sanmich
Mentor
Is this just a typo, or an interesting new/old type of film?
Simon Bruxelles
Established
Yes, both. It is hard to find and very expensive.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
I have a 1940-vintage Elmar 35 /3,5 uncoated that was my prime lens of my user 1934 Leica III.
At that time, I was doing a lot of documentary photography of building projects, trains, car shows, etc.
As for a compact package, nothing can beat the Elmar 35.
It is also pretty slow, and low in contrast. I have noticed a tendency towards vignetting with mine.
The Canon 35mm LTMs are decent in performance... the 2.8, 2.0, and 1.8 versions all generally receive good reviews.
Another small lens that can produce decent results is the Komura 35 in LTM...
For the money, the CV Color-Skopar is the surest bet, vs. the crap-shoot of a volatile e-bay listing / tired lens with optical issues...
Regards,
Luddite Frank
At that time, I was doing a lot of documentary photography of building projects, trains, car shows, etc.
As for a compact package, nothing can beat the Elmar 35.
It is also pretty slow, and low in contrast. I have noticed a tendency towards vignetting with mine.
The Canon 35mm LTMs are decent in performance... the 2.8, 2.0, and 1.8 versions all generally receive good reviews.
Another small lens that can produce decent results is the Komura 35 in LTM...
For the money, the CV Color-Skopar is the surest bet, vs. the crap-shoot of a volatile e-bay listing / tired lens with optical issues...
Regards,
Luddite Frank
PAN F
Established
Quote from his forum:-
"Theory rarely matters much. I just get pissed off with people who deny that there have been any (theoretical) advances in lens design. Whether you get great pics with your Biotar or not, you'll enjoy using it. But when someone says, "I want a good lens for a __________" and someone recommends a frankly lousy vintge lens, or says "You can still take great pics with a [select old mushy lens here]" I wonder how much they're doing to help the OP with his (rarely if ever her) question.
Cheers,
R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever Roger Hicks say's
I would rather use and recommend any of these vintage lenses that, in my opinion and many others, give a defined yet slightly unsharp detail and smooth dreamy rounded image,together with lovely pastel tones when used with modern B/W and colour film stock.Modern lenses do nothing for me,they are so very high contrast with modern film emulsions and I do not like the modern trend for razor sharp images that these lenses give.This is MY OPINION AND I STAND BY IT and I am quite sure I am not alone.
"Theory rarely matters much. I just get pissed off with people who deny that there have been any (theoretical) advances in lens design. Whether you get great pics with your Biotar or not, you'll enjoy using it. But when someone says, "I want a good lens for a __________" and someone recommends a frankly lousy vintge lens, or says "You can still take great pics with a [select old mushy lens here]" I wonder how much they're doing to help the OP with his (rarely if ever her) question.
Cheers,
R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever Roger Hicks say's
I would rather use and recommend any of these vintage lenses that, in my opinion and many others, give a defined yet slightly unsharp detail and smooth dreamy rounded image,together with lovely pastel tones when used with modern B/W and colour film stock.Modern lenses do nothing for me,they are so very high contrast with modern film emulsions and I do not like the modern trend for razor sharp images that these lenses give.This is MY OPINION AND I STAND BY IT and I am quite sure I am not alone.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Pioneer
Mentor
The Circle Closes
The Circle Closes
Ha ha, and the circle closes.
Obviously you don't agree with him, but you have to admit, he does make his point. Most people are better served by using newer glass, as well as newer cameras, because they usually work well in more situations than the vintage equipment.
Don't be concerned, I love using my vintage equipment, and I will defend my right to use it whenever I want at every opportunity, but if I were to be asked to make a choice between a ZM 35mm Biogon, and a Leica 35mm Elmar, I can certainly tell you which I would chose first, as well as recommend first, and the name would not start with "E." However, if I already owned a Biogon, or a Color Skopar, then I might consider buying and using the Elmar to find what I can do with it.
The point as I see it is not that the Elmar cannot be used, obviously it was, and is, used successfully. However, if someone is asking for advice on buying their first 35, the best advice to the OP may be to recommend a lens that is more likely to provide decent images in more circumstances than the one that may be saddled with issues that have been resolved by more modern designs and materials. Contrary to popular opinion (at least it seems popular sometimes) old is not necessarily better, it is just old, and progress is not always bad.
