Elmar 35 Question

[JimG]

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]

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]

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

 

[Nikon Bob]

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

 

[John Shriver]

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.

 

[Ronald M]

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.

 

[JimG]

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.

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