50cm Elmar 3.5 LTM substitute

[romualdo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, jc_braconi said:

Just keep in mind that Leica lens of that era are in average better in the center of the image than on corners.

This was just to take the attention of the viewer about the subject, when the pictures were printed in new papers or magazines

fascinating!!!!  has that actually been documented anywhere

[pebbles]

I wouls suggest a 5cm Summar. Ingood condition - they are around - a first class lens at f3.5 or over.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Ambro51]

While not too practical, a removed and remounted Leitz Anastigmat off the Null Series Replica would likely top the list.  Of course, learn the weirdness and get a finder and you can enjoy the lens on a “new” Barnack. 🙂

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited October 14, 2019 by Ambro51

[a.noctilux]

Very nice idea to make the Excellent Leitz Anastigmat 50mm interchangeable...

I've done that for fun but not really "practical to use", but the results are stellar.

I prefer keeping the lens on it's own Replica after that.

 

My vainglory, one day is to unmount the Summarit 2.4/40mm of the Minilux (if it develops "E2" as most Minilux),

then make it M or ltm mount.

While waiting, I just use them as they are, with pleasure 😇

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[wlaidlaw]

IMHO, the best collapsible  50mm lens is the 1997 f2.4 Konica Hexar. Unfortunately these are not common and quite sought after, hence prices are high. A friend managed to persuade me to sell him the one I had and I have regretted it since but in reality, I have far, far too many 50mm/5cm Leica and Zeiss lenses, more than any reasonable person could need. The other collapsible lens I like is the 1950/60's version of the 2.8 Elmar, before the build quality went down the drain, the extension tube got wobbly and the detents disappeared from the aperture ring. I have an M mount version of this sitting on my M3. These are quite reasonably priced in LTM and freely available. 

Wilson

PS There is one of the 50/2.4 LTM Konica lenses for sale at the moment from eBay Australia for around AU$1200 (US$ 817). 

Edited October 15, 2019 by wlaidlaw

[jc_braconi]

On 10/12/2019 at 3:14 AM, romualdo said:

fascinating!!!!  has that actually been documented anywhere

I have red this in some of Leica dedicated books or magazines hard to tell you where it was printed
I remember only some pictures who accompanied  this comment 
it was picture took during some manifestations in south america, may be in Chile.

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I see that this conversation has continued to ramble on. Let me nail my colours to the mast. Even though I mentioned several other lenses, the 50mm Elmar is a superb compact lens and was since it was introduced in 1926. It was the one of the main reasons why the Leica was a huge success. Barnack and Berek went to an immense amount of effort to ensure that this was the case. See my photos here taken with a very early Elmar from 1926.

https://www.macfilos.com/2017/10/30/2017-10-23-a-tale-of-two-leicas-90-years-apart/

I might add that most of the people who commented on my article missed the point. We should not have to 'pixel peep' to know that the Elmar was and is a great lens.

William

[jankap]

On 10/11/2019 at 5:52 PM, jc_braconi said:

Just keep in mind that Leica lens of that era are in average better in the center of the image than on corners.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

My Elmar LTM from 1954. At f/3.5 and 100cm distance on APS-C camera. 

Head of a mouse with a wasp.

[jankap]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Here the sharpness areas. At f/3.5 and 100cm the DOF is not very large. 

[willeica]

10 minutes ago, jankap said:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Here the sharpness areas. At f/3.5 and 100cm the DOF is not very large. 

Ah Holy God, Barnack and Berek must be spinning in their graves (I visited both graves last year) with this type of nonsense. Are you yanking our chains with this?

William

[jankap]

Did you miss the starting sentence: "Leica lens of that era are in average better in the center of the image than on corners".

How would you check this? In pictures not in words:

[willeica]

8 minutes ago, jankap said:

Did you miss the starting sentence: "Leica lens of that era are in average better in the center of the image than on corners".

How would you check this? In pictures not in words:

That was not the point I was making. This type of thing with charts and histograms is the antithesis of what photography is about. Such things should be left to the scientists, just like Barnack and Berek were in their day. Ordinary photographers, like ourselves, should judge lenses by the photos that we get with them. I am very pleased with the photos that I get with my large collection of 50mm Elmars. The digital era has caused all kinds of peeping nonsense about which lens is better, with the nadir being brick wall photography. We should judge lenses by the real photographs that we can take with them. Having a perfect lens does not make for better photography. I have lost count of the number of times that I have made this point on the forum.

William

[Matlock]

4 minutes ago, willeica said:

That was not the point I was making. This type of thing with charts and histograms is the antithesis of what photography is about. Such things should be left to the scientists, just like Barnack and Berek were in their day. Ordinary photographers, like ourselves, should judge lenses by the photos that we get with them. I am very pleased with the photos that I get with my large collection of 50mm Elmars. The digital era has caused all kinds of peeping nonsense about which lens is better, with the nadir being brick wall photography. We should judge lenses by the real photographs that we can take with them. Having a perfect lens does not make for better photography. I have lost count of the number of times that I have made this point on the forum.

William

Surely you don't take photos with your Leica William? shame on you, you should be producing charts and histograms instead of wasting your time producing pictures. I sometimes wonder if some people are on the same planet as us. 🙂 

[romualdo]

On 10/15/2019 at 6:57 PM, jc_braconi said:

I have red this in some of Leica dedicated books or magazines hard to tell you where it was printed
I remember only some pictures who accompanied  this comment 
it was picture took during some manifestations in south america, may be in Chile.

"Just keep in mind that Leica lens of that era are in average better in the center of the image than on corners.

This was just to take the attention of the viewer about the subject, when the pictures were printed in new papers or magazines"

 

I think Jankap was attempting to qualify/quantify what I originally asked - had the above comment been documented

Edited October 17, 2019 by romualdo

[jankap]

I believe for the lens, that I have of around 1954, it is not so grave. But I have used an APS camera.

Times have changed: a lens, that offers a minimal subject distance of 100 cm, is of limited use. Rangefinder versus EVF! (No shit storm, please).

I have bought the close focus adapter for my LTM lenses.

See also: post-an-image-relating-to-the-previous-one/page/47/ Post #934

Edited October 20, 2019 by jankap

[jmahto]

Well, I did find one redscale (1953 by serial no) from eBay and tried it out just now side by side with my 1947 Elmar on M240. I can attest that red scale is superior at all apertures in the center and corners with a good margin. Difference is less at f8 but still visible in corners. Unfortunately my red scale copy had haze (visible in flashlight test) that caused it to reduced contrast a little. Seller didn’t mention that. Lens has to go back.

I am going to settle down to redscale of similar year. I just have to find a clean copy. 

Edited October 20, 2019 by jmahto

[Erato]

1955 Tokyo Optical Topcor 5cm  F1.5 made for Leotax F.

F5.6, FYR. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[TomB_tx]

The Tokyo Optical Topcor collapsible 3.5 Elmar copy is also a fine lens

[willeica]

12 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

The Tokyo Optical Topcor collapsible 3.5 Elmar copy is also a fine lens

Absolutely agree with this. The example I have is first class optically and is very well made.

William

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Pyrogallol]

I just bought a Tokyo Optical Company 50mm f3.5 Simlar. A close clone of the Elmar, right down to having the serial number in the same position as the Elmar. Not much on the internet about them other than that they were sold with/for Leotax cameras in the late 40’s early 50’s.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!