ELmar 3.5cm 3.5

<p>Any thoughts on Elmar 3.5cm 3.5. I've got one mounted on my M6, shot a few rolls with it and the results were not that bad at all. I only shoot black and white on film and am wondering if I would improve anything buying a Voigtlander Nokton or Color Skopar. I am looking for an old vintage black and white look.</p><div></div>

<p>If it has not been professionally cleaned, do that instead of getting another lens. :-)</p>

<p>I have an Elmar wide made in 1939, uncoated. I get great vintage images with it even with color print film. My example has a bit of fog inside creating some lack of contrast. It is imperative to use a lens shade at all times with the 50 and the 35, same shade fits both and doesn't vignette. I don't know the code name of this shade, off hand, but it is very tiny and like a short tube with a thumbscrew to allow it to be fastened onto the lens in question.</p>

<p>I have this lens as well - 1938 vintage. Paid less than a hundred US bucks at a store for one in really nice condition :-)<br /><br />It's incredibly small and almost disappears out of sight, when you mount the proper yellow filter and hood (Mine is a post-war FOOKH, labelled both Elmar and Summaron). Haven't used it much so far, but here is an example from August - shot straight into the sun. Nice :-)<br /><br />Soeren </p><div></div>

<p>Mine has a white spot in between rear glasses but it doesn't seem to worsen performance.</p><div></div>

<p>Another example with more sun</p><div></div>

<p>I think I'll stick for a while with that lens. What makes it extremely attractive to me is not it's performance (I know it's not a summicron...) but it's very small size. In fact I don't think there are other 35mm's made that are so compact. Any way, thanks for your comments so far.</p>

<p>The A36 Summaron 35/3.5 is almost as small, and is definitely optically superior. Corners are soft and squishy wide open with the Elmar 35/3.5.</p>

<p>As John says - Summaron 3.5cm/3.5 - an excellent lens - <a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/2403704482_ea4d066df5_o.jpg">example</a> <a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/2403704482_ea4d066df5_o.jpg"> </a> <em><br /> </em></p>

<p>alan, was that picture taken with a wide open summaron?</p>

<p>I too have an uncoated 3.5cm Elmar, a nickle version from 1932, using it interchangably with the original 5cm Elmar on a Leica II from the same year. I have a little black paint weisu finder, a necessity on the II, which is left in place on the camera full time. Not as pretty as that M6, but everything fits comfortably in the pockets, including black hoods for both lenses (a fison and a flqoo). The hoods are a plus under most lighting conditions. Though others may not approve, I'm using little 19mm #1 yellow screw-on filters on both at present, more or less permanently fixed. I used 19mm (E19) panchromatic greens for a long, long time, but for now have decided those tend to muddy highlights a bit sometimes (all in the mind I suppose).<br>

More specifically on the 3.5cm, the one I have was serviced within the past two years by a leitz technician in England, and, for now, is close to perfect all round, apart from a few black specks visable under a loupe. Dust or whatever. And I simply do not discern any significant vigneting. Even Leitz advised stopping down to at least f4.5 to overcome that effect. As for my experience, the old 5cm Elmar shows more fuzzies and such at the edges and in corners, and that lens is physically flawless, never serviced in its looong life. As for color, my 3.5cm does very well (subjective veiw), with, in my case, the aid of an E19 Ceneiplan R + 3 decamired filter. These old early 30's Elmars really are quite special in color. The tones are in the manner of Vermeer (well, kind of that anyway).<br>

Short answer and opinion: keep the 3.5 Elmar. It is unique. Keep a filter of some kind over its face--to save the glass if nothing more. Find a correct hood and use it well. You have a really good looking rig.</p>

<p> I too have an uncoated 3.5cm Elmar, a nickle version from 1932, using it interchangably with the original 5cm Elmar on a Leica II from the same year. I have a little black paint weisu finder, a necessity on the II, which is left in place on the camera full time. Not as pretty as that M6, but everything fits comfortably in the pockets, including black hoods for both lenses (a fison and a flqoo). The hoods are a plus under most lighting conditions. Though others may not approve, I'm using little 19mm #1 yellow screw-on filters on both at present, more or less permanently fixed. I used 19mm (E19) panchromatic greens for a long, long time, but for now have decided those tend to muddy highlights a bit sometimes (all in the mind I suppose).<br>

More specifically on the 3.5cm, the one I have was serviced within the past two years by a leitz technician in England, and, for now, is close to perfect all round, apart from a few black specks visable under a loupe. Dust or whatever. And I simply do not discern any significant vigneting. Even Leitz advised stopping down to at least f4.5 to overcome that effect. As for my experience, the old 5cm Elmar shows more fuzzies and such at the edges and in corners, and that lens is physically flawless, never serviced in its looong life. As for color, my 3.5cm does very well (subjective veiw), with, in my case, the aid of an E19 Ceneiplan R + 3 decamired filter. These old early 30's Elmars really are quite special in color. The tones are in the manner of Vermeer (well, kind of that anyway).<br>

Short answer and opinion: keep the 3.5 Elmar. It is unique. Keep a filter of some kind over its face--to save the glass if nothing more. Find a correct hood and use it well. You have a really good looking rig.</p>

<p>Sorry for one key stroke too many.</p>

<p>Starvy - My usual working aperture is f5.6, so that is most likely. I have a few other photos <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikkormat/sets/72157604287262884/">here </a> and some notes on them <a href="http://glyptolith.wetpaint.com/page/Leica+and+Voigtlander">here</a> . I have several versions of the Summaron, with the 1964 f2.8 being the best, but none of them are slouches. The 1955 f3.5, compact version is a pretty sharp and low distortion lens, but the front element is a weeny bit exposed to glancing light even with the correct hood - maybe some experimentation with hoods on the early Summarons could be beneficial.</p>

<p>I recently got a 5cm Elmar "red-scale", tiny and very well performing. Only problem is that it can not be fully collapsed into the M4-P (no problem with the M7, though)<br>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/gsamj/image/120386173.jpg" alt="" /><br>

(Neopan Superpresto 1600PR scanned as color-negative)</p>

 

<p>Picture of Black Duck taken with Leica M-1 with 1939 uncoated Elmar 35mm f3.5 at ISO 400 print film f12.7 at 1/60 second using tiny black push on lens shade (Fison?). Image cropped slightly. The lens has never been serviced and could use a CLA but frankly why bother, I like the results as they are!</p><div></div>