Bought a worn out old Leica III, now need a lens

[photo5]

<p>Hello,<br /> I just won an ebay auction for a worn out old Leica IIIa body. Condition unknown, most likely will need some refurbishing. Now I need a lens! Am thinking to buy an 5cm Elmar. KEH has some for around $200 in BGN condition. Should I assume that BGN condition means lots of scratches and hazy glass? I know there are other screw mount lenses available, but I want a Leica to match the body. I've never owned a Leica before so this will be a new experience. Should receive it in a week or so, and will have to inspect it. <br /><br />Thanks!</p>

[marc_rochkind]

KEH is known for under-promising and over-delivering. You might find a BGN less entirely usable. If not, you can

return it.

[robert_hooper1]

<p>I would look for a lens that doesn't have fog, haze, scratches, or a lot of cleaning marks. Some cleaning marks are inevitable for a lens that old . The Leica Elmar 50mm f3.5 is actually a decent performer, if not handicapped by the aforementioned flaws.</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>In a 50mm lens, consider the collapsible Summicron. If you want to go a little wider, and don't mind using a non-Leica brand, get the 35mm Voigtlander Color Skopar. In either case, get the auxiliary top-of-camera viewfinder. The tiny built-in 50mm finder can be tedious to use; while there is no 35mm (or other focal length than 50) one built in.</p>

[john_boyle3]

<p>Take your time and look for a lens in good condition. Stick with Leitz lenses. The Elmar is a good choice but a Summar or Summarit would also be suitable. The Summicron may be somewhat expensive. If you're in a larger city try some camera shops or pawn shops where you can inspect any prospective purchase. Lenses can be cleaned but avoid those with scratches.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>If the camera is to be used for photography and not as a fashion accessory, I'd do as Rob F. advises.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Thanks all for your replies. I have a line on an inexpensive Elmar 5cm lens from a photo.net member who contacted me privately. Since I don't know the true condition of the IIIa body, I will wait until I know if its usable or not (my technician will examine it).</p>

[christopher_m]

<p>First question. Which Elmar? There are uncoated and coated Elmars. You'd be able to look up the year from the serial number, and that should tell you a lot. I'd go for a coated lens, btw.</p>

<ul>

<li>Elmar - great lens if you can live with f/3.5. Collaspibility is a big plus. Prewar lenses are uncoated. $150-$300. </li>

<li>Summitar - good lens. Collaspes but perhaps not enough to be useful. Low contrast at f/2. uncommon filter thread. Prewar lenses are uncoated. $175-$250</li>

<li>Summicron - rather expensive. $300 -$450</li>

<li>Summarit - often full of haze and scratches. Very low contrast at f/1.5. $250 - $400</li>

<li>Summar - often full of haze and scratches. Is a bit of a trendy lens now to produce artsy portraists. I think all are uncoated. $100- 250</li>

<li>Nikkor 50/2 - great clone of the Zeiss Sonnar. Most don't have the haze issue that Leitz lenses had. $200-$300</li>

<li>Canon 50/1.8 - good quality lens. improvement over 50/1.9 Serenar. - $150</li>

<li>Canon 50/1.9 - Summitar like style and quality - $125</li>

<li>Voigtlander 50/2.5 - modern compact high contrast lens. </li>

</ul>

<p>Unless you want to add an accessory viewfinder, I'd stick to a 50mm lens</p>

<p>Besides KEH, there are several different outlets, some with better prices. In my wee blog, I made a post which details places to go for used Leicas. <a href="http://photosttl.blogspot.com/2011/01/where-to-buy-used-leicas-and-other.html">Here is the link</a>.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Thanks Christopher, very helpful information. As this is my first Leica, I want to have a Leica lens on it.</p>

[nickc1]

<p>I think you are probably wise to find a Leitz lens to go with your camera, however which you choose depends upon how much you wish to use the camera. I went for a coated lens as being more practical with my IIIa, and settled on a 1947 coated f2 summitar to go with my 1939 camera. I had to have the rangefinder mirror replaced as the image was too faint to use.</p>

<p>In addition to the excellent information above the f2 Summar has a reputation for excessive flare, so it is probably best avoided.</p>

<p>Although I would not suggest you pair your camera permanently with a non Leitz lens, using other makes is a different question - the early alloy 50mm Jupiters can be good performers and make a handsome pairing with the camera. </p><div></div>

[josh_carr]

<p>The Elmar is the best bet. Coated or uncoated, all have good contrast because there are only four elements and six air to glass surfaces; a screwmount 'cron has about a squillion, with its little "air lenses". Not especially prone to cleaning scratches, something that can't be said for the 'cron, Summitar or Summar. A good Summar produces amazing pictures on dull days but isn't as versatile as the Elmar because it flares in any contrasty lighting. Summar prices have gone silly now; they were literally giving them away a few years ago.<br>

