Where is the Elmar magic?

[akptc]

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.

[FrankS]

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.

[akptc]

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 has some nice images taken with the Elmar, very inspiring examples.

[captainslack]

Hmm.... You also have the 35mm Elmar, not the 50mm one that most people here rave about. That might have something to do it.

[Trius]

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.

[FrankS]

"Hi, I recently got my 1st Leica III with a 50/3.5 Elmar collapsible."

Nope. It's the 50.

[doubs43]

Originally Posted by captainslack

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

[OldNick]

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.

[akptc]

Originally Posted by Trius

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?

[FrankS]

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.

[akptc]

Originally Posted by OldNick

... 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.

[akptc]

Originally Posted by FrankS

Not too opaque, not too transparent, but just right.

Thank you Frank, this makes sense to me.

[Ronald M]

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]

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.

[OldNick]

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.

[akptc]

It's becoming clear to me that developing one's own film is the way to go to get the desired quality.

[Rich Silfver]

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.

[OldNick]

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.

[akptc]

Originally Posted by OldNick

... 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.

[akptc]

Originally Posted by OldNick

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

[akptc]

Rich, I love the feel of your shots - thank you!

[OldNick]

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.

[akptc]

Jim, thank you for looking it up. I've looked at the Elmar under all sorts of angles and it doesn't look coated.

[Tun]

i have a question to ask too. Actually whats the difference from a coated and uncoated? which is better?

[Ronald M]

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.