View Full Version : Where is the Elmar magic?
Hi, I recently got my 1st Leica III with a 50/3.5 Elmar collapsible. Just picked up my 1st roll (100 Superia) and am wondering what I am doing wrong. The pictures are just plain "normal", i.e. not worse or better than anything I've shot with an Olympus P&S, for example.
So my question is - what should I expect from this lens? Was it a mistake to use color film with it, i.e., would more of a difference show up on B&W film?
I mean, I understand that (1) I am a total amateur and likely don’t know what I don’t know :) and (2) this is my 1st roll. But *how* do I get the most out this lens?
Any advice or perhaps samples (or pointers to samples) of images that really explore the possibilities of the Elmar would be greatly appreciated.
Andy, see Raid's 12 lenses tsted for Elmar results compared to other lenses. You may not see anything on 4x6 colour prints. 8x10 B+W prints would be telling, I think.
Frank, thanks for the reminder (I admired Raid's shots a few hours ago but was focusing on the Canon lens, which I just got). I guess I need to scan a few frames and see what's going on.
Btw, this site (http://silfver.blogspot.com/2006/02/elmar-5035-showing-its-stuff.html) has some nice images taken with the Elmar, very inspiring examples.
captainslack
03-27-2006, 18:59
Hmm.... You also have the 35mm Elmar, not the 50mm one that most people here rave about. That might have something to do it.
Andy: Also check the negs for density. If the exposure is way off in either direction, it would probably obliterate the Elmar's particular signature/characteristics.
"Hi, I recently got my 1st Leica III with a 50/3.5 Elmar collapsible."
Nope. It's the 50.
Hmm.... You also have the 35mm Elmar, not the 50mm one that most people here rave about. That might have something to do it.
Look closer and you'll see "5cm" clearly engraved on the Elmar. I think you've mistaken the aperture marking for the focal lenmgth.
Walker
I've used my Leica IIIa and Elmar 5cm f/3.5 with both B&W and color, starting with ASA 10 Kodachrome in the 1950s. If the exposure and processing are good, the lens does a fine job. It sounds like you used a commercial processor. I have been disappointed with prints from sources like that. I've found that, for both B&W and C-41 color, I do better by getting a CD only, no prints, then loading the images onto my computer and cropping and adjusting using PhotoShop.
Jim N.
Andy: Also check the negs for density. If the exposure is way off in either direction, it would probably obliterate the Elmar's particular signature/characteristics. Ok, this will undoubtedly reveal my deep ignorance but how do you check film for density?
Not too opaque, not too transparent, but just right.
They should not be so dark that you can't see an image when held up to light, and they should not be so thin that an image is barely there.
... It sounds like you used a commercial processor. I have been disappointed with prints from sources like that. I've found that, for both B&W and C-41 color, I do better by getting a CD only, no prints, then loading the images onto my computer and cropping and adjusting using PhotoShop.
Jim N. Yep, I had it developed at CVS one hour photo... I tried the CD route as well but (at least around here) they tend to scan at very low resolution, good only for small prints.
The one thing I did notice though, is that the half of the film where I used a light meter came out very well exposed, while the not metered ones are all over the place. This surprised me since I can usually shoot a good roll of film with my Zorki 4K + 50mm Jupiter w/out a meter. I think one reason is the non-standard aperture scale, which will take some getting used to (when metering, I had to approximate the stops to match the meter readouts).
Anyway, this is certainly a challenge and I look forward to learning to shoot with this lens.
Not too opaque, not too transparent, but just right. Thank you Frank, this makes sense to me.
Ronald M
03-27-2006, 20:45
You have an uncoated lens made before 1946. Its character is best shown with home processed black and white film. Commercial color processing uses a highcontrast paper and the high contrast is mitigated by the lower contrast uncoated lens. If you are used to looking at the high contrast, you may not like it. Just look at the televisions on display in a store. They have the color and contrast all jacked up on every one. Stereo places do the same by turning the base and treble up telling people the extremes be reproduced, but the uninitiated don`t realize all the mid tones are gone.
Make sure the lens is clean inside by shining a small light thru it. Any haze at all kills the quality.
tedwhite
03-27-2006, 20:46
Don't know Leica stuff, but did use an M3 for some time. Its 50/2 Summicron was superb and gave a certain something to the prints. Luminosity? I'm searching for the right word... But then I metered so the negs were not over or under exposed.
My Elmar has the same aperture scale as yours. Being an engineer, I was taught to interpolate between scale markings and have never found this to be a problem. A half-stop error should not be enough to ruin your negative. However, I would refer to the meter for the first few rolls, or use the "sunny 16" rule, where, in bright sun, you set the shutter to the setting nearest to the inverse of the film speed, (for a film speed of 400, set the shutter to 1/500) and the lens to f/16. As the light dims, open up appropiately.
Jim N.
It's becoming clear to me that developing one's own film is the way to go to get the desired quality.
Rich Silfver
03-27-2006, 21:01
Sorry if you've seen these before - but if not - I also bought an uncoated 50/3.5 Elmar and I'm loving it. It's 'sharp yet soft' - not quite sure how to describe that, hopefully some of my photos may be able to do a better job of showing what I mean.
http://www.pbase.com/rsilfverberg/image/57016050.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/rsilfverberg/image/57016051.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/rsilfverberg/image/57016053.jpg
Andy- Take a magnifier and look at the bronze ring surrounding the front element. You should find a serial number engraved in very small print. Post the number and I will try to date it, to see whether it is pre-war or post-war, hence whether it is likely to be coated or not.
Jim N.
... A half-stop error should not be enough to ruin your negative. However, I would refer to the meter for the first few rolls, or use the "sunny 16" rule... Jim N. Right you are, when approximating the meter readouts on the Elmar scale, all of the frames were nicely exposed. I've been using a Minolta digital meter but am considering the VC Meter II to mount in the hot shoe. Ultimatey though, I prefer not using a meter during daylight, and hope I can use the Leica III + Elmar this way too.
Andy- Take a magnifier and look at the bronze ring surrounding the front element. You should find a serial number engraved in very small print. Post the number and I will try to date it, to see whether it is pre-war or post-war, hence whether it is likely to be coated or not.
Jim N.
Jim,
The serial number on the Elmar 50/3.5 is 243016
Might as well mention the other two Leitz screwmounts I got for this body:
Summaron 35/3.5 - S/N 1283581
Elmar 90/4 - S/N 1411622
Rich, I love the feel of your shots - thank you!
According to a list I downloaded some time ago:
Elmar 50mm 1935
Summaron 35mm 1955
Elmar 90mm 1956
Hence, unless the 50mm was coated after manufacturing, it should be an uncoated lens as others have suggested.
Jim N.
Jim, thank you for looking it up. I've looked at the Elmar under all sorts of angles and it doesn't look coated.
i have a question to ask too. Actually whats the difference from a coated and uncoated? which is better?
Ronald M
03-28-2006, 04:04
The Summaron is coated so make consecutive pictures on one roll to see. Move in closer with the Summaron.
The difference will be the dark tones are not as dark, the light ones not as bright, and any over exposed areas will have less detail. Color intensitity is less.
Turn down the contrast and color saturation on your TV to see it real time.
The big jump is from non coated to coated and then a smaller step to multicoating.
I found some interesting sample shots with the Summaron 35/3.5 and Elmar 90/4.
Summaron 35/3.5
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze7asgb/newphotographythroughvintagecameras2/id19.html
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze7asgb/newphotographythroughvintagecameras2/id20.html
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BzqW&tag=
http://www.englandphotographic.com/methods.html
Elmar 90/4
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze7asgb/newphotographythroughvintagecameras2/id21.html
captainslack
03-28-2006, 12:56
Look closer and you'll see "5cm" clearly engraved on the Elmar. I think you've mistaken the aperture marking for the focal lenmgth.
