paulfish4570
Veteran
... for my III(f), circa 1951? as in, the "standard" leitz lens for a III(f) of that era? i am perfectly happy with the cv 50/2.5 color skopar for my daily user, so there is no photographic "need" for a period lens.
Last edited:
gb hill
Veteran
The perfect lens for your barnack is the elmar 50/3.5. It's collapsible & fits in the pocket. I don't have a barnack but it's perfect on my Zorki 2c.
muser53
MUSER53
Paul, I'd also consider a Summitar. A little more speed, has that crazy bokeh wide open and stopped down is Summicron like.
All and all a pretty cool lens.
All the best,
Paul
All and all a pretty cool lens.
All the best,
Paul
muser53
MUSER53
Oh yeah, this combo was the first quality camera I ever used. Sorry I sold the 111f (to fund a Rollei) but still have a Summitar and use it often.
PJ
PJ
Livesteamer
Well-known
I have two IIIc's. One has the traditional Elmar 50mm f3.5 and the other a clean Industar 22 collapsible. I would have trouble telling them apart by the photos and the Industar 22 is very affordable. If you can, get a clean Elmar. I also have a 50mm f2.8 Elmar in M mount. A little hard to find in screw mount but an under appreciated lens. Joe
kzphoto
Well-known
I've been using a borrowed 50 f/2 Summar -- it collapses fully into my M body and handles pretty well. The aperture dial doesn't have any stops built into it and the markings are all weird half-stops like 6.3 and 4.5. F
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Elmar 50mm f/2.8. A tiny bit bigger than the f/3.5 but definitely worth it. Not that the "extra" speed does anything, it's the controls of the lens that make it. It brings the Elmar into the fold of aperture tabs in their usual places which is a huge deal for me.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
I use a collapsible 'Cron 50 on my IIIG, nice combo.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I also like the 50mm f3.5 Elmar but the Summitar would also be a good choice IMO.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Paul,
I had some stellar results with the Elmar 3.5/50 on my IIIf and it collapses down to a really neat and compact package. Smaller than almost anything else you'll find short of a digital P&S. I also had the Summitar 2/50 which also performed very well and looked just as good, if not better, on the camera.
A couple of things to be wary of.
I found the Summitar to be quite flare-prone. It also has an abomination of a hood that looks like a packing crate. Most folk do without or make something else to work. The Summitar also has a unique tapered thread for filters and they're hard to find if you want the genuine article although they do pop up on Ebay from time to time. There are work-arounds with adaptor rings etc but it's not very pretty!
The Elmar 'peciuliarity' is that it has lens hoods and filters that are attached by a small set screw that clamps the accessory onto the lens rim. Also the aperture adjustment is a tiny tab on the front face of the lens - you have to be looking at it to make any adjustment so you can't do it while it's up to your eye. It's also difficult if you have a filter or hood fitted - you have to remove them first! One other thing that catches most users out at least once - if you don't fully extend and LOCK the Elmar then you'll likely end up with badly out of focus shots because the tube can retract a little. You'll only get caught once like that though!
I have heard very good reports of the Elmar 2.8/50 collapsible but never used one and they're scarce and expensive compared to the 3.5. I note Phil's comment above that the 2.8 Elmar has a more conventional aperture adjustment and if I was in your position I'd have a good hard look at that lens but check whether it has any strange arrangements for fitting filters and lens hoods. The tapered thread on the Summitar is a real trap!
I had some stellar results with the Elmar 3.5/50 on my IIIf and it collapses down to a really neat and compact package. Smaller than almost anything else you'll find short of a digital P&S. I also had the Summitar 2/50 which also performed very well and looked just as good, if not better, on the camera.
A couple of things to be wary of.
I found the Summitar to be quite flare-prone. It also has an abomination of a hood that looks like a packing crate. Most folk do without or make something else to work. The Summitar also has a unique tapered thread for filters and they're hard to find if you want the genuine article although they do pop up on Ebay from time to time. There are work-arounds with adaptor rings etc but it's not very pretty!
The Elmar 'peciuliarity' is that it has lens hoods and filters that are attached by a small set screw that clamps the accessory onto the lens rim. Also the aperture adjustment is a tiny tab on the front face of the lens - you have to be looking at it to make any adjustment so you can't do it while it's up to your eye. It's also difficult if you have a filter or hood fitted - you have to remove them first! One other thing that catches most users out at least once - if you don't fully extend and LOCK the Elmar then you'll likely end up with badly out of focus shots because the tube can retract a little. You'll only get caught once like that though!
I have heard very good reports of the Elmar 2.8/50 collapsible but never used one and they're scarce and expensive compared to the 3.5. I note Phil's comment above that the 2.8 Elmar has a more conventional aperture adjustment and if I was in your position I'd have a good hard look at that lens but check whether it has any strange arrangements for fitting filters and lens hoods. The tapered thread on the Summitar is a real trap!
Last edited:
alistair.o
Well-known
I can offer an example of an Elmar 50mm F3.5 shot The slight flare to the right is refreaction through the fountain which is just out of sight. This lens (as has been said) is a gem.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Paul,
Here's one I took with the 3.5/50 collapsible Elmar.
Here's one I took with the 3.5/50 collapsible Elmar.
ferider
Veteran
The perfect match would be an LTM Nikkor 50/1.4 from 1951 
Really depends on what you want, Paul. Who's your favorite Leica shooter from back then ? For example, Eisenstadt's favorite was the Elmar 35/3.5, I believe. Bresson started using a Summicron in 1953, and used a 50/3.5 before (not sure) ? The Nikkor was the right choice for David Douglas Duncan, among others.
Really depends on what you want, Paul. Who's your favorite Leica shooter from back then ? For example, Eisenstadt's favorite was the Elmar 35/3.5, I believe. Bresson started using a Summicron in 1953, and used a 50/3.5 before (not sure) ? The Nikkor was the right choice for David Douglas Duncan, among others.
Last edited:
Livesteamer
Well-known
Several months ago I got a Nikkor 50mm f2.0 in Leica thread. It is heavy and a bit expensive but makes lovely images. I am biased towards Nikkors but many like the Canon 50mm's and the Canon 50mm f1.8 is not too expensive. Joe
dave lackey
Veteran
I have heard that "Beano" is good for gas...
paulfish4570
Veteran
ha, dave! this is not a GAS urge. i have set about wondering just in case something pops up. the elmar 50/2.8s (i once owned one in m-mount; believe me, i still miss it 30 years later) are very expensive. i think i could get a good summicron for close to the same price.
Last edited:
crist
Crist
Heliar 50mm 3.5 the best 50mm
crist
Crist
The heliar 50mm 3.5 the best 50mm ever
Nomad Z
Well-known
The 50mm f3.5 Elmar is a goodie, even if it is a bit quirky regarding setting aperture and dealing with filters and hoods. It does make for a compact package when collapsed, and the focussing tab is nice to use.
Below is a shot taken soon after I got my red scale Elmar (1953) and IIIf RD (1954). Aperture was probably f11.
And this is a 100% crop of the corner (minilab dev and scan at about 2.2mp)...
Below is a shot taken soon after I got my red scale Elmar (1953) and IIIf RD (1954). Aperture was probably f11.
And this is a 100% crop of the corner (minilab dev and scan at about 2.2mp)...
paulfish4570
Veteran
nice resolution, nomad ...