Testing the Elmar-M 50 3.5!!

thafred

silver addict
Local time
12:40 PM
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
436
Location
Vienna
Yesterday my lens arrived and luckily I could take a coffee-brake walk into the backwoods near vienna! I loaded a roll of APX 100 and souped it in RHS developer 1:15 8min. now I´m very impressed! my expectations havent been too high but I was curious how it would look esp. after reading Tom A´s post about the lens in my thread : http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45798

now I´m baffled! I had to shoot everything at 3.5 since the light was weak (did some shots at 5.6 - 16 too) and their plenty sharp! what I´m most surprised is how bokeh came out! wow, beats most my other lenses hands down 😛 contrast is low to medium but I prefer that in a lens anyway.

handling is ok, thou I´d prefer a not turning front (it has 2 aperture scales like the late Jupiter8) because focusing is so smooth that you have to hold the barrel when changing aperture! the click stops are soft and well defined but nevertheless the lens turns when changing f-stop. otherwise it looks and feels like new and the glass is very clean and scratchfree!

so, here are some of my boring first test shots: (all wide open)

attachment.php


attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Ast klein.jpg
    Ast klein.jpg
    75 KB · Views: 0
  • blätter klein.jpg
    blätter klein.jpg
    78.1 KB · Views: 0
  • schild klein.jpg
    schild klein.jpg
    68.7 KB · Views: 0
second set: (on my job´s monitor they look awefully dark, I adjusted so there is detail in the dark areas on a good monitor! beware old dark CRT´s)

again wide open:
attachment.php


attachment.php


stopped down to 5.6:

attachment.php


If you want I can show 100% enlargments later!

cheers
fred
 

Attachments

  • brücke klein1.jpg
    brücke klein1.jpg
    93.4 KB · Views: 0
  • bankerl klein.jpg
    bankerl klein.jpg
    103.7 KB · Views: 0
  • bach klein.jpg
    bach klein.jpg
    114.5 KB · Views: 0
I am sitting on an overly bright LCD, they are still dark, try the histogram function in photoshop, its helps. That said it sure does have a lot in common with my old elmar redscale, I wonder if these lenses are related somehow beyond the name.
 
thanks you guys! sorry for the dark pictures and thanks for confirming! I shouldn´t have edited them yesterday night in my dark room :angel:

Avotius: afaik the Red scale elmar and Elmar-M should be the same glass (and coating) in just different mounts! do you shoot with yours?
 
They are not too dark on my new IMac 24. Don`t change a thing. All exhibit a beautiful tonal scale with details in the shadows and highlights.

I think you will enjoy the lens as much as I like my 3.5.
 
glad to hear that their ok on a Imac screen! apple lcd´s are one of the best in the consumer class for photoediting 🙂

oh I wish I could afford a Imac 24 ...dream machine (right after the Mac Pro with dual 30" displays.. *cuff* ..Gut´s for sale! anyone interested?)
 
Fred
Nice test shots! Yes, the 50f3.5 M-mout is one of the unsung heroe's in my mind. When the lens came out, a "fast" black/white film was that new fangled Tri X rated at 200 asa initially. With todays modern films, the slow speed of the lens is less of a problem. You can probably have the aperture ring "tightened" slightly, but it is better to have it a bit loose than too tight. One of mine almost needed a Vise-Grip to set the aperture until I fixed it. Did you get a hood with it? If not, I would recommend it as that front element is "out there" and can flare easily. The Leica hoods are expensive, so I would look for one of the generic 39 screw in hoods (Hama, Hoya etc). Try West Licht's store for it.
Enjoy a classic!
 
Last edited:
Avotius said:
I am sitting on an overly bright LCD, they are still dark, try the histogram function in photoshop, its helps. That said it sure does have a lot in common with my old elmar redscale, I wonder if these lenses are related somehow beyond the name.

I was under the impression that the 50/3,5 which looks the same as the later 50/2,8 is actually just an old screwmount 50/3,5 made in the newer 2,8 housing but with identical optics to the older version.
Perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge of these things can chime in as I'd like to know if this is true or not myself.
 
I have the old Elmar 5cm/3.5 LTM lens. I wonder too whether the M version was optically changed or not from the LTM version.
 
