My Leitz Elmar f-3,5 experience

M

matu

Guest
Hi I've just posted some pictures to my gallery, taken with this lense on a Zorki 4.
This one came with my Leica IIIb I got from my father.
Since it's an strange old looking lense and not fast I didn't pay much attention to it, so I decided to test it, and I´m beggining to like it.
 
matu

Just had a look at those Elmar photos and they seem to have that classical old style B&W look. Have you had any problem with flair? I sent mine out to be cleaned internally and can't wait to try it out when it comes back. They really look the part on a LTM camera.

Bob
 
I really like those pictures. Bob is right. Oldschool look.
 
Nikon Bob said:
matu

Just had a look at those Elmar photos and they seem to have that classical old style B&W look. Have you had any problem with flair? I sent mine out to be cleaned internally and can't wait to try it out when it comes back. They really look the part on a LTM camera.

Bob
Click to expand...

Hi Bob,
Do you mean flair like sharpness or flare?
Anyhow I can tell you that it's not a sharp lense, I would describe it more "soft look".
I took some pics with backlight and I didn't have any flares, I think it may be due to it's shortness.
This lense had some fungus inside, so after some reading here I learned about "baking" the lense, and now there is a very small mark inside the lens.

wblanchard, thanks for your kind comments, I also like that old style.

Pablo
 
Very nice... I need to get out more with my Elmar as well. The feel of it on a IIIa is just so "right".

What was the film & development?
 
Kin Lau said:
Very nice... I need to get out more with my Elmar as well. The feel of it on a IIIa is just so "right".

What was the film & development?
Click to expand...

Kin, I used Tri-X 400 film, developed with D-76 at full strength. I agree with you that the Old Leica's still rock.

Pablo
 
matu

Sorry , meant to type flare. You have not noticed any in backlight situations so that answers that. Now I am curious by what you mean by its shortness?

Bob
 
I don't know technicaly, but I think that a short lense grab less direct ilumination than a long one, forgive me if I'm wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Matu indeed they have that old school looks and the choice of subjects you did works very well with them, seems you have a great combo in your hands, send us more pictures ! :)
 
taffer said:
Matu indeed they have that old school looks and the choice of subjects you did works very well with them, seems you have a great combo in your hands, send us more pictures ! :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Oscar, I'm planning to use it more regularly.
 
Pablo I'm sure you know that your lens was made in 1939 - and it certainly suits the subject matter here! :) These pics are great and I'm going to get my own Elmar 5cm on my camera and snap a few! ;) Thanks for posting and I hope to see some more...
 
Hi Peter, thanks for the info, did you get that from the Number on the lense?
I'm glad to see this lenses get some use, when I was a child I admired this camera I got from my dad, he bought to an American photographer when our family lived in Wisconsin Madison, he had it acquired during the IIWW in Europe.

Glad to see you are getting your Elmar.

Pablo
 
Peter

Thanks for the site tip. Always wondered about dates for lenses with no serial nos. and now I know.

Bob
 
Yes, thanks Peter, I didn´t knew how old was my lense.

Pablo
 
The Elmar 35mm f/3.5 lens is often overlooked much like the 135mm f/4.5 Hektor. They're old, they're slow by modern standards and there isn't anything new about them to excite anyone..... until someone decides to give the old lens a try.

The attached picture was taken with a 1949 Elmar 35mm lens using the first roll of film I ran through my Leica IIIc. It was Ilford FP-4 developed in Rodinal 1:25. The picture was taken late one evening last August with direct sunlight on part of the structure and other parts in shade. What you see is roughly 98% of the full frame, cropped only enough to eliminate a couple of ragged edges picked up by the scanner,

I also own a 1938 35mm Elmar that was my father's for many years.
 
Last edited:
My 5cm/f3.5 Elmar is serial nr. 690xxx and is also made in 1949. I tested it against my current Elmar-M 50mm/f2.8 when I bought it last year and at f5.6 I couldn't see a difference in sharpness between the two lenses with a loupe. Contrast yes, sharpness no. I bought a light yellow filter for it and that should make the contrast better and I only lose a 1/2 stop.

Pablo has really enthused me for the lens so I'm going to finish my current roll with it. :)
 
peter_n said:
My 5cm/f3.5 Elmar is serial nr. 690xxx and is also made in 1949.
Pablo has really enthused me for the lens so I'm going to finish my current roll with it. :)
Click to expand...

I'm at work now but I'm pretty sure my serial number is 694,xxx. The 1938 model is in the mid-400,000 range. The Elmars, as with any well-made Tessar formula, is capable of excellent results.

I hope you'll post a few of your pictures when you're finished the roll.

Walker
 
I've got a 35 3.5 Elmar, circa 1937 #401689 Uncoated, of course. No sign of abrasions or haze.


I live at 5200'... skys almost always clear, year round. This means lots of flare and orders of magnitude more UV than at sea level.

The old uncoated Elmar is a ghastly- terrible-coke bottle under most lighting conditions.

HOWEVER it becomes good, infinitely better, with the 35MM hood that I got with my 35 3.5 Summaron (coated). The Summaron is of course sharper in very careful nose-to-nose comparison and that Elmar adjustment gizmo is a pain, but WITH A LENS HOOD the Elmar is plenty good. My uncoated 90 Elmar circa 1938 is a little sharper than the 35 but also improves a great deal with the same lens hood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom