batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
They are not talking about the same lens. I-22 and I-61 are completely different lenses.
Elmar 50/3.5 alternatives
- Thread starter jett
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 34
- Views 8K
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I agree, both Tessar designs but thats about it.
I found the I -22 lens to be more consistent from sample to sample, which is not the case with most FSU lenses.
I like my I-22 as much as my f3.5 M mount Elmar
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Can I suggest getting both an Elmar and an I-22/I-10/Fed50? You can have 2 nice collapsible lenses for not much money. I'm pretty sure you can acquire both for less than $300-350, maybe $375-400 if you want really nice ones. Some people think its overly "materialistic" to have multiple lenses of the same focal length. I disagree. I enjoy varying it up and taking a different lens out from time to time. I also have a "backup" should one lens suddenly become non-functional. I might take this concept to a bit of an extreme though (I have more than 6 50's in LTM)
Of the collapsible lenses mentioned in this thread, I have Elmar, I-22, I-10, and Fed-50. I do think the Leitz Elmar gives me just barely noticeable better micro-contrast and sharpness, but it could be in my head. That means for most situations, it doesn't much matter which lens I'm using. Some of my favorite images were made with the I-22. There are "bad examples" of the FSU lenses that won't be sharp. If you find yourself with one of those, you'll have to go find another. Luckily they're cheap and it won't be long before you get a nice one. Build quality on the collapsible elmar-like FSU lenses seems to be rather good; much, much better than the I-61 or I-26.
Something else to consider is the aperture ring -- some of the FSU lenses (I-22, others) have a ribbed/knurled ring that you use to change aperture, but some lenses have a little tab on the ring (just like the Elmar). I can't remember which FSU models have this, but I have one that says "Fed" on it (I'm assuming its a Fed-50). I like this lens because it will accept any and all accessories made for the Elmar. That includes the VALOO hood (which I don't own, but would like to).
Of the collapsible lenses mentioned in this thread, I have Elmar, I-22, I-10, and Fed-50. I do think the Leitz Elmar gives me just barely noticeable better micro-contrast and sharpness, but it could be in my head. That means for most situations, it doesn't much matter which lens I'm using. Some of my favorite images were made with the I-22. There are "bad examples" of the FSU lenses that won't be sharp. If you find yourself with one of those, you'll have to go find another. Luckily they're cheap and it won't be long before you get a nice one. Build quality on the collapsible elmar-like FSU lenses seems to be rather good; much, much better than the I-61 or I-26.
Something else to consider is the aperture ring -- some of the FSU lenses (I-22, others) have a ribbed/knurled ring that you use to change aperture, but some lenses have a little tab on the ring (just like the Elmar). I can't remember which FSU models have this, but I have one that says "Fed" on it (I'm assuming its a Fed-50). I like this lens because it will accept any and all accessories made for the Elmar. That includes the VALOO hood (which I don't own, but would like to).
David Murphy
Veteran
The Canon 50mm F3.5 collapsible is not a rare lens - perhaps a little uncommon, but not rare. Production one the commonly encountered second version of the Canon 50mm F3.5 started in 1952 according to the Canon Museum Web site. I believe there was an earlier version from the nascent Canon era of the late 30's to late 40's, but those would be extreme collectibles and many Canon lenses from that time did not have the standard Leica thread. To find one look on eBay and the usual classic camera dealers, there are usually one or two for sale at any given time. I have owned and used this very fine lens and they are at least as good as the Elmar, and probably better built mechanically. The market price is $175 - $250 for a clean one when they are auctioned, perhaps a shade less expensive than a good Elmar.
There are certainly Japanese Leica copy rangefinders with collapsible Elmar-like lenses. Most are quite uncommon collectibles (Tanar and Nikon for instance) and none are cheap. The Leotax Simlar 5 cm F3.5 collapsible is a fine lens that is still fairly common. It usually sells for around $150-200 when auctioned separately from a camera body and is really a good deal and I can recommend it. It is extremely "Elmar like" (such as its propensity to have micro scratches on the front element - they are usually not as bad as on Elmars however, since most Leotaxes have never seen the degree of use that most Leica's have experienced).
The least expensive Elmar alternatives are the various Soviet Elmar copies (FED, etc.), but many of these have optical or mechanical issues. If you can find a good one they can be deliver excellent performance for the cost, which is usually well less than $100.
