3.5cm f/3.5 Elmar

Crazy Fedya · 05-08-2012

I have purchased on a whim 1937 3.5cm f/3.5 uncoated Elmar. I thought it would go well with my 1935 BP III. Lens is in a very decent shape considering its age. One hair scratch on front element and a little haze around perimeter of front element. I have it attached to my III with brightline finder from one of AUX lens sets for fixed lens RF's. I found that the whole finder kind of corresponds to 35mm FL. I really like how the combo feels in my hand. Really!!

I am half done with a roll of Arista packaged APX400, and wanted to ask what do RFFers think about the lens, that has such a bad rap online everywhere. Is it really that bad?
I know, I will find out whether I like it or not, as soon as I develop that film, but I was wondering about the opinion of the collective mind.

Simon Bruxelles · 05-09-2012

The Elmar 3.5cm lens did have a poor reputation when I bought mine for £35 ten years ago but steeply rising prices since suggest that a lot of photographers out there do appreciate it. If you have a pre-1950 Barnack it is the only period correct 35mm lens and it has all the subtle qualities of uncoated pre-war Leica glass. Those who point out, quite correctly, that it isn't quite as sharp or well-corrected as later Leitz 35s should bear in mind that many of the classic shots of WWII were taken with the tiny Elmar wide angle, as were some of Cartier Bresson's most memorable photographs. The English photographer James Ravillious also used it to good effect. Does anyone complain that their images could have been sharper?

Davidhel · 05-09-2012

I love this lens!

Mine is also an uncoated one (from 1938) and I have used it lots over the last year. At the moment it's probably the lens I use the most - I always use it with a hood. If you want to see some examples of pics, check out my Melbourne set on Flickr

Good luck and enjoy!

Dave

Dralowid · 05-09-2012

Many years ago I traded my 35mm Elmar in for Summaron 2.8. I must say I have been very happy with the newer lens, it is suits me fine.

But...I was recently going back and scanning negs taken with the Elmar in the 60s and 70s and to be honest, they are much better than I remember them!

Each to his own, and maybe only now do I regret selling it...but two 35s is one too many!

Michael

Crazy Fedya · 05-11-2012

Thank you for your response, everybody. I had a choice: 35/3.5 Summaron with haze or 35/3.5 Elmar. I decided to go with Elmar, since it is period correct for my III. I couldn't finish the roll, or write in this thread, because I was out cold for the last 3 days with severe tonsilitis. I wonder, which hood to use on it, other than original. I have a hood I use on 50mm Elmar, but it seems to be too big.

Mr_Flibble · 05-11-2012

I found my 3.5cm f/3.5 Elmar (in nickel finish) not to be overly sharp. It's not too bad when stopped down though.

Examples taken with this lens on my Leica I (and Lucky 200 Color film for that extra bit of grain and spots in the emulsion

).

I don't hate it though. And it is also actually quite sharp when used on my Epson R-D1.

The hood I use (and actually only fitting hood I have for my Elmars and Summars) is a FIKUS. At its shortest setting it is usable for 35mm (but it will cause vignetting if you also have a filter on the lens).
It is about 4-5 mm shorter then the 50mm setting.

Oh, and get well soon!

Erik van Straten · 05-11-2012

Leica II 1932, Elmar 35mm f/3.5 nickle, Weisu, Tmax400.

Erik.

Erik van Straten · 05-11-2012

Leica II 1932, Elmar 35mm f/3.5 nickle, Weisu, Tmax400.

Erik.

geebeewien · 05-11-2012

i just received my Elmar 3,5/3,5 today. Built in 1933 (Serial # 171XXX), it needs some servicing - it is focusing to the front all the way, which means that it can focus down to .7mtrs but is also unsharp at infinity...

This shot was taken wide open tonight, with my M8, focussing by trial&error

Crazy Fedya · 05-13-2012

Thanks, Mr. Flibble. I am a few days away from normal now. I really like the vintage look it gives on film. Can't wait to finish my roll.
As far as FIKUS goes, it really doesn't vignette backed up all the way?

Mr_Flibble · 05-13-2012

I know not every version of the FIKUS hood have the unmarked line for 35mm lenses on them.

I've only noticed the vignetting when I also had a A36 clamp on filter on it. Could be that it is there without it, but I haven't really seen it. Or it might be that you only see it at larger apertures than I used.

Crazy Fedya · 05-14-2012

Let me give it a shot. Thanks.