The Circle Closes
Ha ha, and the circle closes.
Obviously you don't agree with him, but you have to admit, he does make his point. Most people are better served by using newer glass, as well as newer cameras, because they usually work well in more situations than the vintage equipment.
Don't be concerned, I love using my vintage equipment, and I will defend my right to use it whenever I want at every opportunity, but if I were to be asked to make a choice between a ZM 35mm Biogon, and a Leica 35mm Elmar, I can certainly tell you which I would chose first, as well as recommend first, and the name would not start with "E." However, if I already owned a Biogon, or a Color Skopar, then I might consider buying and using the Elmar to find what I can do with it.
The point as I see it is not that the Elmar cannot be used, obviously it was, and is, used successfully. However, if someone is asking for advice on buying their first 35, the best advice to the OP may be to recommend a lens that is more likely to provide decent images in more circumstances than the one that may be saddled with issues that have been resolved by more modern designs and materials. Contrary to popular opinion (at least it seems popular sometimes) old is not necessarily better, it is just old, and progress is not always bad.
Simon Bruxelles
Established
Elmar vs Summaron
Elmar vs Summaron
Here, as promised, are comparison shots with the Elmar 3,5cm and a Summaron 3.5cm. I used a Yellow 1 filter with both and a Fikus hood which turned out to vignette far more with the Summaron than the Elmar. Having looked at a number of shots with both lenses all I can say is that there is not a lot to choose between them, though the Summaron is slightly crisper with a bit more contrast. However I sometimes prefer to carry the Elmar because it's the correct vintage for my IIIa and has a lower profile
Elmar:
Summaron:
Elmar vs Summaron
Here, as promised, are comparison shots with the Elmar 3,5cm and a Summaron 3.5cm. I used a Yellow 1 filter with both and a Fikus hood which turned out to vignette far more with the Summaron than the Elmar. Having looked at a number of shots with both lenses all I can say is that there is not a lot to choose between them, though the Summaron is slightly crisper with a bit more contrast. However I sometimes prefer to carry the Elmar because it's the correct vintage for my IIIa and has a lower profile
Elmar:
Summaron:
Roger Hicks
Mentor
At what apertures? Generally, the smaller the aperture, the less the difference.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Simon Bruxelles
Established
The light was fading so aperture was f5.6 on the Summmaron and f4.5 on the Elmar and the speed for both shots was 1/60th. Shot on HP5 developed in Ilfosol 3 for 6.5 minutes. A Flqoo hood arrived this morning so vignetting will hopefully no longer be a problem. Here are three more shots from the same film taken with the Elmar:
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Thanks.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
dabick42
-
@ Simon B ...
Your findings with the Elmar 35mm mirrors my own experience with Leica lenses of the 30s and 40s, coated and uncoated.
Provided they are haze-free and unscratched, these lenses, fitted with appropriate lenshoods, will delight and amaze most people with their performance.
Razor sharp they are not ; more than just merely adequate they most certainly are, as your statues shot amply demonstrates...
Your findings with the Elmar 35mm mirrors my own experience with Leica lenses of the 30s and 40s, coated and uncoated.
Provided they are haze-free and unscratched, these lenses, fitted with appropriate lenshoods, will delight and amaze most people with their performance.
Razor sharp they are not ; more than just merely adequate they most certainly are, as your statues shot amply demonstrates...
Luddite Frank
Well-known
Don't remember where I read it ( pretty sure it was in a book, possibly one of Morgan & Lester's Leica Manuals), I seem to recall seeing the comment that the 35mm focal legnth really pushed beyond the useful limits of the Elmar's Tessar lens design...
It was "good enough" until something better came along...
And the 28mm / f:6,3 Hektor is fairly ridiculous as far as I'm concerned... imagine how much of a challenge that was to use in the days of sub-100 ASA film speeds...
It was "good enough" until something better came along...
And the 28mm / f:6,3 Hektor is fairly ridiculous as far as I'm concerned... imagine how much of a challenge that was to use in the days of sub-100 ASA film speeds...
