Leica LTM Which 50 Elmar for BW prints? Or just Cron.

[helen.HH]

Elmars are GREAT lenses...
punchy, beautifully sharp, lots of character for B&W

since we are talking Barnacks and need ltm
the 3.5 Elmar to my Eye has lovely sharpness , a tad fatter rounder 'feel' to rendering
both shots below are 50 3.5 elmar uncoated, Leica IIIA




chasing the Pied Piper.... by Helen Hill, on Flickr






Waiting on a Friend... by Helen Hill, on Flickr

 

[helen.HH]

Miss f2.8 Elmar to my eye is thinner, slightly more refined sense of rendering


Quiet by the Pond...



[url=https://flic.kr/p/WSMZ5c]

Tango by Helen Hill, on Flickr

 

[helen.HH]

but if it's speed You need for shooting film
than f2 collapsible might be the way to go...



glistening tracks... by Helen Hill, on Flickr






Tied Up by Helen Hill, on Flickr

 

[helen.HH]

My Favorite 50 'Elmar' is the Modern M f2.8...
too bad it cannot go on the barnack




Rock Me... by Helen Hill, on Flickr

 

[Erik van Straten]

Even the oldest Elmars are very good, this one is from 1928.

gelatine silver print (elmar 50mm f/3.5) leica 1A

Erik.

 

[Rob-F]

I use the collapsible Summicron on my LTM bodies. It seems just right, and I feel no need for a different 50 on an LTM.

 

[Dralowid]

I've been following this thread waiting for it to come round to the 'original' Elmar and come round it did.

 

[shawn]

These are from a comparison I did awhile ago between a Elmar-M on a M240 and a 1932ish Nickel Elmar on a 1932 III with TriX.

Shawn

 

[Dave Little]

I love my 1952 3.5/50 Elmar + 111g Ilford FP4 Dev in Bellini Hydrofen 1/39 5 min @ 20c

Austin Tourer by Dave Little, on Flickr

 

[helen.HH]

Yum Dave, Beautful !

 

[helen.HH]

cool comparison Shawn...very little difference
can Isay perhapsrge second photo ia a touch sharper , though it depends on where i look

 

[shawn]

cool comparison Shawn...very little difference
can Isay perhapsrge second photo ia a touch sharper , though it depends on where i look

It does depend upon where one looks a bit. Think the focus point was probably slightly different between the two since it was different lens and camera combos. And I can easily sharpen the first shot too. When viewed at full size one has more obvious detail but that is also due to a 6mp scan vs a 24mp DNG.

A couple of more that I didn't match as closely in post.

Shawn

 

[Bingley]

1932 uncoated Elmar 5cm/3.5:

Park Winters by bingley0522, on Flickr

Organization by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[raid]

The posted images here are beautiful. They make me want to take B&W photos.

Erik: your Summitar has 10 aperture blades and is uncoated. My Summitar was made in 1950 and it has 6 blades. Most likely it is coated.

 

[Bingley]

Coated Elmar 5cm/3.5 from 1947. Alas, I no longer have this lens, but it was v good.

Spoonful by bingley0522, on Flickr

Spider Lily by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[Bingley]

I recently picked up a red scale Elmar 5cm/3.5. Still learning its ways; it may have a little haze, but results on bw look promising...

Autumn rays by bingley0522, on Flickr

Escape from quarantine by bingley0522, on Flickr

These elmar 50s are ideal on a Barnack Leica. I don’t think I see the 3D effect from the Elmar 50 that I see from a Summitar, but the Elmar is capable of excellent tonality and sharpness.

 

[Bingley]

Elmars are GREAT lenses...
punchy, beautifully sharp, lots of character for B&W

since we are talking Barnacks and need ltm
the 3.5 Elmar to my Eye has lovely sharpness , a tad fatter rounder 'feel' to rendering
both shots below are 50 3.5 elmar uncoated, Leica IIIA




chasing the Pied Piper.... by Helen Hill, on Flickr






Waiting on a Friend... by Helen Hill, on Flickr

Lovely work, Helen!!

 

[Bingley]

Lovely shots Steve. The colour sunset. And those beautifully processed black and whites. Such nice blacks.

Thank you, Richard. Much appreciated!

 

[shawn]

1932 nickel Elmar + III Foma 100

Shawn

 

[shawn]

1953 Collapsible Summicron +M3 on Foma 100

Shawn