From what I know about the Elmar 50f3.5, the M-mount is the same formula as the late red Scale Elmar in screw-mount. It was introduced with the M3 in 1954 as a low cost alternative and about 13000 were made in all. It is a simple 4 element design but it is also an old design that was massaged over a period of almost 40 years and Leica improved upon it with new coatings and higher index glass. The 50/2,8 came later and is basically a f3.5 that was "opened" up a bit to 2.8. I suspect that Leitz used some of their newer glass in the 2.8 - but I never really noticed a huge improvement.
The 3.5 I find a better lens for close up and medium apertures. The 2,8 is by no means a bad lens, but I find that it lacks the "bite" of the 3.5. I have both the 3.5 and the 2,8 version I and the later 50/2,8 II. The later is better, but that is to be expected, another 35 years of knowledge accumulated, but like many of the newer lenses, it was designed for color, whilst the older ones were made for black/white. Contrast was deemed more important than absolute resolution. There is a certain satisfaction in using these old lenses. For one you appreciate how good the old "masters" were, f3.5 and 40 asa film for street shooting!
Many years ago I had the 28f5.6 Summaron. A small compact wide for the screw mount Leicas. It has impressive resolution, about as good as you will ever need, but the contrast is flat as a pancake! If you print with a normal filter in the enlarger, it does look a bit lifeless and bland, but by punching up the contrast you realize that it is tack sharp. The effect is very much the same with the 50f3.5. So it is a bit slow, a "fair wether lens", but collapsed on a M2 or M3 it is truly a pocketable camera/lens combo.
 
Cheers for that assessment Tom, the 50/3,5 sounds like a nice little lens - more useable than the earlier screwmount version with the awkward method of changing aperture.

How would your rate the early Elmars (3,5 & 2,8) against some of the other early Leica 50s such as the Summitar & Summicron?
 
Yesterday I got the first roll of color film developed and now i´m completely in love with the Elmar. very fine sharpness and texture and contrast perfect for postprocessing! lovely rendition that reminds me of the Collapsable Summicron I used to have, there´s something about those older lenses that makes me like them so much!

Tom: There were two hoods into the package! A leitz angled (35/2 50/2) hood with cut outs and a leitz 50/2.8 straight hood with a broken release spring (the clamps hold perfectly but removing the hood is not easy). actualy that auction was a great deal, I also got a Leitz 39mm UV filter and four issues of Leica photography (two from the 80ies and two from the 90ies) and I was surprised he also included a rear cap with the possibility to attach two lenses! I once read about this accesoire but never saw one, very practical!!
I´m hooked on the look of my M6 with Elmar and angled Hood attached, looks so cool 🙂

I dont remember the aperture I took this portrait but I guess it´s around f5.6, the Elmar has bite indeed 🙂

1273378277_f8f880b65d_o.jpg
 
I have the red scale Elmar 50mm/3.5 (LTM), which is equivalent to your Elmar-M. It is one of the finest lenses I have ever used. Your photos certainly do it justice.

Richard
 
I love the fingerprint of the 3.5/50. In black and white it looks like a pencil rendering.
I have an uncoated example in LTM mount, that I shoot on my IIIc and M bodies.
It's a clean example, but needs to have the lubricants replaced.

Here's a shot I nailed this spring. 3.5/50, IIIc and VIOOH finder. Tri-X @ 400 in DD-X

012607.0002.jpg



HL
 
Harry, great shot - shades of HCB's famous puddle shot - which was probably shot with a 50/3,5 too!
Thafred, great that you got the hoods with the lens. The straight ITOOY hood is a scarce item as most owners refuse to give them up! The " funnel" shaped hood can be reversed on to the lens, hence the cut-out. Good hood too, but I think the straight one looks better.
The back to back lens cap is a smart idea, but check if you ever are going to use modern lenses with it. Sometimes the rear element "dips" down to much and you have that sound of a element hitting the other lens! I use them quite frequently with 50/2 and older 35/2's.
As for the quality compared to Summarit's, Summitar's and old Summicron's. The 50/3,5 is 'snappier" in the rendition than most of these, partcularly the older Summicron collapsible. I find that lens a bit soft wide open and it also has a notoriously soft front coating so finding a scratch free one is tricky. The Summitar is a great lens, not super sharp or high contrast by any means, but it has a very smooth rendition and nothing has aperture blades like that! It is well known for its lack of falloff too. Finding hood's and filters is tricky though (and you need the hood). The Summarit is a "poor mans Summilux I st version". It is a very good lens, with wonderful flary softness at f1.5 - great for portraits . Once you hit f3.8-4 it is actually sharp and smooth. Heavy bugger though and with the correct hood, it looks most impressive. I just did some shots with the Summitar/Summarit on 20 year old Panatomic X (part of cleaning up the darkroom). Very nostalgic look to the negatives!
 
Thanks Tom 🙂
I made that shot in Los Angeles, where ironically it almost never rains.

I also need to find a hood for my Elmar.
Since mine is a 1945 LTM version, I'm thinking a FISON should do the trick.

HL
 
Last edited:
The FISON works well on the Red Scale Elmar, though I have tendency to put my finger on the lens when I am changing apertures! There is strange gizmo that you can stick on it and change apertures from the outside or use one of the rings for using Elmars as enlarging lenses. looks ugly though.
 
Back
Top Bottom