Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,296   Posts: 1,535,684   Online: 1017
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1
    Trask's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,066
    Images
    6

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

    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.)

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    California desert
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    686

    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.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Olympia, wa.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    241
    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.

  4. #4
    Dr Croubie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    rAdelaide
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,177
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by snapguy View Post
    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).
    An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    281
    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).

  6. #6
    Mr_Flibble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The Low Countries
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    37
    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.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lower Earth
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    998
    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.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Shokan, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    138
    The Cannon 35 f2.8 is very well thought of, I LOVE my Skopar 35 f2.5
    The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.

  9. #9
    frank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Bit north of Toronto
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    544
    Images
    2
    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.
    My blog / photo website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

  10. #10
    Trask's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,066
    Images
    6
    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!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin