Opinions 50mm f/3.5 Elmar lens

[OldNick]

My Elmar markings stop at f/18, but the aperture will move past that point to approximately f/22. Those marketed in the US had the distance scale in feet, while those marketed in Europe were marked in meters.

Jim N.

 

[Dralowid]

Are there some elmars with a minimum f18 aperture and some with a min f22 aperture? is there any other difference between them?

Late chrome Elmars go to f22 as do 'red scale' Elmars. Earlier ones are f18

There is an ongoing debate as to whether there was an optical design change around about the introduction of the 'red scale' lenses but some say it is simply a difference in the glass.

I wouldn't know, my 'red scale' lens is about as clear as a foggy day in the English Channel. I use a much older one and am perfectly happy.

Michael

 

[Xmas]

The front glass surface is very soft, if uncoated use a filter and dont clean, there is a gadget to make adjusting the aperature easier with a filter and hood attached, an expensive metal ring.

It will flare as readily as the former FSU colliapiles, even if you use a hood, dont use it wider then 5.6 if you want mega posters, and are using tripod and sloooow film.

 

[raid]

The Elmar gives me pastel colors with color film.



B&W:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5543516

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5541197


http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5543521

Color:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5288156


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=37748&ppuser=3565

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=37749&ppuser=3565

 

[Marc-A.]

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?

Edho, the Elmar 3.5/50 is a wonderful lens whether coated or uncoated. Uncoated Elmars are cheaper and as good as the coated ones, provided you use a Fison Hood. Here some shots with uncoated Elmar from 1939 (I really miss this lens!!)

Best,

Marc

 

[raid]

I like the second photo a lot, Marc. Well done.

Raid

 

[john neal]

Raid,

I just love the B&W shots of your daughter and the water - outstanding!

Marc,

Love that second shot - pure movies!

I have three Elmars - an 11 o'clock uncoated nickel from 1932, an uncoated 7 o'clock from 1937 and a coated 1946 model. Apart from slightly better colour performance, the coated one is not much different to the other two.

I have to say that the 1932 version is probably the best of the lot - super sharp at f5.6 and smaller with great tonality (even in colour). The 1937 one is probably the softest of the three - it has minute cleaning marks that are very hard to see and the glass is clear, but does not present as sharp an aerial image as the other two.

While I might consider selling the 1937 example, I don't think the other two will be going anywhere soon. I have just bought a nice 1937 Summar and hope to have a Summitar soon, so I will be able to run a set of comparison shots from 5 50mm lenses - the 3 Elmars, 50mm f2 Summicron and f1.4 Canon. I think that might produce some interesting results!

Oh, make that 6 lenses, forgot I have a 50mm I-22 as well 🙂

 

[raid]

John: Thanks. I am quite pleased with my Elmar. I don't know when it was made.

Raid

 

[Marc-A.]

Thanks Raid and John.
Elmar is a great lens. Maybe the best RF lens for the size ;-)

 

[richard_l]

My Elmar 5cm/3.5 is usually on my IIf. It was made around 1953 and is free of haze. I carry a tiny FISON hood for situations in which there might be a possibility of flare. Of all my equipment, the IIf with the Elmar is what I enjoy the most.

Here's an Elmar shot I took last week. I had forgotten my meter :bang: , so I shot the entire roll using Sunny 16. All the exposures were okay, but I still feel better with a meter.

 

[kully]

Marc - do you love it more than your summitar?

 

[Marc-A.]

Marc - do you love it more than your summitar?

Hehe tricky question, Kully 🙂
Elmar and Summitar have their own signature, so that you can't really compare them.
But I can go further: I like the Elmar for street photography and, stopped down, I prefer it to my Summicron.
Though the Elmar is great for portrait too (see Raid's portrait and dlridings's portrait of his or Rebecca), for portrait, I prefer my Summitar wide open (photo maths: 2 > 3.5). But wide open I prefer my Summitar to my Summicron (the bokeh of the Summitar is wonderful); and stopped down I don't see much difference with my Summicron which is just more contrasty.
So real question to me now is: why did you buy an expensive Summicron, idiot?
I think I have experienced this common truth: each lens has its proper use depending on what you want to get. For the moment, I don't know what I can get from my Summicron ...
Take care my friend,
Marc

 

[-vin-]

is there any relevant difference between the screw and the bayonet version?

 

[payasam]

Harry Lime said it: more than any other, the 50/3.5 Elmar is the Leica lens.

 

[ZorkiKat]

I have the uncoated version too, circa 1933. It shoots well, but tends to render hues cooler (ie, a bit bluish). Got the Russian "clones" too- I-10, I-22, and I-50.
The Russian Industars are more Tessar than Elmar, by virtue of the diaphragm's position; the Industar had it in the same place as the Tessar. Elmar had the diaphragm after the front element.

I think the uncoated Industar-10 (marked as FED-50) gives better contrast than my
uncoated Elmar. However, these uncoated Industar can only be used with the FED they came with. This lens also shoots colour nicely.

This snapshot was shot with an uncoated FED Industar -50 lens (ca.1948 or 49) and a FED-1:

[/IMG]

Jay

 

[john neal]

A little late with this, but I knew I had some shots from my 1932 Elmar somewhere (the film was largely ruined becuase the shutter on the body I was using did not -self cap on rewind).

Anyway, this is from a 1932 11 o'clock uncoated Elmar on a 1933 Lieca II body, I'm very impressed with how it has rendered the fine detail, plus the colour is not bad either.

 

[raid]

Daniel

Made an error in the labelling- lens used for that snapshot was an uncoated Industar-10 (marked "FED 50mm"). Yes, its colour rendering does remind of 1950's colour postcards. BTW, that was shot in Boracay last April.

The Industar-50 is indeed a great lens. Too bad, the chrome rigid version looks a bit ugly, not unlike its smart-looking collapsible sister. 🙂 One good Zorki body + 1 good Industar is really a good setup. So cheap that it's tempting to get more....😀

Jay

Jay,

The ugliness of the rigid I-50 can be viewed as "interesting looking". 😀

Raid