The 50mm 3.5 Elmar is what made the Leica such a commercial success. With the heightened contrast of modern films, an Elmar lens can produce very pleasing results.
I bought a Leica IIIa with a Summar way back 1972 I think in an antique shop it was cheap, the lens was crap, I have another better Summar now as well as an f3.5 Elmar both bought quite a few years later,then never tried them. I think the issue was my project work just took over completely with schedules for Exhibitions etc.
So I need to exercise the IIIA properly i can fall back on Russian lenses, but prefer not to.
I bought a Leica IIIa with a Summar way back 1972 I think in an antique shop it was cheap, the lens was crap, I have another better Summar now as well as an f3.5 Elmar both bought quite a few years later,then never tried them. I think the issue was my project work just took over completely with schedules for Exhibitions etc.
So I need to exercise the IIIA properly i can fall back on Russian lenses, but prefer not to.
The Russian glass for the screw mounts is actually quite good, IMHO, although the mounts sometimes leave a little to be desired. I have a great Jupiter 18 35mm retrofocus. It's very contrasty and sharp, but was virtually unusable because of the loose mount and encrusted gunk of soviet era grease. I cleaned and reset the elements yesterday, greased it with a little molybdenum, and took it out for a spin yesterday. I'm hoping for a few nice images. My 50mm f 3.5 is one of my favorites, and was about one third the cost of the Elmar or Summicron. Leitz glass has gone up so much in the past couple of years, a trend I blame on the easy adaptability to digital bodies.