50mm: Summitar F2 vs Elmar F3.5...

[m-bartelt]

Ok, I plan on getting a usable minty 'period correct' collapsible lens for my IIIf.

I already have two 50mm lenses, but not a collapsible... I have a Serenar F1.8 (that needs cleaning) and a Nikon F1.4. ( I also have a 28mm F3.5 wide angle as well as 85mm and 135mm Nikon/Nikkor lenses.)

I have my eye on a minty Summitar from the late 50's on fleabay. Should I get it or would I be better off waiting for an Elmar? I assume the Elmar would be more compact, but I'm pretty sure the Summitar would be more usable. Any thoughts?

Which lens would be a better compliment for my kit and which lens is actually better? I don't particularly care about cost, but I want something that is in similar condition to my camera... it's an heirloom and while it'll be pretty to look at, I do want it for actual use.

[m-bartelt]

After a bit of reading... the Elmar F3.5 red scale would be the correct stock lens for a 1954 IIIf?

[giordano]

The Elmar is wonderfully compact and there are no complaints about its performance. But if you use filters it's very inconvenient because you have to remove the the lens hood and filter before you can adjust the aperture. Also if you're as clumsy as me and carrying the camera over one shoulder it's quite easy to knock the clamp-on hood off the lens.

The Summitar doesn't have those problems. The hood doesn't fit quite right when you have a filter on the lens but it's reasonably secure. Most people don't seem to like the original 'barn door' hood, but it works really well and folds flat.

But 1954 ... isn't that when the Summicron came out?

[bill]

Go for an Elmar. You won't regret it. Sharp, contrasty and compact. I use one on my IIIc and IID. If you get it in time you can compete in the Barnack Challenge.

But - please - it's "mint", not "minty" - as in a perfectly struck coin, not a piece of gum!

Regards,

Bill

[cbretteville]

Originally Posted by giordano

But 1954 ... isn't that when the Summicron came out?

1953 actually.

Here is a shot using a 1955 Elmar 3.5 red scale on the M8: Then there were two...

Some Summitar shots here, again on the M8:
50mm Rigid Summicron or 50mm Summitar for M8?


- Carl

[wizard]

I second Bill and giordano: A nice red scale Elmar is an ideal companion to your IIIf (I inherited exactly that combination from my late father) and still capable of first class results. If you do want an f2 lens, try to find an unscratched (unscratched front element that is) collapsible Summicron, it's better than the Summitar.

Andy

[jc_braconi]

Go for an Elmar, red scale is the best one, unless you want a Summitar for the 2 aperture.

[m-bartelt]

Originally Posted by bill

Go for an Elmar. You won't regret it. Sharp, contrasty and compact. I use one on my IIIc and IID. If you get it in time you can compete in the Barnack Challenge.

But - please - it's "mint", not "minty" - as in a perfectly struck coin, not a piece of gum!

Heh. Minty as in anywhere from like-new to just some very light wear... which technically wouldn't qualify it as 'mint'. And you shouldn't use quotation marks to add emphasis. j/k

Originally Posted by cbretteville

1953 actually.

Here is a shot using a 1955 Elmar 3.5 red scale on the M8: Then there were two...

Some Summitar shots here, again on the M8:
50mm Rigid Summicron or 50mm Summitar for M8?

Well, I really like the image from your red scale... but it's a bit difficult to compare it against the outdoor shots of the Summitar.

I will get the Elmar then. Thanks for all the help!


Does anyone have a lead on a like-new Elmar red scale? If not, I guess I'll have to fight for one on fleabay.

[brianv]

> But if you use filters it's very inconvenient because you have to remove the the lens hood and filter before you can adjust the aperture.

I use a Walz 19mm thread mount filter made for the Argus C3 on my Coated 5cm F3.5 Elmar. It allows access to the F-Stop lever. The lens is ~1947, came with my IIIc, factory converted to a IIIf. It's a very nice lens, much more compact than the Summitar or Collapsible Summicron. If you do not need the peed of an F2 lens, it's perfect. Hood- I end up using the flap of the ever-ready case to shade the lens when using for portraits or vertical shots.

Now- Between the Summitar and a Collapsible Summicron, I prefer the latter. It would be age-appropriate for the 1954 IIIf.

[Ron (Netherlands)]

If you are not sure yet what to use, keep the money in your pocket for a while and try out in the mean time a cheap Industar 22. Its a FSU lens, one of the sharpest. It looks exactly like an elmar but is in fact a copy of the more sharp Zeiss tessar. Because it is FSU it is really cheap and you can try out how it looks and performs. Then later you can decide if you really want the elmar (which performs a bit less than the Industar) and the Summitar which is a better performer then the elmar and industar.
I have all three so have some experience with these lenses.

Here is a picture of the lndustar 22 on my Z-2.

[earleygallery]

Personally I find the Summitar to look softer than the Elmar, especially if you open it up to f2.

Whilst all lenses have their merits, the perfect companion for your lllf IMO is the Elmar f3.5. It is about the most compact lens ever, and produces lovely sharp images (condition is all though). OK the aperture is fiddly but not really a problem. Are you going to use filters often?

If you shoot colour try to find a red scale, but otherwise the more common black scale lens is just as good (although I would buy a coated lens).

