Leica LTM Elmar coated or uncoated?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
L

lawnpotter

Well-known
Local time
2:26 PM
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
451
I have decided to get an Elmar 3.5 50mm. Is there a different character between the 2 versions ? (aside from more flaring with the uncoated version) Is it simple to say go for the coated, or is the uncoated worth concideration as well? Thanks.
 
Uncoated is a better bet than most uncoated lenses because there are so few elements (only six air to glass surfaces). Leica wouldn't be where they are now if it hadn't been for the uncoated Elmar.

The adjustable 35-50-90 hood is quite cheap, so get one of those too.
 
I was asking myself the same question.

Then, I reviewed quickly the situation I was in.

For my IIIc and my IIIg, I already have:

-a summicron 35mm (came with the IIIg, "flee market", south of France, last summer)
-a coated summitar of 1947, very nice and clean (came with the IIIc)
-a Heliar 50mm f/3.5 (Cameraquest)
-a Nikkor 5cm f/1.4 (Sendai last Spring)
-a nice uncoated, black, 1939 elmar 9cm, with the FIKUS hood (Zurich last autumn)

I ended up buying a very clean, uncoated, nickel elmar 50mm, for 140 euros (a bit expensive, may be; but its nice condition got me).

I considered that already having a coated 50/3.5 lens (the heliar I had through cameraquest is really a breathtaking tool), and having enough coated lenses, what I was missing was something giving me the look of (very) old glass, in B&W pictures (and probably soft, pastel-like color; have yet to verify/try that).

The rest will be essentially relying in my aptitude in printing with the good paper, I think. The only thing annoying me, with uncoated lenses, is the difficulty finding cheap and good condition a36 filter.
 
I have a coated Elmar 50/3.5 from 1947. It's got very clean glass, and gives a sharp yet lower contrast image that's very good for landscapes. It also does a lovely job w/ color film, but if you like the pastel look uncoated would be better.
 
Thank you.

And thank you for calling attention to the superb work of Stephane Marco on flickr. I have admired and followed his photography for some time, and he does lovely things with old Leica glass including an Elmar (I believe he has several of them).

Another photographer on flickr who often uses an Elmar, and who takes great street photos with it, is Eugenio Garcia from San Jose, Costa Rica. Have a look here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eugenio_garcia/tags/elmar/
 
Nice landscape!

I have been using the 50/3.5 (1938) with TMax100/PanF50 etc. for landscape type stuff. It's plenty sharp, if you are careful with potential flare.

This is such a cool lens, especially paired with a prewar Barnack.
 
Thank You, Bingley !

The work of Eugenio García is really interesting in many ways, I feel. I wasn't aware of its existence. It is kind of a show window of what one can actually do with quite old glasses (elmars, summar, summitar…). Very, very informative, and beautiful. I still have to try a summar someday, but will stop for know and concentrate on what I have, which I feel may be already "too much" in terms of gear for a beginning with a Leica camera.

What is really nice with the work of Marco, is its hability to play with the old elmars optical characteristics, and its choice of paper. Some of his prints, on Bergger paper, are just extraodinary. It is not "just" well made photography anymore.

I feel both García and Marco are also good lessons/solutions against gear acquisition syndrom, as their standard leica outfit is kind of limited in size (and price).
 
Last edited:
I have purchased some filters on the auction site, and also from KEH. These are the clamp-on variety. I also use the Fison hood. I would love to find the gizmo that allows you to change the aperture without removing the filter, but it's hard to find.
 
Kherberos said:
Thank You, Bingley !

The work of Eugenio García is really interesting in many ways, I feel. I wasn't aware of its existence. It is kind of a show window of what one can actually do with quite old glasses (elmars, summar, summitar…). Very, very informative, and beautiful. I still have to try a summar someday, but will stop for know and concentrate on what I have, which I feel may be already "too much" in terms of gear for a beginning with a Leica camera.

What is really nice with the work of Marco, is its hability to play with the old elmars optical characteristics, and its choice of paper. Some of his prints, on Bergger paper, are just extraodinary. It is not "just" well made photography anymore.

I feel both García and Marco are also good lessons/solutions against gear
acquisition syndrom, as their standard leica outfit is kind of limited in size (and price).
Click to expand...

I agree completely, although admiring their work has not saved me from GAS!:eek::)

One correction to my post regarding Garcia: it appears that the Elmar he uses is the 3.5 cm version. Still, he is a master at street composition, IMO, and his landscapes taken w/ other old Leica 50s are terrific too.
 
The problem with GAS, is that I never realize that I am having a stroke, as I always find good reasons to buy what I buy… Then, after, when I wonder what should I do with lens a, or lens b, I finally wake up… too late.
 
It has an infrared index too. Unfortunately, with the demise of HIE, infrared film photography now involves an opaque filter and a tripod. This was from the good old days when you could handhold with a 25 Red.

bir7.jpg
 
The veiling flare with an uncoated lens (I've used an uncoated 1936 Elmar for over 40 years) tends to make outdoor pics blue and indoor pics under tungsten yellow.

Cheers,

R.
 
If you plan on shooting color film, I would look for the coated lens, but I think the coatings are just single coated anyway aren't they? For B&W I haven't found much, if any, difference. More important is to have a good hood for it. Maybe a little more contrast w/ coated, but that's easy to adjust w/ an uncoated one. The most important thing w/ these old Leica lenses is condition. A clean lens, either coated or uncoated, is great. Focal Point cleaned a Summar w/ fungus for me for $95. Worked very, very well. In fact, other than a pristine 50 DR, a clean Summar will outperform most any Leica lens (not the APO's obviously), in my experience anyway. The catch is it needs to be at 5.6 or so to really sharpen up.
 
Last edited:
Even Erwin Puts rates the Summar: "The performance on axis (till an image height of 4-6mm) is quite commendable." And that's at f/2! Also, "At 1:8 we have excellent performance till image height 9mm, after which quality drops visibly."

So basically, find a clean one and ignore the corners and it's as sharp as you like.
 
Kherberos said:
Very nice, Bingley.

As for uncoated elmar (nickel), here is the work of a guy on flickr. But the beauty of it is strongly related to compositon and printing.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/msteph/sets/72157617230732382/
Click to expand...


Absolutely stunning.

(Makes me feel as though I should just sell all my cameras and just go into the forest and beat on a log with a club...:rolleyes: )

But maybe I'll get my 1932 Leica II and nickel Elmar 99xxx CLA'd and try some B&W....
 
Luddite Franck,

Yes, I kind of feel a bit the same! Hunting boar with a spear comes to mind also...

Stephane Marco uses very few lenses/camera. I remember I read somewhere (maybe his flickr presentation?) that he was using a 1932 leica with its 50mm elmar, had a Leica III with a summar, and had an MP with a recent summicron.

He was stating that he found old glasses more "poétiques" in their rendition. It appears in its pictures, but some are also stunningly sharp as well.

Thank You for the input, Roger,
Would this mean to you that using, say, Fujia Velvia 50 with such uncoated old glasses would be kind of meaningless? I am still hesitating, actually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom