Super flat 35/3,5 Elmar

[laptoprob]

Does anyone have experience with this lens? It would make a super compact combination on any M camera!
It looks as flat as a folded collapsible Elmar 50mm, how does it perform?

cheers, Rob.

 

[Kin Lau]

I have one in SM. It's _very_ compact, it's even smaller than the 50/3.5 Elmar collapsed. Unfortunately, mine has a bit of haze on it. Look in my "RFF Canada" gallery at the "Family at Nursery" shot. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=11541&cat=4981&page=1

 

[richard_l]

A good repair shop can clean out most of the haze. It's not too expensive just to get that done.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I have no experience with the 35/3.5 Elmar but another alternative might be a 35/3.5 Summaron which is also very compact.

Bob

 

[doubs43]

Does anyone have experience with this lens? It would make a super compact combination on any M camera!
It looks as flat as a folded collapsible Elmar 50mm, how does it perform?
cheers, Rob.

Rob, the 35mm f/3.5 Elmar performs as well as you'd expect from a well-corrected and beautifully constructed four element Tessar-type lens. It can be found in both uncoated versions and coated versions. My father often carried his with both caps on and stuck in the watch pocket of his pants.... a perfect fit. I've done the same myself.

The Summaron is slightly thicker but is a better lens in a couple of ways. It's a better formula and the aperture can be changed while using the clamp-on A-36 filters.

Walker

 

[tajart]

these are indeed both compact, and the differences are well stated above. they're both great little lenses. i love how really compact the elmar is, but changing the aperture is slower, and this is another feature the summaron improved.

 

[laptoprob]

Thanks, all of you. These lenses must have the famous soft contrast and somewhat less sharpness. The first is what I absolutely want. How is that sharpness? Stopped down?

Rob.

 

[richard_l]

The Summaron f/3.5 is very sharp. According to the images I've seen, I think it has a little less contrast than the f/2.8 Summaron or the Summicron. There's a thread about it at http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4683 Note especially the posts by Paul Connet and Todd.Hanz, which have attached images. I have an f/2.8 Summaron, and I can't praise it enough, but I would like also to have the f/3.5, which is just as good but has a different "look."

 

[Nikon Bob]

Rob

Check my gallery for some examples of the 35/3.5 Summaron stopped down to F11 I think.

Bob

 

[Ben Z]

I have the 3.5 Summaron in screwmount, and an early-70s Summicron in M mount. There is very, very little difference to be seen in practical photography.

 

[laptoprob]

All comments about the Summaron sound promising, but I was enquiring primarily for the very flat Elmar 35.
Only Walker and Kim have it appearantly... Do you both want to keep it?
I will keep on searching.

thanks, Rob.

 

[Kin Lau]

Not giving mine up... sorry 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's a 'stretched' Tessar -- too fast and too wide -- so image quality (especially in the corners) suffers. Then again the best Tessar I ever had was a 150/6.3: anything faster shows a significant loss of sharpness, and I've had LOTS of Tessars and related 4-glass lenses in the last 40 years.

Personally, I wouldn't bother: a 35/2.5 Voigtlander is sharper, contrastier, faster, and only slightly bulkier. How much this matters to you is another matter.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[laptoprob]

I know Roger, just sold the Voigtlander because of the contrast. I have the Serenar now, would like a very flat one for the CLE.
thanks,
Rob.

 

[doubs43]

All comments about the Summaron sound promising, but I was enquiring primarily for the very flat Elmar 35.
Only Walker and Kim have it appearantly... Do you both want to keep it?
I will keep on searching. thanks, Rob.

Rob, sorry to tell you that I do want to keep my Elmars (I have a coated and an uncoated. The uncoated one is the lens my father often carried in his watch pocket.)

Keep your eyes on ebay. They show up more frequently than you might imagine. Look for auctions closing during the week and during normal working hours. There seems to be less action at these times. Weekend bidding seems heaviest IMO.

Walker

 

[x-ray]

I owned the 35mm 3.5 elmar back in the mid 70's. My lens was an uncoated lens and it was lower in contrast especially in backlit conditions. It was fairly sharp wide open and did improve stopped down a stop or two. I loved the lens for the lower contrast and last year was looking for another when I found a very nice uncoated 28 5.6. I purchased the 28 which is very small and lov e the lower contrast and vintage look. i specifically have purchased three uncoated lenses, 28 5.6, 50 3.5 and 90 f4, that are uncoated to shoot with Bergger 200 (old super-XX kodak) and process in DK-50 to get that 40's/50's look. The look is softer and there's considerable flare when there are light sources in the shot. I then scan the negs and do carbon pigment digital prints. It's a beautiful look. I shoot with a IIIC and non image erecting finder. There's just a different attitude when shooting with this vintage combo that comes through into my images. I might start looking for a 35mm 3.5 elmar again to round out the combo. I've recently scanned some of the images I shot at a eastern european family circus and will be posting those in my gallery in the next week or so.

 

[flamingo]

What about a CV 40/1.4 Nokton, the single coated version ?
That lens has a reputation of being low contrast yet very sharp.

I am interested in getting one to use for transparencies.

Anyone using that lens ?

 

[tajart]

3.5

3.5

i have both, the elmar 35/3.5 and an early version of the summaron 35/3.5- i believe both are coated. the glass is clean and clear in both. i had the summaron listed for a while. both are thread mount.
anyone interested in either, feel free to contact me- i just put stuff in the mail to dag today so i'm anticipating a bill; or watch for a list in the classifieds early next week.