3.5cm f/3.5 Elmar -- a special lens?

[Trask]

I have, like many others, a 5cm f/3.5 Elmar for my LTM Leica or Canon body, so know the lens pretty well. But I've no experience with the LTM Elmar 35mm f/3.5 wide angle lens. I've come across one at a shop, but they're asking nearly $600! I'll admit it's pretty clean, but it's not a nickel lens so not special on that point. My primary interest in acquiring one is to use it, not just look at it, but I'm having a hard time justifying to myself spending that amount of money. What do y'all think -- is that a reasonable price for this lens? (I note that to set his price the seller checked that fount of knowledge -- Completed Auctions on e*ay, and decided that what one buyer paid sets the benchmark for the value of this lens for sale.)

 

[snapguy]

Country boy

I am a country boy myself but I took a gander at "sold" listings for the lens on EB** and found prices of $456, $194 and $504. I don't know the difference between "completed" and "sold" so I am not sure this helps.

 

[pen s]

I think you would get more response in the 'rangefinder' forum.

That said there are a other options for 35mm in LTM mount. You could look for a used CV Color Skopar f2.5 in LTM, should be less than the Elmar even though one stop faster and much newer. I have the CV Skopar in M mount and it is really very good. Very high resolution with good contrast. Many seem to like the Canon LTM lenses. Right now KEH has an EX condition 35mm f2.8 Canon with aux viewfinder and case for $349, so there are options in that FL.

 

[Dr Croubie]

I don't know the difference between "completed" and "sold" so I am not sure this helps.

Completed means the listing has ended. Sold means the listing has ended and someone actually bought it.

I've had a gander, and there's a fair few sold for $2-300, one or two for $500, and one completed but unsold for $800 (now that's asking too much). Plus the Soviet ripoffs (which may or may not have comparable or even better optics) go for around $100.

If you're not set on leica, as said above CV lenses are good. Even a 35/1.4 you can get for as little as $400 (but that's m mount).

 

[jochen]

Hello,
in those days lens designers still had problems to calculate wide-angle lenses with a similar performance like standard or tele lenses. I think the 1:3.5/3.5 cm Elmar is more a collectors lens than one for a user. The first acceptable wide-angle lens from Leitz in our todays sight was the post war Summaron, the 1:2.8 with new LaK 9 lanthanum glass was better than the older 1:3.5; both lenses are coated, the nickel Elmar possibly not. But more modern designs from Leitz or Cosina/Voigtländer are even better. I have a 1:2.8/35 mm Summaron and use it with adapter on M-Leicas, it is a very nice little lens (standard E 39 filter).

 

[Mr_Flibble]

I'm am not so impressed with my own example of the 35mm f/3.5 Elmar. I find the sharpness somewhat lacking compared to the 50mm Elmar. And it's definitely not worth $600.

Sharpness was alright on a digital body though.

 

[gone]

They're probably more for the collectors. Never owned one, but did own a few of the more common Summarons in 35 3.5 form. Thought they were great. Not a big fan of the goggled ones, but you can find the ungoggled versions for way under the price you quoted.

 

[Bill Harrison]

The Cannon 35 f2.8 is very well thought of, I LOVE my Skopar 35 f2.5

 

[frank]

As mentioned, the Elmar 35 is more of a collector lens. There are many other better lenses for less. That being said, you may be looking for that vintage look, but even then, the Summaron 35f3.5 delivers that and is cheaper.

 

[Trask]

Thanks, folks -- I appreciate the feedback. I already have other options on hand: a black Canon 35mm f/2, and a black/chrome Nippon Kogaku 35mm f/2.5 in LTM. And a Soviet 35mm, the one with the exposed element that goes waaaay back into the body. But I was thinking the Elmar might offer something a bit different, but it sounds like in this case "different" means "not quite as good." I'm going to let it pass. And now I feel virtuous for once again having defeated GAS temptation!

 

[MDR]

The 35mm Elmar is

1. Overpriced
2. got an undeserved bad rep (it's an okay lens just not as good as later designs).
3. was good enough for quiet a few photographers
4. Tessars are not good wide angle lenses
5. has a different look
6. Vignettes
7. Is not as sharp as later lenses
8. that being said I love this lens but I also love the Xenon

Found a link with a sample image that can be enlarged quiet a bit Dead Link Removed
the image looks good.
For the same price you can get a summaron come to think of 600$ is expensive even for a Summaron a 35mm Elmar should be around 250$ max Even the Leicashop in Vienna does not want that kind of money for this lens. For around 400$ you can get a near new Voigtländer asph. Ultron 35mm lens at KEH

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I love my 35/3.5 Elmar uncoated version. unique look. I got it from Youxin Ye for $300 in perfect condition. Might want to check with him.


SF downtown LeicaIIIf RD 35f3-5Elmar(uncoated) KodakTri-X Rodinal 1-50 11min 22C 1minAg2x 2013-11 VSmac 4000 Scan-140105-0011 by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

 

[frank]

That's a great shot, Richard. I didn't think the Elmar 35 was that capable.

 

[MDR]

Great shot Richard

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Thanks. Too bad I didn't use a "better" lens, eh?

 

[Trask]

Yeah, Richard, if that's what the 3.5cm Elmar can do, I'm pretty impressed! And MDR, thanks for the link to the blog -- the lens seems to perfectly suit the subject of the photo. What great eyes, and how great is it that it's left to our imaginations to wonder at the full extent of her beauty!

 

[MDR]

I agree but what it also illustrates quiet well is that even "not so great lenses" can create good work and that one shouldn't sprout generalizations about the suitability of a certain lens for photographic work. A super sharp and highly corrected lens isn't always the best choice. The Leitz Xenon is another example of such a lens by most standards it's a dog but under right circumstances it's the best lens there is.

 

[pen s]

All this discusion has made me wonder if there would be a market for new "vintage" lenses. Could a company like Cosina produce a line of simple LTM mount lenses (that way they would fit both III series and M mount cameras). These lenses would be 3 or 4 element uncoated or single coated lenses of modest maximum aperture such as f3.5 and f4. The purpose would be to emulate the preformance of prewar lenses. Only a few focal lengths such as 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm.

Of course now that I think a little deeper on this the market would probably be so slim that, considering design and tooling costs each lens would probably sell for much more than modern hi preformance lenses. Another problem would be finding a B&W film that acted like films of 40 or 50 years past. A crazy idea for sure.

 

[Dr Croubie]

All this discusion has made me wonder if there would be a market for new "vintage" lenses. Could a company like Cosina produce a line of simple LTM mount lenses (that way they would fit both III series and M mount cameras). These lenses would be 3 or 4 element uncoated or single coated lenses of modest maximum aperture such as f3.5 and f4. The purpose would be to emulate the preformance of prewar lenses. Only a few focal lengths such as 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm.

Of course now that I think a little deeper on this the market would probably be so slim that, considering desigh and tooling costs each lens would probably sell for much more than modern hi preformance lenses. Another problem would be finding a B&W film that acted like films of 40 or 50 years past. A crazy idea for sure.

Crazy, but they've already done it with the 100th anniversary Heliar 50/3.5 and here and 50/2.

Also, there's the 40/1.4 and 35/1.4 in Single Coated variants.
Plus the lomography Petzval Kickstarter.
That nostalgic market is a lot bigger than you might think...