Elmar 50/3.5 alternatives

[jett]

I'm thinking about getting this lens, in LTM, or maybe some alternative.

Did Nikon/Canon make any simlar lenses? A collapsible, this small? I know that Canon has an f1.9 or f2.0 collapsible, but I'm looking for a pocket lens.

I know that the other alternative is FSU, and I'm considering one of those. I haven't searched too hard for FSU comparisons but I know that they are all over the internet and they seem to be good deals, at the expensive of quality construction.

 

[Spavinaw]

Sure, there was a Canon/Serenar that was almost exactly like the Elmar.

 

[xayraa33]

The Japanese ones like the Nikkor, Canon/Serenar, Hexanon etc. would probably cost more money now than a genuine Leitz Elmar to the collector/rarity factor.

The FSU lenses like the collapsable Industar 22 or 50 are generally very good lenses and very affordable and even their physical construction is a step above the normal FSU lenses.

 

[Dez]

The Canon and Nikon f3.5 collapsible lenses were from back in the 40's and very scarce now. They would almost certainly cost much more than an Elmar. A good Industar 22 or 50 is probably your best bet.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[Monochrom]

Hi, i´d recommend the elmar right away. Its proven performance.

Get yourself a coated version or much better the redscale one, this was the last of the elmars and a recomputing of the elements, sharpness is outstanding!

This elmar is my main lens can´t live without it.

 

[Pioneer]

I agree with Monochrome, buy the Elmar. Not that expensive and a terrific little lens.

 

[Mackinaw]

See this for more on the Canon Elmar:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/s/data/50-85/s_sere_50_35v1.html?p=1

They also made a 50/2.8 version.

Jim B.

 

[Johann Espiritu]

Have you checked out the Voigtlander Nickel Heliar?

 

[Pioneer]

I own and shoot the Heliar as well as the MS Optical ApoQual. They are both very nice lenses but neither out perform the Elmar Redscale sufficiently to compensate for the reduced convenience. Neither collapse as far as the Elmar on the Barnacks. I don't take pictures of brick walls or air force test charts so I could certainly be missing something, but in normal use I prefer the Elmar. In addition I don't believe they are any less expensive than the Elmar.

However, they do exist as alternative options.

 

[Dez]

Was there really any improvement with the late "red dial" Elmar 3.5? There is nothing to that effect in Erwin Puts' excellent book.

I have never been able to understand why Leitz had the focus scale so obviously backwards for 25 years.

Cheers
Dez

 

[Pioneer]

I haven't found any difference Dez. Over the past few years I have accumulated four of them. One old non-coated lens, one red scale lens, and two normal coated lenses and they are all great lenses. None of them even seem particularly flare prone, but I shoot with a hood the great majority of the time. The only difference I have ever noted between them is that the non-coated lens has lower contrast, particularly in color, than the other three.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Elmar and Industar are different optical formulas lenses.
I'm happy with I-22, coated and spotless for $50.
The IQ is on pair with old Leitz LTM lenses I used to have.

 

[Murray Kelly]

The Elmar was designed by Leitz at a time when Zeiss had the copyright on the Tessar (so Leitz thought). Consequently they changed the design from having the iris between the front and back groups where it is theoretically best and put it behind the front lens. One look is enough to appreciate the difference. Some say that difference degrades the Elmar version of Tessar design. Others love it. I'll bet most folk can't pick the difference, in fact.
The Industar is a straight Tessar.
To the original poster, what can you afford? The FSU lenses are pretty well regarded for this type of basic lens. Try the I-61 as it gets raves from the afficionados. With or without the 'LD' label - they're apparently the same.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...With or without the 'LD' label - they're apparently the same.

Non-LD supposed to have more aperture blades. Makes huge difference sometimes.

 

[jcb4718]

I have the Canon 50mm f3.5 collapsible. It is indeed a Tessar design. It handles superbly and the optical quality is excellent. The click stop aperture ring is 'conventional' (i.e. around the barrel at the front of the lens) so it does not collapse quite as much as an Elmar. It extends to about 35mm (flange to lens rim) and the filter size is 34mm. This means with a filter fitted I can just see the extended lens in the viewfinder of my Leica IIIf. Just enough to confirm I have remembered to extend the lens without actually intruding into the viewfinder image. All in all a good lens but quite rare, I think.

 

[Murray Kelly]

Checked what I-61 lenses I had here and could find. The 2 non-lanthar lenses have about 11 leaves and the one LD I can lay my hands on has a 6-sided iris.
This doesn't detract from the suspicion that all the FSU I-61 lenses used Lanthanum glass like many others, before discovering it was a selling point.

The iris will affect bokeh but I dunno to what extent. I have never read of any deleterious comment about that attribute. Never seen it mentioned, in fact. You could well be correct. My Summitar is 6 sided (12 leaves!) and there is some comment about the bokeh with that specimen.

I doubt the OP would be worried.

 

[Dez]

The I26 and I61 are pretty good lenses, and generally can be found dirt cheap, but they are rather large. The OP was looking for something the size of the Elmar, for a pocketable camera. His best choice is probably a real Elmar, which can be found at a decent price if one is patient. Really the only other choices are the Russians, FED 50 or Industar 22 or 50. The other such lenses are hard to find and will almost certainly cost a lot more than the Elmar.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[Volver]

I had both elmar 50/3.5, industar-22 and also elmar 50/2.8 (m-bayonet 1962).
I couldnt find any differences in lenses at F5.6, at F4 LTM elmar and I-22 were more vigneting than M one.
What i can say about my examples is that an I-22 was least flare prone (without hood), and all these lenses were less flare prone in comparision to summicron rigid.

I sold my elmars, an I-22 is a best choice if quality/price matters.

 

[traveler_101]

I have the Elmar 5 cm f/3.5 1946 uncoated and I have also a Industar 61 LD f/2.8 from the 1970s. There is no comparison. For image quality, the Elmar wins hands down--and it is tiny and folds into the camera. The Industar though coated has far less resistance to flair and it rattles.

You can't go wrong with the Elmar, but make sure you have a quality one.

 

[Dez]

I think the 180 degree difference in the last two posts suggests that unit-to-unit differences are often more significant than the differences in nominal design. I would presume we are seeing a good and a bad I22, as I would expect more consistency in the Elmar, but maybe not. These are all old lenses, and are likely to need cleaning to some degree, and that can have a major effect on contrast and flare resistance.
If at all possible when buying a lens, it is a good idea to ask to be able to test it yourself on film before finalizing the transaction. Very difficult to do with online sales though.

Cheers,
Dez