Leica LTM Elmar 35mm f3.5

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
msbarnes

msbarnes

Well-known
Local time
2:36 PM
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
841
I would like a really small/inexpensive 35mm.

I believe there is the fiddly 35mm f3.5 Elmar. Any samples of this lens-wide open or at f5.6? I believe the 50mm f3.5 is acclaimed for being sharp but is 35mm too much of a stretch for a collapsible.

Are there any other 35mm that compete with this thing size-wise? Like one from Canon/Nikon and that isn't particularly rare/expensive.
 
What about the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35/2.5? It's just over $400 USD. Is that too much? Can be had for less if you find one in good condition used.

Will a LTM lens work? Maybe an old Jupiter 12 LTM would work? They are under $100 I think.
 
Budget is ~$300-$400 at most.

The Cosina 35mm f2.5, Canon 35mm f2.8, Nikon 35mm f2.5, and Leica 35mm f3.5 Summaron are other considerations. I don't need faster than f2.8/f2.5 so I'm dismissing the faster brothers.

A Jupiter, maybe. Is it in league, size-wise, with the above mentioned lenses?

I'm just intrigued with the size of the Elmar so that got me thinking. For performance , M for sure but for LTM, then I would like to go small.
 
Well, the old Russian lenses can be nice if you find one that is in good condition. Here's a link with info for the Jupiter 12:
http://mattsclassiccameras.com/jupiter_12_ltm.html

And this one has an assortment of the versions of the J12 so you can see sizes to see if it might work. I've seen these under $50.
http://sovietcams.com/index.php?-736220353

I know there are folks here who use and enjoy the old Russian lenses and can put their thoughts in the mix. And I am sure some others will have some great suggestions for other lenses in your range as well.
 
The 3,5cm Elmar (which isn't collapsible, by the way -- it's just tiny) REALLY shows its age in comparison with just about anything. Against everything I've seen and tried over the last 40 years, the Color-Skopar is the very easy winner.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
The 3,5cm Elmar (which isn't collapsible, by the way -- it's just tiny) REALLY shows its age in comparison with just about anything. Against everything I've seen and tried over the last 40 years, the Color-Skopar is the very easy winner.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I didn't know it wasn't a collapsible. Well I was reading online and it seems to be mostly a collector lens. I'm sure some people love it but the general consensus is that the Summaron was better. I'd perhaps shoot for something else.

I know that the Skopar is small but I can't find any direct size comparisons with other LTM 35mm's. I assume that size is not a deciding factor between these lenses, right? That is a Canon 35mm f2.8, Nikon 35mm f2.5/f3.5, and Leica 35mm f3.5. Well the skopar is attractive regardless of this: 39mm filter thread, modern coatings, easy to find cheap/clean, and close-focusing....difficult to beat.
 
The 5.0cm 3.5 is indeed collapsible if you are thinking about the 1930's Elmar.
This lens is/was mounted on most Leicas made in the 30's.
 
If you take your time and shop carefully, the Nikkor 35mm f2.5 is just within your budget. It is small and wonderful. I'm sure a modern high performance lens would out perform it technically but I like the images mine makes. The Nikkor 35mm f3.5 would be a little cheaper. Good Luck, Joe
 
Leica II, Elmar 35mm f/3.5, Tmax400.

Erik.

8186693440_680d5c03e0_b.jpg
 
Hi, when i bought mine i was suprised with it´s performance....it hanldes flare very well and certainly is very sharp from 3.5 up to 8...then it may suffer from difraction...

the lens protrudes like the elmar 5cm collpased so renders the camera so pocketable and ready to shoot since you don´t need to extend it.

I used it on my m9 and was so nice to handle, of course aperture ring is like old elmars it´s not so quick to set but on the other hand leaves the lens very shallow and small....

I strongly recommend you to purchase a sample.:)

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6147/6036560658_cc5fbe4c17_b.jpg

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6129/6036561108_b962aebcc5_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
The 3,5cm Elmar (which isn't collapsible, by the way -- it's just tiny) REALLY shows its age in comparison with just about anything. Against everything I've seen and tried over the last 40 years, the Color-Skopar is the very easy winner.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

One has only to view the photographs of James Ravilious who used an uncoated 35mm f3.5 Elmar,on many occasions, on his M3 camera to record many superb photo's of a disappearing world to see that it is the skill, ideas,and perfect timing of photographer not the lens that makes the photographic masterpiece.

See:- www.jamesravilious.com and also http://www.beaford-arts.org.uk/index.php?id=5
 
I had an Elmar back sometime in the sixties that I bought for my Canon VT Deluxe. It was probably full of fungus and I had terrible results from it. It was as small as a collapsed lens though.
 
Hello Vic,
He used a few Leica lenses on his M3 but I know that James asked Malcolm Taylor (the renowned U.K Leica repairer) to remove the coatings on many of his Leica screw lenses to allow him to get the results on film that he wanted.
 
PAN F said:
Hello Vic,
He used a few Leica lenses on his M3 but I know that James asked Malcolm Taylor (the renowned U.K Leica repairer) to remove the coatings on many of his Leica screw lenses to allow him to get the results on film that he wanted.
Click to expand...
Yes, that video discusses his love for the uncoated lenses. In that video, though, his widow holds up his M3 and it has a goggled lens on it.
 
I have also read that he used a Leica II with uncoated lenses but I guess over 20 years he may have used a variety of different equipment. Whatever he used they are some of my favourite photographs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom