Elmar 50 LTM lens photos

[Rich Silfver]

Post them if you got 'em.

This is from a hike a few weeks ago.

http://www.pbase.com/rsilfverberg/image/66797085.jpg

[ampguy]

Nice photo rich! Great angle. The dog looks familiar ...

[Rich Silfver]

Nice photo rich! Great angle. The dog looks familiar ...

Thanks - but hey, there are two dogs in the photo :)

[VictorM.]

Leica IIIf, Elmar 50/3.5.

[Rich Silfver]

Daniel, nice!
Is she reading DN eller Aftonbladet? :D

[Marc-A.]

I like your picture, Daniel, and I know it for a long time (as far as I can remember, you keep always this Leica III and its Elmar in the kitchen). This picture and the following one by Tuna (I like very much his work) convinced me to buy an Elmar. Here is the one by Tuna, that I simply love:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/playground2.jpg

And now a couple of Elmar shots from my own gallery:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/medium/Stairway_to_Beach.jpg

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/4903/medium/In_the_TGV.jpg

Long life to Elmar!

Marc

[furcafe]

Not a TM Elmar, but pretty close, a 5cm/2.8 Tessar on a Zeiss Ikon Super Nettel:

http://static.flickr.com/4/7749157_19d58948dc_o.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/7749157/

[sirius]

Wow, I have read that these lenses are pretty "poor" compared to other leica lenses like the summarons, but it must all be relative because these images are very nice.

[shaaktiman]

LTM mount but it is the 2.8. Really unbelievable quality with this lens, especially considering the production date. Low contrast, but SHARP! Nice thread.

[Rich Silfver]

Wow, I have read that these lenses are pretty "poor" compared to other leica lenses like the summarons, but it must all be relative because these images are very nice.

Well, it's partly true. Older uncoated Elmar lenses are not as sharp - or contrasty - as later Leica lenses and they are also very prone to flaring. However, they can produce some very nice images that many people find appealing.

[Rich Silfver]

LTM mount but it is the 2.8. Really unbelievable quality with this lens, especially considering the production date. Low contrast, but SHARP! Nice thread.

Wow, that's one sharp Elmar. What year is it from?

[shaaktiman]

Wow, that's one sharp Elmar. What year is it from?


Good question. The serial # is 1635321. Can anyone help me out here? I think it is from the very late 50's.

It's worth noting that everyone else posting to this thread are using the much older and softer f3.5 lenses. I'm pretty sure mine is basically the same lens design as any 2.8 that you'd buy from the 60's or 70's, just in LTM. So I'm kinda cheating.

[VictorM.]

Looks like 1958: http://www.kbcamera.com/lensdates.htm

[Bill58]

They may be "poor" compared to other Leica 50 LTMs but just a quick look on the 'net reveals they are $$$$$$. At least $400. Wow!

Why?

[Bill58]

After seeing yours and those of Shaaktiman, I want one, but not for $400-500. Too bad.

[Marc-A.]

Wow, Daniel, your Industar is a worthy lens! I can see the difference between the Elmar and the Industar, but I have to look very closely at the pictures; anyway the difference is quite marginal. (For instance, the shadows look better with the Elmar, IMHO).
May I ask you which Industar you used for this picture. The Industar 50? which year of production?
Best,
Marc

[KEH]

Shot with the 50/2.8 Elmar. Front-focuses pretty severely on my R-D1, so focus involves some guesswork.

Cheers,
Kirk

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/EPSN1000-01.jpg

[peterc]

With my "Elmarski" (FED 50/3.5) Zorki 3M, Silvertone 100.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/statement.jpg

Peter

[shaaktiman]

After seeing yours and those of Shaaktiman, I want one, but not for $400-500. Too bad.


Huh? Mine was $220 including shipping. Actually I was thinking of selling it and had it for sale here for $200 with very few takers.

[ampguy]

That one in the upper left is very camoflouged. It's like Where's Waldo :D

Thanks - but hey, there are two dogs in the photo :)

[Bill58]

Huh? Mine was $220 including shipping. Actually I was thinking of selling it and had it for sale here for $200 with very few takers.


If it's an LTM, please send me an email: wrs111445@yahoo.com.

Bill

[Silva Lining]

Elmar 50/2.8

[thafred]

50 3.5 uncoated 1937
color: agfa ultra100
b&w: lucky shd100

[Ronald M]

You like it because it is like the DR/rigid Summicrons. 2.8 elmars were made from 1956 to 1970 or 1972. It has the same soft/sharpness that is rather indescribable of the lenses of the period.

My neighbor was a wedding photog and he used one for wedding work where cost was no object. That is until he did some shots without the lens being fully extended. He replaced it for wedding work with an early rigid Summicron and kept the Elmar for personel work up until a few years ago.

Frankly I can not tell the difference between my DR/Rigid Summicrons and my 28 elmar except it doesn not have 2.0.

[thafred]

Hey daniel, glad to be of help but keep in mind that the Film is the super saturated Agfa Ultra 100, I sadly have no other example with a lower sat. film. and for U100 the examples posted are low saturated
(i like the colors quite well with the Agfa thou)

The church and the dog are with U100 again.

[Marc-A.]

I like colour rendering of my Elmar which is also uncoated; the colours are neutral here but accurate, so very close to the real colours. I should add that the weather was bad that day, with a poor light. Anyway, the colours are accurate.
(Elmar/Fuji NPH400)

[vha]

here is one of my few useful elmar shots, M6 and Ilford Xp-2 at 200.
According to the sn (139284) the lens is form 1933, might be the adapter and the camera that does not co-operate well at close up, or more probably the photographer that was too self-sure and put the camera on 1/15 and the 6,3, even in northern Norway at 01:00 in the summer it can be a bit dim :)

vha

[NL2377]

A couple shots from my leica clone :-)
http://www.nxfxstudios.com/leica1.jpg
and my motorcycle ;-)
http://www.nxfxstudios.com/leica2.jpg