Walker
Oops!! My bad! :bang:
yossarian
03-28-2006, 14:30
Andy, another consideration is lighting of the particular subjects. If you're doing long
or medium shots with the sun behind you, the characteristics you're after will never
show, especially if the exposure calls for small apertures. Try some tighter shots with
side or back lighting, then look not only at the main subject in the final print, but check the area of transition from in-focus to gradually more out of focus. Try to avoid
stopping down any farther than f/8 or f/9, as the case may be. The comments about
quickie commercial processing are essentially correct, but with care in the use of
light the glow*will* show up, even on the machine prints. And if ever in doubt
about exposure, crank it up--it's nearly impossible to completely overexpose modern
negative films. No human eye can tell the difference between "correct" exposure and one stop over--that's how broad the latitude is.
Fred
Andy, another consideration is lighting of the particular subjects...
Fred Fred, thanks a bunch for the advice. I've already reloaded with Tmax 400, pre-cut a few more rolls and will shoot 'till I get it right (the family is considering a vacation w/out me :)).
yossarian
03-28-2006, 15:27
Fred, thanks a bunch for the advice. I've already reloaded with Tmax 400, pre-cut a few more rolls and will shoot 'till I get it right (the family is considering a vacation w/out me :)).
It serves you right for buying the bag I wanted :D
Fred
It serves you right for buying the bag I wanted :D
Fred Sorry Fred... btw, the seller just emailed me, said the bag was in pristine condition ;)
John Shriver
03-28-2006, 16:17
Being uncoated, your Elmar will have lower contrast than a coated lens. But not dramatically, since the Elmar is a very simple lens, with four elements in three groups. That means that there are four peices of glass, and two are glued together. Each air-to-glass interface causes a loss of light and contrast, so there are six such surfaces in the Elmar.
Coated lenses with more than 3 groups will have more reduction in contrast due to lack of coating.
Coating doesn't increase sharpness, just contrast, and a little more light transmission.
yossarian
03-28-2006, 17:47
Sorry Fred... btw, the seller just emailed me, said the bag was in pristine condition ;)
"Pristine" you say....that word....you are possessed, aren't you? He got inside you
and is using you for all his nefarious plots. The only way for you to save your soul
is to send me the accursed bag. Otherwise, your every thought, every move will be
under his misanthropic control. It's dangerous for me, but I must do this for you
Andy--it's your only way out.
John, thank you for the info. I've ordered a few books, including " Leica: Witness to a Century", the "Leica Pocket Book", and the "The New Leica manual:...", in hopes of educating myself a bit more. I must say I enjoyed reading "The Leica M" book, so these new ones should be a treat as well.
Fred, so kind of you to offer your spiritual help (i.e. to spirit away my new pristine Caontax G bag :)). I will think about it.... nope, I am keeping the bag, curses be damned :)) You can have the pick of my pre-Ford-era system bags though...
Mike Kovacs
03-29-2006, 05:01
Remember, the old prewar Elmar 50/3.5 was THE LENS that made 35mm photography a feasible proposition. High resolution optics are needed to get reasonable prints from such a small film area.
That it seems barely different from much more modern lenses is quite a credit to the achievement Leitz made in the 1920's with this lens! The Elmar only improved over time - if you can handle the slower speed, its certainly a first-class lens, as are any of the myriad of 4/3 Zeiss Tessar type designs.
... That it seems barely different from much more modern lenses is quite a credit to the achievement Leitz made in the 1920's with this lens!... - Which Leica lens would be the modern incarnation of the Elmar 50/3.5?
tedwhite
03-29-2006, 18:51
Maybe the Elmar-M 50/2.8 collapsible?
Mike Kovacs
03-31-2006, 07:23
geez gearheads, I'm talking about the results on film... :rolleyes:
is that normal that the Elmar lens has feet markings and not meter?
Les Lammers
04-12-2006, 06:40
is that normal that the Elmar lens has feet markings and not meter?
The meter scaled lenses were usually sold in Europe. Feet or meters, it really makes no difference.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.