There are certainly Japanese Leica copy rangefinders with collapsible Elmar-like lenses. Most are quite uncommon collectibles (Tanar and Nikon for instance) and none are cheap. The Leotax Simlar 5 cm F3.5 collapsible is a fine lens that is still fairly common. It usually sells for around $150-200 when auctioned separately from a camera body and is really a good deal and I can recommend it. It is extremely "Elmar like" (such as its propensity to have micro scratches on the front element - they are usually not as bad as on Elmars however, since most Leotaxes have never seen the degree of use that most Leica's have experienced).
The least expensive Elmar alternatives are the various Soviet Elmar copies (FED, etc.), but many of these have optical or mechanical issues. If you can find a good one they can be deliver excellent performance for the cost, which is usually well less than $100.
jett
Well-known
Thanks for the many suggestions.
I am not going to worry about it, haha. There are too many versions/variations of the Elmar to worry about.
I will pursue the cleanest Elmar copy that I can find, whether it be a "red scale", coated, uncoated, and etc.
The Industar/Japanese lenses are probably fine, but given that the Elmar is fairly common and relatively inexpensive (compared to the f2.0/f1.4 Leica lenses), there is less of a reason to pursue an alternative.
I am not going to worry about it, haha. There are too many versions/variations of the Elmar to worry about.
I will pursue the cleanest Elmar copy that I can find, whether it be a "red scale", coated, uncoated, and etc.
The Industar/Japanese lenses are probably fine, but given that the Elmar is fairly common and relatively inexpensive (compared to the f2.0/f1.4 Leica lenses), there is less of a reason to pursue an alternative.
goamules
Well-known
Exactly.
I've tested Elmars against Fed and industar lenses several times.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130386
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=113110
For me, the real Elmar is the way to go. I just completed a 2 week camping trip in the Sequoia and Yosemite Nat'l Parks, and for film all I used was an Elmar on a lever wind Nicca.
Bingley
Veteran
Another vote for the little Elmar. I've got a post-war coated version and pre-war uncoated nickel one. Both are excellent little lenses. Neither lens was expensive.
Uncle Fester
Well-known
And another vote for the Elmar. Bingley, some of your stuff that you shot with the Elmar inspired me to go for one as well. I ended up with a coated 1946 vintage lens that I absolutely love.
Filzkoeter
stray animal
+ another Elmar vote. You can buy them really cheap sometimes (paid less then 100€ for my coated one).
Compared to the two Industars I had the Elmar has _much better_ IQ.
Compared to the two Industars I had the Elmar has _much better_ IQ.
Bingley
Veteran
Thank you, Zathros, for the kind words. These are wonderful little lenses.
KnipsOmat
Established
That's simple. All the FED collapsibles (Industar-10, though this does not show on the lens) have the Elmar-like tab.
With Zorkis, you mostly get KMZ Industar-22 lenses. Very early specimen up to 1949 had the tab, all newer ones have the knurled ring. (Tab only on versions that say "Moskva" or "Zorki" on Beauty ring).
All collapsible Industar-50 lenses have the knurled ring.
kievan81
Member
I have an elmar, industar 50 and industar 10. The i-50 is as sharp as the elmar but it's bigger and longer than the elmar. It's easier to change the aperture on i-50. The i-50 is the smallest. I can even collapsed it in sony a7. It's not as sharp as the elmar but sharp enough. My copy focus beyond infinity which i assume the mfd is longer than 1m
Wulfthari
Well-known
Here there's a I-50, I don't see a difference between it and the 22, at least aesthetically speaking, the 50 is supposed to be sharper at the corners.
http://fedka.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=79
I just received a nice I-50 like this one from Fedka and I want to use it on my IIIb, I already have a Summitar and I wanted a coated lens, and to be honest I didn't see the point, these are some samples of the pictures I've taken with an early I-61 (the one that looks like a 26m) in excellent conditions:
Can the Elmar do better? I doubt that...however I wanted a collapsible lens so I got the closer thing to a I-61 I could find, and I'm curious to test it.
Edit: I received the lens, it was made in 1966 and appears in quite good conditions, today I tested it, unfortuantely it was a rainy day, bad light and I was using XP2, that is not as good as BW400CN IMO, however I didn't dislike the results much, I like this shot wide open at 1/250:
rgraphex
Established
I shoot with a NY leica wollensak f3.5 5cm made around 1945 nice blue coating more of a Tessar design.
Spavinaw
Well-known
Can anyone direct me to a comparison of the Elmar 50/3.5 and the Serenar 50/3.5. I have the Serenar and have always wondered how it compared to the Elmar.