[bill]

[quote=m-bartelt;528614]Heh. Minty as in anywhere from like-new to just some very light wear... which technically wouldn't qualify it as 'mint'. And you shouldn't use quotation marks to add emphasis. j/k

Oh yes I should...

mint (mint)n.

1. A place where the coins of a country are manufactured by authority of the government.
2. A place or source of manufacture or invention.
3. An abundant amount, especially of money.

tr.v. mint·ed, mint·ing, mints 1. To produce (money) by stamping metal; coin.
2. To invent or fabricate: a phrase that was minted for one occasion.

adj. Undamaged as if freshly minted: The painting was in mint condition.


"Minty" relates to things that taste like, or of, mint. In this context It's as much an example of a nonsense word as "lense".

Enjoy your Elmar - you have made the right choice. I'll look forward to seeing the results.

Regards,

Bill

[earleygallery]

What's the very BEST condition, pepperminty or spearminty?

Anyway, you'll have a hard job finding a MINT Elmar (i.e. that would mean no marks on the barrell at all, no obvious sign of use), and why bother if you're going to use it? Leave the mint ones for the avid collectors and just look for the nicest user lens you can find.

[bill]

Originally Posted by earleygallery

What's the very BEST condition, pepperminty or spearminty?

Anyway, you'll have a hard job finding a MINT Elmar (i.e. that would mean no marks on the barrell at all, no obvious sign of use), and why bother if you're going to use it? Leave the mint ones for the avid collectors and just look for the nicest user lens you can find.

True. Redundant neologisms notwithstanding, it's the glass that matters. Cosmetic appearance is less important if you are going to use it.

Regards,

Bill

[m-bartelt]

Originally Posted by earleygallery

What's the very BEST condition, pepperminty or spearminty?

Anyway, you'll have a hard job finding a MINT Elmar (i.e. that would mean no marks on the barrell at all, no obvious sign of use), and why bother if you're going to use it? Leave the mint ones for the avid collectors and just look for the nicest user lens you can find.

Personally, I prefer Wintergreen?

Well my camera is in really nice condition, the leather is in perfect condition, there are no scratches or dings on the camera at all. The viewfinder and splitter are a bit fogged up, but I'm having the camera completely overhauled as the shutter curtains weren't working either, and the old german guy who is fixing it is going to completely test all the shutter speeds and bring it to spec... He's an old camera technician, and I really enjoyed the tour through his shop, as well as all the testing equipment he showed me that he uses...

I want a usable original lens... and have found one that matches the year... Condition? I just like having something that would compliment my inherited camera. I would like to have the condition match. It's not about collectability, it's about usability. A nice 'display' quality lens is also one that should perform closest to a new one. That's what I'm looking for. Something that will give me the best picture with the most minimal hassle, as well as be period and condition correct.

Trust me, it's not going into a glass display case (not that I'm against that, but it's just not me,) It's going to be slung around my neck.

[brianv]

1954 Leica IIIf- A collapsible Summicron was cutting edge technology for the day. A lens in the "1 1xx xxx" range is probably most "period correct" if you are matching serial numbers. I just picked up a Collapsible Summicron lens in the "1 04x xxx" range and can note the construction and coatings are different. I bought it with a "601xxx" IIIf, and it seems the lens came with that camera when new. The serial numbers both trace back to a 1952 block (using online reference for SN's). The coatings on the "1 3xx xxx" lenses are yet different. But they are all great performers, Leica's best for 1950s LTM lenses.

I've posted some comparison shots made with various 50mm F2 lenses for the Leica on RFF:

Comparison of 50mm F2 lenses for the Leica: Warning Too Boring For Words. - Rangefinderforum.com

Included are several Summicrons and a Summitar.

I'm not too much of a stickler for "authentic", but like it when it happens.

[brianv]

The early Summicron came with the IIIf on the left, and was probably bought new with it. The Camera on the right is a factory converted IIIc, and I added the later Summicron to it. The lens on the right would be a close-match for your 1954 camera. According to the Sn table, it is from 1956. I have a slightly earlier one in M-Mount from 1955, and it looks identical as far as F-Stop markings, distance scale, and lens coatings. The early Summicrons used different glass, containing Thorium. The glass has a yellow-cast to it, compared with the blue-tint of the newer lens on the right. The construction is slightly different, and f-Stop scale uses Commas rather than decimal points.

Second shot shows lens on right collapsed. Both lenses have Leitz filters on them

"Cron"ologically correct...

[LeonardT]

Originally Posted by m-bartelt

Ok, I plan on getting a usable minty 'period correct' collapsible lens for my IIIf.

<snip>
Which lens would be a better compliment for my kit and which lens is actually better? I don't particularly care about cost, but I want something that is in similar condition to my camera... it's an heirloom and while it'll be pretty to look at, I do want it for actual use.

If you're looking only for period correct, the Elmar red-scale, Summitar or Summicron will fill the bill. The IIIf is fairly recent as LTM's go, same time frame as a M3. I have a IIIF ST and the three lenses mentioned above, all near mint. All three lenses will give you fine photos. The Elmar is the most compact but a pain to change apertures and the hood is not very good. High quality Summarits and Summicrons are about the same size and same performance. The Summicron would be my choice if I could only have one. And that's because of the standard filter size and much nicer lens hoods. I wouldn't look for an early Thorium oxide lens as they are more expensive and very hard to find. Removing the yellow cast by bathing the lens in UV or sunlight is not a big deal though.

Len