Leica LTM Elmar 35mm f3.5

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Thanks, PanF. It doesn't seem to be available over here in the US. I guess the UK Amazon ships anywhere. I'll try. Great film.
 
PAN F said:
Dear Roger,
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
Click to expand...
Erm... No sane person would deny that you can get good pictures with just about anything, if you live with its limitations and indeed learn to exploit them. But equally, no sane person would deny that some lenses are sharper than others; have more contrast; less vignetting, better ergonomics...

When I started using Leicas in the late 1960s, 3,5cm Elmars were still 'everyday' lenses, i.e. not collectors' items or nostalgia icons. They were still surprisingly expensive, and they simply weren't very good compared with the (very limited) range of other 35mm lenses on the market. And they haven't improved with keeping.

Cheers,

R.
 
I would Echo Roger's comments - I have had two 35mm Elmars and neither was particularly sharp and both were low contrast.

Why not try a Summaron or a Canon - both will be sharper and more contrasty (if that is your thing)
 
Last edited:
Although others have had great results from this lens I would still agree with John and Roger. I had the 35mm Elmar for many years but for me it really wasn't that great. The 2.8 Summaron is in a completely different league (LTM pricewise too) so I'd point the OP in the direction of the 35mm CV lenses.

Michael
 
msbarnes said:
I would like a really small/inexpensive 35mm.
Click to expand...
The 2.8 Summaron is a wonderful lens of sublime quality, but it is NOT inexpensive...
:)

Edit: I see Michael beat me.... :)

OTOH the 3.5 LTM Summaron is quite cheaper and also an excellent, classic rendering lens.
 
Hi,

Add me to the why bother posts. I've the 3,5cm Elmar and spent money on getting it checked over as I assumed it was so so from old age etc but wasn't impressed with it. A great disappointment, imo.

Regards, David
 
It's interesting that until the Summaron came along in 1946 the Elmar was the only 3.5cm lens available for the Leica. Many memorable photographs, including much of the coverage of World War Two both in Europe and the Far East, were taken with it by photographers from all sides. We (nearly) all acknowledge that the Elmar 5cm is a classic lens so if the results from the 3.5cm were so comparatively disappointing why did it not get a worse press at the time? I wonder if like the Summar time has taken its toll of most of the examples we see. I have recently got mine back from Malcolm Taylor and I am looking forward to using it, though with slight trepidation as the front element came unscrewed when I removed a filter and I am not sure I have sufficientlky re-tightened it. I will report back but generally I have been getting great results with pre-war Leica glass.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Erm... No sane person would deny that you can get good pictures with just about anything, if you live with its limitations and indeed learn to exploit them. But equally, no sane person would deny that some lenses are sharper than others; have more contrast; less vignetting, better ergonomic

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I know that there are more modern sharper lenses, with more contrast and with less vignetting and better ergonomics available but many photographers are tired of these ultra sharp, high contrast images that these modern lenses produce with modern film stock.

Many photographers are favouring more the results produced by the older coated and uncoated "classic" lenses which give a defined more rounded yet slightly unsharp detail with film and more pastel dreamy images when used with modern colour films.

You yourself now find the 9cm f2.2 Thambar, an uncoated Leitz pre-war lens , long neglected and maligned by photographers,and desired only by collectors, to now be a lens that you couldn't now part with because it can give results that are unobtainable with modern lenses.

These older uncoated lenses such as the 5cm f2.5 Hektor (see the photo's by Erik van Straten & Tom A), 3,5 cm Elmar, 7,3cm Hektor, 5cm Summar and your 9cm Thambar are very capable lenses and ideal to use with current more high contrast film stock and shouldn't be discounted in favour of modern lenses.

I admit they are more of a challenge in use but many photgraphers enjoy a challenge and find great satisfaction in using a 70 year old optic and producing results with modern camera technology and film stock which would have astounded their grandfathers.
 
Well said, PAN F ...

I agree with your every word one thousand-fold !

One of life's more challenging pleasures is coaxing images on film out of old Leica lenses that are sublimely different and more visually pleasing than can usually be captured by more modern optics.

