Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,863   Posts: 1,583,183   Online: 781
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    5
    Coating on a lens shows in dominating colour reflection. Modern ones often are pink and blue, older 50's ones can be only blue. Yellow can mean LD glass.
    An uncoated lens reflects no dominating colour at all. Just like a clear drinking glass: plain and clear.
    After WW2 glass usually is coated. Before originally uncoated. Coating could have been done later though.

    Rob.

  2. #12
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    The coating on a 1956 Elmar isn't going to blow off. It will be there, and have a violet cast to it. For what it's worth, even an uncoated Elmar will make great pictures, and have only slightly softer blacks than a new Nikon lens.

    Oil that has evaporated to the inner glass surface is the most likely problem... if there is a problem.
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  3. #13
    sterioma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    259
    Images
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by df cardwell
    The coating on a 1956 Elmar isn't going to blow off. It will be there, and have a violet cast to it.
    I don't remember to be able to see any particular color cast in the glass, but anyway... I'll check better tonight when I am home

    I have started scanning the last test roll (Efke100 + Rodinal 1:50).

    The results looks much better than my previous attempt. Here's a sample picture of a brick wall from about 1.5m, with no retouching other than resizing (which has made the image a bit soft). The sun was roughly at 90% with respect to the lens axis. I cannot see any evident flare.

    As soon as I have scanned the comparison shots with Jupiter and Industar I will post them here.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Efke_100_Leica_Mar2006_0006.jpg  

  4. #14
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Image looks nice, that's a relief.

    Don't invest much time with comparisons with the Jupiter and Industar: if they work, they work and take you nowhere. If they don't work, and there is an established and well documented incompatibilty with Leica to explain it ( close up, and / or maximum aperture is where you'll find it.)


    Best thing to do is assume the Elmar is fine, and shoot a couple rolls to learn what it likes. And to figure out what went wrong with your first shot.

    I don't know what your ambitions are for your IIIf, but the Elmar should be splendid. The camera itself will be fun, and useful, to shoot for a long time. And if you want contemporary image quality as an alternative to the mid '50s excellence of the Elmar, C-V lenses are quite good and a real value.

    Good luck.
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Downers Grove Illinois
    Posts
    1,053
    I carry a 111f and a coated Elmar daily. I have current lenses and bodies and find the old glass gives an images close enough. All the film gets gets the same EI and development time and other than the optical signature, the pics are the same.

    The key seems to be the lens must be clean internally. Shine a penlight thru both ends and it needs to look perfectly clear.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by John Koehrer
    Steroma
    1)Finding the correct hood will be a challenge, the hood has a lever that engages the aperture setting lever so you don't have to reach into the hood to change the setting. $$$.
    2) What Ole said
    The 'hood' you speak of here is a device for changing the aperture when using the lens on an enlarger. It will vignette if used for photography. The correct hood has no provision for changing the aperture.
    Mark
    Mark Layne
    Nova Scotia
    and Barbados

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,309
    Mark
    I need to disagree with you on this. If you use a hood with the 3.5/50 Elmar you cannot reach the lever to change f stops conveniently.
    Since the question revolves around an earlier Elmar the correct part number would be either the Fison or Fikus.
    And no, they don't vignette on camera.
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

  8. #18
    Jerevan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,881
    Images
    9
    John,

    I beg to disagree. What about the VALOO (16620)?

    Either that or a VOOLA, together with a SOOGZ adapter (36 to 39 mm thread), combined with a shade screwed into the SOOGZ 39 mm thread might do the trick.
    “Do your work, then step back. The only path to serenity.” - Lao Tzu

  9. #19
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,859
    Coating shouldn't fade away. Reflections from an uncoated lens have a neutral color and are stronger than from a coated lens. My 1953 Elmar 50mm shows mostly pale purple or blue reflections. The reflection from the inner surface of the front element is somewhat yellow.

  10. #20
    DBP
    DBP is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,886
    Images
    34
    I would bet on any softness being due to fogging, which you can easily check for with a penlight, preferably a colored one. The coating would not have faded - the worst that could happen would be someone rubbing it off, and that would leave noticeable scratches. So if there is no coating then the lens is not original to that camera, which is certainly quite possible. What is the serial number?

    [Two slightly off topic thoughts - 1. It is nice to see someone mention a Jupiter in the same sentence with an Elmar and not be immediately flamed by a dozen leicaphiles. 2. Am I the only one who wonders if the people who name products for Ikea used to work for Leica?]

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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