echorec Posted May 12, 2009 Share #1 Posted May 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thought I´d share these recent aquisitions: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 12, 2009 Posted May 12, 2009 Hi echorec, Take a look here A clean pair - IIf & IIIf. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
poynterama Posted May 12, 2009 Share #2 Posted May 12, 2009 Very nice! Makes me want to take dad's IIf for a spin this weekend Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubenkok Posted May 12, 2009 Share #3 Posted May 12, 2009 Hi Gunnar, They look in excellent condition Congratulations ! Ruben Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanetomlane Posted May 12, 2009 Share #4 Posted May 12, 2009 Very, very nice. ________________ Regards, Tom Photography by Tom Lane Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aauckland Posted May 12, 2009 Share #5 Posted May 12, 2009 Beautiful, quite magnificant. Question: I notice the Elmar on the III is not at TDC, (top dead centre.) If you swap the lenses over, what happens?, ....does the II Elmar tighten to TDC on the III? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted May 12, 2009 Share #6 Posted May 12, 2009 Question:I notice the Elmar on the III is not at TDC, (top dead centre.) If you swap the lenses over, what happens?, ....does the II Elmar tighten to TDC on the III? No, that's two versions of the red scale Elmar. The one on the right is the newer one. These newer versions tighten to more or less TDC on every LTM camera, while the older ones tighten as shown. Nice pair btw. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
echorec Posted May 12, 2009 Author Share #7 Posted May 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks for commenting! Alan - Andy is right, the older Elmar (108xxxx) looks the same on any camera body and the later one (132xxxx) too. Best, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 12, 2009 Share #8 Posted May 12, 2009 Thanks for commenting! Alan - Andy is right, the older Elmar (108xxxx) looks the same on any camera body and the later one (132xxxx) too. Best, Yep.. the "diamond" and "triangle" variants of the RS... any serious collector of Elmars MUST have both... ; a splendid duo, Gunnar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aauckland Posted May 12, 2009 Share #9 Posted May 12, 2009 Ooops, sorry about that. Thanks for the helpful info. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted May 12, 2009 Share #10 Posted May 12, 2009 Black or Red Dial ? the IIf is a 1/500 or a 1/1000 ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
echorec Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share #11 Posted May 13, 2009 Hello JC, Red Dial, 1/1000 Best regards, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ron (Netherlands) Posted May 13, 2009 Share #12 Posted May 13, 2009 and both 'screw-less' bodies!, nice pair indeed here's my pair of III-s one with and one without the screws: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iShutterbug Posted May 15, 2009 Share #13 Posted May 15, 2009 A diamond and triangle Red Scale--which is the more desirable or sharper? Or should one try to find a screwmount Elmar 50/2.8? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 15, 2009 Share #14 Posted May 15, 2009 A diamond and triangle Red Scale--which is the more desirable or sharper? Or should one try to find a screwmount Elmar 50/2.8? Red Scale are all identical - and excellent - as image quality : I think the "diamond" is a bit less common... but is hard to define any standard variant of the Elmar 50 as "rare". I have the SM 2,8 too, but personally like more the 3,5... but it can depend on my items' conditions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iShutterbug Posted May 15, 2009 Share #15 Posted May 15, 2009 Thank you, Luigi. I asked because I think I'm coming down with the "leica collector's bug." My Leica II came with the old Elmar 3.5 and after I had it CLA'd by Sherry's Golden Touch it is surprisingly sharp, but obviously uncoated when I shoot color negative film which is all I use. I heard about the later model Red Scale version on this forum and picked up a nice "diamond" model and shot a roll through it but the drugstore scan didn't seem as sharp so I set it aside to save up for a CLA. Then I saw a "triangle" RS with much higher serial number on eBay but I was outbid and it went for a high price so I thought that model might be latest RS and best optical formula. In meantime I picked off an excellent condition Elmar 2.8 #1,624xxx and just shot a roll through it but the pictures/scans from same drugstore seemed kind of dull and flat so it's in same drawer waiting for funds to CLA. Now I may be a bit premature on my judgement of my last two Elmars, that is I need to take the time to scan their negatives in my own scanner to be sure the problem isn't with the new crew in the drugstore or their scanner being out of adjustment. But still, the pictures didn't reach out and "grab" me like my Leica pictures tend to do so as it stands my original Elmar #583xxx is back on my II ready for the next photo trip and my latest acquisitions are going to be CLA'd but I can't see a thing wrong with them--except their pictures... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted May 15, 2009 Share #16 Posted May 15, 2009 Now I may be a bit premature on my judgement of my last two Elmars, that is I need to take the time to scan their negatives in my own scanner to be sure the problem isn't with the new crew in the drugstore or their scanner being out of adjustment. That is kind of wisdom... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iShutterbug Posted May 15, 2009 Share #17 Posted May 15, 2009 That is kind of wisdom... Touche! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.