Early 5cm Elmar picture quality?

[Dave16]

<p>Hi,<br>

Just scored a very clean, early 5cm Elmar for the 111c, if for no other reason than I want to start using the camera more regularly, and I feel somewhat hampered by the one lens (a 3.5cm Elmar). The lens was just over £120, which I consider a pretty good price.<br>

Anyway, my question - how will the picture quality of the 5cm Elmar compare to the 3.5cm Elmar, which is really very good stopped down a bit?<br>

I've only used the 3.5cm for B and W so far, but have a colour film in there to try currently. <br>

Thanks for reading.<br>

David</p>

<p> </p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>I've only used the 5cm, but it has a better reputation than the 3.5cm, so I doubt you'll be disappointed (and now of course you have a lens that matches your built-in viewfinder). As you've found with the 3.5cm, the 5cm is at its best stopped down, when it gives very nice results. It's prone to flare, and will benefit from a lens hood.</p>

[Troll]

<p>Stopped down to f:6.3 I can't tell the difference between a really clean ancient 5cm Elmar and a late, coated one. My 3.5cm Elmar is also a lot better than expected, (for B&W and stopped down a bit).<br>

Neither, however, has that beautiful crispy sharpness of a Summicron. Not necessarily a bad thing.</p>

 

[john_shriver]

<p>The 5cm Elmar is definitely a better lens than the 3.5cm Elmar. A Tessar formula is really not highly suitable for a wide-angle lens, and both lenses are Tessar formula (other than the unusual placement of the iris). The 3.5cm has strong curvature of field, and soft corners.</p>

[SCL]

<p>After years of using Summicrons & Summiluxes, about 2 years ago I decided to try a 50/3.5 Elmar. I've been very pleased with the results - what I'd describe as an "old fashioned" rendition wide open, and quite good stopped down. I've now picked up a set of filters for this lens and am anxious to try them out and see the differences in contrast I expect them to contribute on B&W. FWIW, this lens performs best with a lens shade. I haven't tried it with color.</p>

[Dave16]

<p>Thank you for your measured responses - pretty much what I'd hoped.<br>

Malcolm Taylor advised me years ago to try the uncoated 3.5 Elmar with colour film - "interesting results" he said, but I've only just got around to loading the 111c with colour.<br>

I enjoy using the 111c much more than my M6, but recently (over the last four years) I was seduced by the Zuiko lens on the original Olympus Trip, and took to buying them whenever I found them at a good price (i.e. next to nothing).<br>

Stephen Lewis, my 3.5cm lens shade fits the 5cm, and I shall take your advice and use it.<br>

Thank you.<br>

David</p>

 

[james_elwing]

<p>My understanding is that the 35mm Elmar varied a fair bit from lens to lens, but that there was often significant curvature of field, useful when foreground objects were close to the edges in landscapes.<br>

This isn't the problem with the 50mm. Otherwise I don't think you will find a lot of difference. The issue will be colour saturation. That's a film choice and exposure issue.<br>

120 pounds looks a good price, as you suggest</p>

 

[Dave16]

<p>Thanks James. My 3.5cm is really sharp stopped down. If the 5cm is as good I'll be pleased.<br>

I think I paid a fair price for a user. The glass is nice and clean though.<br>

I also have a coated M 2.8 50mm Elmar - for less abstract shots. </p>

[Dave16]

<p>The joys of film!<br>

I have several shots to finish the film, then a wait of a week to see the results. Also on test is the Weston meter 111 which I scored last week for a very reasonable £7.00, and my prowess with the 111c. I'm very happy with the meter btw. <br>

Actually, shooting some low-light stuff yesterday was really instructive. I hope I'm right about how steady the 111c was at low shutter speeds! We'll see in a week or so.<br>

The 111c and 5cm Elmar combination, it will come as no surprise to most on here, is an absolute delight to use. My 3.5cm Elmar is relegated to second place for the time being, although I like that lens, and will be using it regularly too.</p>

<p> </p>

[Dave16]

<p>I'm delighted to report back that the little 3.5 5cm Elmar exceeded my expectations by a good margin.<br>

This is a test shot wide open. The subject is my kitchen table - messy, as usual.<br>

The lens is very sharp even at 3.5, and the colour is very nice considering this is an uncoated lens.<br>

To say I'm delighted is an understatement!<br>

<img src="http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx221/dogbloke/CNV00008%20copy_zpsmseiktqi.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="686" /></p>

[james_elwing]

<p>There we are. Get a 90 Elmar and you have a kit:-)</p>

[Dave16]

<p>Damn! just when I thought I'd stopped spending……. :-)</p><div></div>

[james_elwing]

<p>That looks OK. You should be happy.<br>

The only thing cheaper than a 90 Elmar is a 135 Hektor. Maybe you can offer $100 for both:-)</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Great with high speed B/W film too, I think this was Ilford 1600? Can't remember, but I'm not a fan of the cameras because my IIIF's finder was so dirty and I thought the camera was slow to use, its great in a way. but kind a funky old system. but the lens is capable of pretty good photos, in terms of quality. Form one of the 1 or 2 times I actually took the camera out. <img src="https://c8.staticflickr.com/1/35/73720247_eae011b0db_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[Dave16]

<p><img src="http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx221/dogbloke/CNV00032%20copy_zpsgegb7hen.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="649" /><br /> <strong>Leica red-blind 111c, 3.5/5cm uncoated Elmar - no filter.</strong><br /> The latest offering from this lens. It's superb! It's so good I went out and blew £60 (including postage) on an uncoated 9cm Elmar. I have the set now.</p>