat CV 35`s in screw mount too. Or old Canon or Nikon.
JimG
dogzen
Ronald M said:
This is good advise. I have a 35mm 2.8 Summaron in M mount, and a CV 35 in LTM. I have been looking for a Cannon 35 f2 for awhile but no luck so far. Based on what I read here I'm going to continue looking for the Cannon f2 or a 3.5 Summaron in LTM. Thanks everybody for your helpful suggestions. JimG