I'd go for an early uncoated Elmar in good condition, unless you get lucky and find a late red scale Elmar for 230 UKP like I did. Sometimes eBay sellers stick stuff on Buy It Now without researching the market properly.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I've won an auction for an Industar-22 lens, which looks like an Elmar, though I've read it is closer to a Tessar. Coming from Russia, will probably arrive in a few weeks at best. The corroded Leica IIIa I won is on its way to my camera technician. I hope the corrosion is not too extreme. He says it is relatively simple to remove the shell to take a look. Seems like the cheapest Elmar in BGN condition is $200, and as I don't know if I'll have a usable camera to go with it, I'm going to wait.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Dave, glad to see you found an Industar lens (the Elmar is I believe also a 4 elment Tessar design). I guess my email didn't reach you, in respect of my 1930's Elmar, which is but 50% of the $200 cheapest price you saw. If the Industar has coated elements, it should be fine.</p>

[paul_goutiere]

<p>I did the ultimate sacrilege and bought a very nice Industar 50 f3.5 collapsible for $30.00 + shipping a year ago. I find it quite adequate but for the difficulty in adjusting f stops with a lens hood.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>Don't overlook the Industar 2.8 lenses. I had a 52mm f/2.8 a few years back. They are fine optics.</p>

<p><a href="00CMhb">http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00CMhb</a></p>

<p>I have a 55mm /2.8 that replaced the 52mm.</p>

[josh_carr]

<p>The thing with the Russian lenses is that they either work or they don't. I had an 85mm with clear optics, very sharp etc but it was about a metre out at all distance with the rangefinder. Apparently the hit rate is about 1 in 3 with that one; the shorter ones are likely to be more tolerant of a small focusing error. I'd paid very little for it so I donated it to a guy at work who takes old cameras and lenses apart.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Thanks Arthur, for offering my your lens at a very reasonable price, and then withdrawing that offer and rudely refusing to sell it. It's a nice introduction for a photographer getting into Leica photography. I hope you think more carefully when you make someone an offer. Refusing to follow through with such an offer is rude to say the least. I've never dealt with anyone on photo.net like you, and hope to never again.</p>

[josh_carr]

<p>Dave, try Red Dot Cameras in London. They have a lot of Elmars and sensible prices, i.e. cheaper than eBay and with a guarantee. I have bought an M3 and an Elmarit from them recently by mail order and they were better than expected.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>For the benefit of others who have to digest your public remarks, they might wish to know that I have spent a lot of time trying to help you with suggestions on this and other OPs, but with no thanks from you. I have used polite talk with you (as I do with all strangers as well as friends) in our email correspondence, only to have brash comments from you and insults, as in your last note (recorded emails, should any moderator need access to them). When I mentioned my lens at $90, and not in the classified section, I was not aware of its real value, but you would have received it then if you had replied, which you did not. Farther up on this OP you and others will see that I reminded you that it was available, after you had previously ignored my offer and saying that the lenses brought to your attention were priced at $200.</p>

<p>When you finally responded and asked for pictures, I did that, on March 10th, and anyone may see those in my portfolio. I also took a photo wide open of a tree for your perusal. After all that, I had no reply from you. Not on the 10th, 11th or 12th. Three days later, March 13th, I investigated the real value of the lens at antiquecameras.com, which surprised me greatly, indicating 1933 nickel Elmar values of betwen $175 and $300. I then informed you (in the absence of your prior interest and no replies at all) that I had discovered the real value of the lens and was withdrawing my offer (which you hadn't responded to in any case) and was going to advertise it at a fair price on Photo.Net. The lens is I think remarkable for its age and should go to someone who will actually appreciate it.</p>

<p>Given all the patience I took with you, ostensibly not a very sage investment, in answering your questions, in providing advice and then not having the decency of a reply from you, until well after the fact (March 14th), I realize that I was dealing with someone who cares only about himself and not in any form of collegiality.</p>

<p>It is also regrettable that you could not keep individual dealings private between the partries concerned, and resorted to the above unfair comments. You would have had the lens at the bargain basement price, if you had responded after all the trouble I took with you.</p>

<p>Your nasty comment is of no concern to me, and I will ask you to not ever refer to me anymore here, unless you wish to do it honestly and on a one to one basis (but that is not likely to be of any great use). I will let others on this forum judge this incident as they feel best. I have always acted honourably in my exchanges here (several sales and purchases in Photo.Net classified, as well as positive interactions with other members on the subject of photography) and in my career and my life to date, and have no intention whatsoever of doing otherwise.</p>

<p>You said after your free insult on March 14th that you intended no other communication. Perhaps you might have the dignity to honour that and leave personal insults off Photo.Net..</p>

[photo5]

<p>Josh, thanks for the tip. I'll be in London this September and will stop by there and take a look. Hopefully they will be willing to forgive the 20% VAT tax!! <br>

As for the Leica IIIa, it arrived today, and the shutter looks like it needs replacement. The first curtain is fine, but the second curtain is very slow, and I think the ribbon looks like it has broken. So most likely I will clean up the exterior and just use it as a shelf display camera.</p>

<p>Arthur, all I know is that if you make an offer to sell someone something at a given price, and then take that offer back, you're basically a liar. If you had any sense of honor, you would have sold the lens to me at the price you promised it at. I hope everyone who reads this on this forum will know of your true nature, and avoid doing any business with you in the future, as I will. Take this as a lesson learned.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>You are a really nasty person, aren't you? Thanks for upsetting the harmony of this forum, which I think many of my fellow photonetters will recognize that I have been contributing to positively for several years. If the moderator should wish to intervene in your present rant I will be available to provide him with copies of the email correspondence and your groundless insults.</p>