It takes awareness, patience, forethought and a modicum of skill to use old lenses effectively, which is probably why their useage is becoming increasingly uncommon... (!)
 
PAN F said:
Roger,
I know that there are more modern sharper lenses, with more contrast and with less vignetting and better ergonomics available but many photographers are tired of these ultra sharp, high contrast images that these modern lenses produce with modern film stock.

Many photographers are favouring more the results produced by the older coated and uncoated "classic" lenses which give a defined more rounded yet slightly unsharp detail with film and more pastel dreamy images when used with modern colour films.

You yourself now find the 9cm f2.2 Thambar, an uncoated Leitz pre-war lens , long neglected and maligned by photographers,and desired only by collectors, to now be a lens that you couldn't now part with because it can give results that are unobtainable with modern lenses.

These older uncoated lenses such as the 5cm f2.5 Hektor (see the photo's by Erik van Straten & Tom A), 3,5 cm Elmar, 7,3cm Hektor, 5cm Summar and your 9cm Thambar are very capable lenses and ideal to use with current more high contrast film stock and shouldn't be discounted in favour of modern lenses.

I admit they are more of a challenge in use but many photgraphers enjoy a challenge and find great satisfaction in using a 70 year old optic and producing results with modern camera technology and film stock which would have astounded their grandfathers.
Click to expand...
We do not disagree about most of this. But equally I'd say that if someone is asking for advice on how to do something, it?s often better to advise them on the easiest way, rather than the most difficult.

The Thambar, though, I'd disagree about. The only reason that the Thambar was 'neglected and maligned' (if ever it was) was that collectors drove the prices so high that many photographers just couldn't afford it or cried sour grapes.

Cheers,

R.
 
cheap 35?
The skopar is a great little lens.
Otherwise I would bet on the canon 2.8.
An equivalent of the Summaron so I heard.
 
Simon Bruxelles said:
It's interesting that until the Summaron came along in 1946 the Elmar was the only 3.5cm lens available for the Leica. Many memorable photographs, including much of the coverage of World War Two both in Europe and the Far East, were taken with it by photographers from all sides. We (nearly) all acknowledge that the Elmar 5cm is a classic lens so if the results from the 3.5cm were so comparatively disappointing why did it not get a worse press at the time? I wonder if like the Summar time has taken its toll of most of the examples we see. I have recently got mine back from Malcolm Taylor and I am looking forward to using it, though with slight trepidation as the front element came unscrewed when I removed a filter and I am not sure I have sufficientlky re-tightened it. I will report back but generally I have been getting great results with pre-war Leica glass.
Click to expand...
Lack of choice? If it's all that's available, what's the point of whingeing? It was taken for granted that it was soft and lacking in contrast. What could anyone do about it?

Also, of course, 'reviews' of the period were often even more lickspittle than today.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Lack of choice? If it's all that's available, what's the point of whingeing? It was taken for granted that it was soft and lacking in contrast. What could anyone do about it?

Also, of course, 'reviews' of the period were often even more lickspittle than today.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

They could go out and produce great photographs with it as thousands of 1930's/40's photographers did and particularly when it was in the hands of a great photographer like Dr. Paul Wolff.
 
msbarnes said:
I believe there is the fiddly 35mm f3.5 Elmar. Any samples of this lens-wide open or at f5.6? .
Click to expand...

These were shot with a coated but very early (nickel) 35mm elmar ;

Kopie%20van%20L1004447.jpg


Kopie%20van%20L1004458.jpg
 
PAN F said:
They could go out and produce great photographs with it as thousands of 1930's/40's photographers did and particularly when it was in the hands of a great photographer like Dr. Paul Wolff.
Click to expand...

Which does not for one nanosecond affect the basic truth that it was soft and lacking in contrast. If it's all you've got, it's all you can use.

Cheers,

R.
 
I have a fresh roll of HP5 in my IIIa so this weekend I'm going to take some photos with my recently serviced Elmar and some with a F3.5 3.5cm Summaron, also cleaned by Malcolm, and compare them side by side. I suspect there'il be quite a noticeable difference in contrast and sharpness though which you prefer may be less predictable. Stand by...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom