Leica LTM Opinions 50mm f/3.5 Elmar lens

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
colyn

colyn

ישו משיח
Local time
2:16 PM
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
4,532
I picked up this lens today at the show. Glass is clean and clear with no fungus etc. It is the uncoated version.

I have never used the 50mm Elmar and was wondering what to expect from it..
 
I have Elmar Uncoated and russian Industar 22, which is a coated copy of Elmar and I like both, with slight preference to I-22. Attached a photo with I-22 into the sun and with NO shade. Elmar flares in this situation, but I-22 did well, I think with a cool effect.
 

Attachments

  • 10-23-2006-16.jpg
    10-23-2006-16.jpg
    105.2 KB · Views: 1
  • elmar-and-industar-3.jpg
    elmar-and-industar-3.jpg
    74.8 KB · Views: 1
elmar

elmar

I am thinking of buying a 50mm f3.5 elmar too. Any more advice about the coated and uncoated version in terms of market price and performance? Does it mean the coated russian option perform equally well ( or better) than the elmar uncoated with much lower price?
 
With any of the Soviet lenses, much depends on the assembly. That is, was the lens assembled and collimated correctly? Or was it simply assembled and not checked for infinity focus.

All things being equal, a coated lens should perform better than an uncoated lens, in offering better contrast and suppressing flare.

However, don't be afraid to buy an uncoated lens. I have some uncoated Tessars that are very capable performers. And Krosya's attached photo is excellent. The flare has given this photo a very nice character that it wouldn't have with a coated lens.

Another side benefit of an uncoated lens is lower contrast, which sometimes is beneficial when photographing a very high-contrast scene.

One benefit of lens coating is that it can help protect the lens against cleaning marks. Cleaning marks can still be a problem, but you will find that uncoated lenses are much more susceptible to this type of damage, which can really affect an image.
 
Last edited:
The Soviet collapsible Industar has the best build with regards to FSU lenses.

To my eyes prints made from negs that were exposed with the I-22 have a bit more contrast than if I used a coated Leitz Elmar.

Leitz's version of the Tessar is good, but so is the Industar. Both have that f/8 sweet spot.
 
Colyn: The Elmar 50/3.5 is not expensive, and it is built very well. I would try out an Elmar first. Uncoated lenses are not inferior to coated ones when it comes to B&W photography. I just posted some images taken last week with an Elmar 50/3.5 from the 30's, on a Standard Leica from the 30's. I like this lens.

Here is a link for a few shots taken with the Elmar and XP2:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=691289


Raid
 
raid said:
Colyn: The Elmar 50/3.5 is not expensive, and it is built very well. I would try out an Elmar first. Uncoated lenses are not inferior to coated ones when it comes to B&W photography. I just posted some images taken last week with an Elmar 50/3.5 from the 30's, on a Standard Leica from the 30's. I like this lens.

Here is a link for a few shots taken with the Elmar and XP2:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=691289


Raid
Click to expand...

Judging by your photos I'd have to say this is a good lens.

I bought a Leica II (D) with the 50mm Elmar today at the show. I've always used either the Summitar or Summicron and was not familiar with the quality of the Elmar.

What sold me on the lens was the excellent condition of the glass. No marks or other damage so hopefully it will prove to be a worthy buy..
 
Colyn: You may love this lens. Mine is also very clean. I used F 11 in all shots posted here. The Elmar is also great for color photography. I get pastel like colors.

Raid
 
I bought a coated 50/3.5 Elmar with my Leica IIIa in 1952 and it was my only lens for some years. It produced beautiful slides with the slow Kodachrome of the 50s. The aperture adjustment is getting a little stiff and the felt ring that surrounds the barrel has loosened up, but it still makes good images. It, along with the IIIa, deserves a CLA soon.

Jim N.
 
Thanks for the info Raid.. I'll be giving it a try this week.

Someone took very good care of this lens. Most Elmars I see are well used.
 
Yes, I also have read online that a large proportion of old Elmar lenses are abused.

Raid
 
This is a good conversation - I'd like to get an uncoated one to pair with my uncoated 90/4 Elmar. Of the early ones (for which there seems a zillion variations) can anyone recommend a good one & a good vendor?

Thanks,

William
 
Solinar said:
The Soviet collapsible Industar has the best build with regards to FSU lenses.

To my eyes prints made from negs that were exposed with the I-22 have a bit more contrast than if I used a coated Leitz Elmar.

Leitz's version of the Tessar is good, but so is the Industar. Both have that f/8 sweet spot.
Click to expand...


I acn agree about the build quality of the FSU Elmar clones. These, and the Jupiter-8's seem to be the least troublsome of the FSU lenses, I've been pleased with mine.

The FSU Elmar clones are the only Russian lenses that I know of that are made of brass and steel, unlike the other FSU lenses which have a lot of aluminum, and in late models, plastic in the lens mounts.
 
Solinar said:
The Soviet collapsible Industar has the best build with regards to FSU lenses.

To my eyes prints made from negs that were exposed with the I-22 have a bit more contrast than if I used a coated Leitz Elmar.

Leitz's version of the Tessar is good, but so is the Industar. Both have that f/8 sweet spot.
Click to expand...
I have a coated Elmar made in 1949 and a coated FED I-22 of indeterminate age and this is exactly my experience; a bit more contrast with the FED. Both are terrific lenses and I've compared the Elmar to my current Elmar-M and the current lens is sharper at the larger apertures as you would expect but it is pretty close at the smaller apertures.
 
I have a coated 50mm Elmar f3.5 from 1953. I bought it in about 1963, and have used it ever since. It flared once in July of 1964, while in the Sacramento Valley. I have heard of these lenses flaring but it hasn't been a big problem with me. It is sharp and the color slides I have from it are beautiful. It is on a body now (IIIF) that is loaded with Plus-X. It would, with that body, be the last camera and/or lens I would sell. I also have never collapsed my lens therefore it is in perfect condition.
 
If anyone did want to try the cheap alternative to the Elmar (the I-22) I have its brother, the Industar-50 coll, that I'm willing to sell/trade. I never could afford the 'real' Elmar - not with the prices here in the UK for one.
 
No doubt about it, its a surprisingly good lens. It does not have the fine detail resolution of some (check the MTF curves) but not that you would notice it in practice. The longevity of this lens with only very minor changes is a testament to the robustness of its original design. (Isnt it wonderful to think that a lens design that old, and computed d manually- no new fangled electronic computers then) still works so well.)

I like moderately specc'd lenses as they often excell. Each era has some very nice lenses of this type that produce nice shots. The Elmar has a simple lens design (4 elemants in 3 groups) that handles flare quite well and so even in non coated form will no doubt produce nice shots. I have a 1934 version on a 1936 111a. The 111a was upgraded with factory flash sync probably in the 1950s and (I can only presume) the lens was coated at the same time. It shoots like a dream.
 
Last edited:
Are there some elmars with a minimum f18 aperture and some with a min f22 aperture? is there any other difference between them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom