Elmar 50mm 2.8

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I have two Elmar style lenses: one a 90mm Elmar and the other a 35mm Serenar (Canon). Both had haze and I had them cleaned; the 90mm has been fine like you say, but the Serenar falls back to its old habit of hazing. I now clean that one myself; very easy on the Serenar.

I'm trying Ravilious style shading device on the Serenar at present using a haze fiiter (sorry about the quality of the photos; a huge crop at 3200 ISO):

DIY semi hood by John Carter, on Flickr

What's the purpose of that shading device? Is it supposed to work like a lens hood to reduce flare?

 

[Mudman]

I have an uncoated ltm from the 30's and a V1 elmar m mount 2.8. I really do enjoy them both.

 

[peterm1]

Curious what developer is used here. Seems something soft like D23 maybe? 2 bath d23?

I have no idea but whatever it is, the result is very nice. You could ask him I suppose. If you are on Flickr you can message him and ask. If my memory serves me correctly we have communicated via Flickr and he understands English. This is most readily done by commenting on one of his images and asking the question in the comment. it will be public however.

 

[shawn]

Elmar 2.8 LTM on IIIG

Shawn

 

[fti]

Elmar 2.8 LTM on IIIG

Shawn

Great action shot. I posted this on a different forum as well, but this one's taken by my 9 yo. I preset focus and settings. Slight crop.

 

[jrose125]

The 50 2.8 Elmar is most definitely a sleeper lens. I took mine everywhere with me on my former M3.

[/url]cuba-bluecar by Jacob Rose, on Flickr[/IMG]

I wish I still owned it!

 

[charjohncarter]

This is a little bit of an aside. It's nice to see another fan of James Ravilious. He was a champ photographer with a special style. I have not tried any of his lens or camera hacks (which I have heard about in a film on him that used to be available on the internet but has since disappeared except for a short fragment) but I have a "collection" of old lens hoods bought from the junk bins often found in older style camera stores - many of them by old 1950's and 60's third party firms which work quite nicely on lenses I use now (even if I need a stepping ring in between the lens and the hood to get the diameters matched up.

Another aside touching on Ravilious. I follow a couple of Chinese photographers who's work now and then reminds me somewhat of Ravilious' style. Probably because like Ravilious some of their work documents an older life style in a changing world in black and white. The second one below seems to work in film as the images are all scanned and some date from events of 20 or more years ago.

美撒郭

Untitled by 美撒郭, on Flickr

Bahai Yang Hui

2010.10.25.[10] Zhejiang Yuyue Town Lunar September 19 Yuhuang Temple Festival 浙江 禹越镇九月十九禹皇庙大节-56 by Bahai Yang Hui, on Flickr

Sorry I missed your comment: older ways of life is hard to find these days. But when you get close to it in California there is a lot of irony. Real cowboys busting broncos with fans watching using their cell phones. There are many ironies is central valley California and the Salenas Valley, California with the lives of farm workers also into modern California tech.

Son and daughters of farm workers now in a burger joint:

Expired Kodak MAX 400 2002 by John Carter, on Flickr

I know out of focus.

 

[johnkunstadter]

Ravilious lens shades

Ravilious lens shades

I have two Elmar style lenses: one a 90mm Elmar and the other a 35mm Serenar (Canon). Both had haze and I had them cleaned; the 90mm has been fine like you say, but the Serenar falls back to its old habit of hazing. I now clean that one myself; very easy on the Serenar.

I'm trying Ravilious style shading device on the Serenar at present using a haze fiiter (sorry about the quality of the photos; a huge crop at 3200 ISO):


DIY semi hood by John Carter, on Flickr

@charjohncarter: For years have appreciated your photos and comments on RFF.

The work of James Ravilious has been a great inspiration for me. Unfortunately I cannot find a full online version of the Robin Ravilious interview in which she shows some of James' lens shades for shooting contre-jour. Are the horizontal edges of the tape on your Ravilious-style shading device tangential to the circumference of the lens or did you use a formula to decide where to place the tape edges?

JK

 

[charjohncarter]

^^^I think this is what you are looking for:

https://www.bitlanders.com/movie/james-ravilious-a-world-in-photographs/21614

 

[johnkunstadter]

^^^I think this is what you are looking for:

https://www.bitlanders.com/movie/james-ravilious-a-world-in-photographs/21614

Thank you very much for the link.

In the film there is a brief glimpse of one of Ravilious' lenses with the opening squared off, as Robin R. says. Have you tried various shapes?

JK

 

[Deleted member 65559]

^^^I think this is what you are looking for:

https://www.bitlanders.com/movie/james-ravilious-a-world-in-photographs/21614

Absolutely beautiful photographs. Thank you!

 

[peterm1]

^^^I think this is what you are looking for:

https://www.bitlanders.com/movie/james-ravilious-a-world-in-photographs/21614

Thanks for this. I have searched several times for it ever since it disappeared off Youtube.

Alan Bennett's voice somehow compliments the tone of the video which is poignant, nostalgic, peaceful and a little sad.

regards Peter

 

[brusby]

Anyone have any experience with the Sooky-M? Thinking about adding that for close up focus.

Yes. Just got one and did these tests recently to check accuracy of focus and general quality of images using both the Sooky-M and also DR Summicron on M240 with lenses wide open.

Focus in all cases was on the center object that is in sharp focus.

First pic is of the Sooky-M leaning against 50mm Elmar with small UOORF 16508 adapter in front (taken by DR Summicron).

M2405106 by Brusby, on Flickr

Second shot is taken using Sooky-M with the 50mm Elmar f2.8 from the previous photo.

M2405125 by Brusby, on Flickr


Third shot is using Sooky-M with Optics module of DR Summicron with UOORF 16508 adapter shown in previous photo.

M2405119 by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The problem is, the Soviet lenses just plain don't focus accurately on Leicas. They weren't designed to. I have an Industar 22 sitting on my desk right now that backfocuses. It isn't because it was built wrong, and it cannot be adjusted; its the way that Soviet cameras' rangefinders were calibrated. It would work fine on a Zorki or FED.

I use Leica and Canon lenses, despite the fogging that is a problem with many of them because I like being able to shoot at wide apertures and have my subject in focus. None of my lenses have haze because they've been cleaned.

Almost year old, but can't be ignored.

This is just a denial of the fact what FSU LTM lenses are as common on Leica mount cameras as old Canon LTM lenses.
Not wrong, but different. Where are threads, instructions all over internet how to do it. Never heard of Brian Sweeney in Leica world?

And collapsible Industar series are easy to re-shim for Leica.

Re-shimmed I-22 on M3.

In fact, I have to re-shim both Canon 50 1.8 which came to me. One was totaled due to the fog in between optical element. Which is common for those lenses. Not for FSU.

 

[84Bravo]

industar 61

industar 61

I have a number of Russian lenses that I like to play with on my digital M cameras. For whatever reason almost every Industar 61 that I've tried focuses properly for me. I suppose that the f2.8 max aperture covers the minimal back-focusing. At around $10 ea, it's worth buying a few and keeping the best. I gave the others away to friends to mess around with. Usually they just have sloppy or still focusing rings from old lube. They are sharp lenses, if rather boring in terms of character IMHO.

I've had to shim every Jupiter 8 that I've tried and it's pretty easy to do. I never bothered with reducing the FL for infinity.

I bought a Jupiter 3 recently from a seller in Russia that I assumed would need some adjustment, but it was dead on from 1 meter to infinity. The lens was mint condition as well. I wonder if it never focused properly on a Russian camera for the previous owner which would explain the mint condition. I won the Russian lottery with that one and it's one of the best FSU lenses that I have.

 

[Bingley]

I had a Leica Elmar 50mm f2.8 in LTM mount a few years ago. I liked it well enough, but it was no better than the f3.5 version. About the same time, I got my first Summitar, which was exactly the same siize as the Elmar 2.8 and which I thought is a much much better lens all ‘round (and did not have that annoying rotating aperture when you focused). So I sold the 2.8 Elmar and kept the 3.5. But the 2.8 may be a relative bargain if you can find one. A couple of pics:

Into-the-Woods by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

Lighthouse by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

 

[Erik van Straten]

The Elmar-M 50mm f/2.8 is sharper and has more contrast, but is also much more expensive.


Erik.

 

[nzeeman]

i need help from you guys-i found elmar ltm f2.8 for 250eur... is that ok price or can go lower? im super stupid for prices...

 

[HenningW]

i need help from you guys-i found elmar ltm f2.8 for 250eur... is that ok price or can go lower? im super stupid for prices...

Is that the Elmar-M (the new one) or the old one? If it's the old one it could be a reasonable price for a very clean, clear one or it's a very good price for the recent one.

I have one of the latter and it's very nice. Focusses to 0.7m, non-rotating barrel and good contrast. The only let down optically is that the far corners never quite get sharp, but that is rarely important.

 

[nzeeman]

i am stupid - didnt write... its old ltm - thanks for help - it also seemed ok-i feel like i would go more around 200 but i dont think seller will agree hah