Okay, I replayed it three times and you did say 'hairy balls'. Hey, it's Friday, 4pm and I just logged off my work computer. I'm feeling giddy! As always, a superb and well narrated video. I shot with my Contax II and Sonnar F/2 lens for the first time last week and discovered the highs and lows of bright light on an uncoated lens. I know better now having watched your video.
Leica's collapsible Elmar lens is well known for its image quality. Knew an old friend who used the same lens on his Leica IIIf and traveled widely shooting Kodachrome 64. Years ago bought a refurbished Leica M3 and paired it w an Elmar 50 f2.8 lens. Results were quite good. Good point about older lenses that were not coated, which did affect flare and were not as sharp as modern lenses. I have since acquired DR Summicron f2.0 in fine condition (but heavily built). Acquired a Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 Nokton which is an older design with modern coatings. Share your enthusiasm for the older gear which present day shooters dismiss too quickly. Well done.😊
I started watching your videos for the micro four thirds lens reviews. I've continued watching your channel because of you enthusiasm and your videos are fun to watch. I now use multiple types and brands of camera. I understand why you want to use different cameras.
Thank you for this, my father was a collector, (about 650 camera's) 6 Leica's + 4 extra lenses are coming my way, thanks to your video i ordered the right connectors for my sony.
Very good review and great information, thank you. Little mistake is that the Elmar is not a 5 element Lens, it has 4 elements in three groups. Many greetings, an thank you for the great review of this great little lens. Christian
Thank you. Yes, I should have been clearer about the evolution of the Elmar's elements and groups. My understanding is that the very first version had 5 elements in 4 groups. The next version had 4 in 3. And so did the third version. Source: wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Main_Page
Very glad you reviewed this lens. They are lovely and I've gotten great results on mine with both film and digital. And I love that I can pocket my little Barnack when out on a walk.
Wonderful review as always. The new format is educational, informative and inspirational. Humorous as well. You must have employed some new screenwriters. The Leitz Elmar 5cm f3.5 is indeed a legendary lens. Impressive image quality considering that it was manufactured almost 100 years ago. Especially the macro images. Though Trinity Lane in Cambridge was also extraordinary. While I do own a Leitz lens from an old slide projector - I've not ventured further down this rabbit hole simply on price. Though are starting to appreciate their deep history and highest quality industrial design. I get concerned when you mentioned that the lens wasn't hugely expensive to buy. Because in a months time - it will have become hugely expensive to buy.
Nota Bene on the hood: There IS a small thread that can take a hood or filter, and there are hoods that thread into the front of the lens. Some of these hoods can hold various color filters. Kodak actually made a lovely set complete with hood and several filters, which I have. But they are not ideal as you cannot adjust the aperture once the hood is threaded in (well, maybe you can if you use a needle).
Simon, I have a IIIF with the 50mm f3.5 lens but I also have ( luck found it on flea bay) a Leica hood that incorporates aperature adjustment in the more modern f3.5,4,5.6,8,11. Thought you would find that interesting. I enjoy your shows.Thanks,
Very interesting. I recognize Burlington House, and that pathway with the hedges! I also recognize the tube station where I got off to visit there. I’m from California and visited last September so it’s fun to see a place I visited, especially where so few travelers like me go to. Thanks.
Those Barnack cameras are the most beautiful cameras I can think of. Love my IIIG and the fact I can use a whole armada of M39 lenses apart of the Leitz lenses. The sharpness is impressive, probably way over what Film could catch.
Awesome episode Simon thanks for this. I recently picked up a cheap Canon L3 body only so started to source an LTM lens for it. On FB market place I found an Elmar with M adapter for 200 nzd I thought that was a decent deal. The lens arrived today looking forward to trying it out cheers 📷
I have a couple of 5 cm Elmar M collapsible lenses, one is F2.8, and the other F3.5. I use them occassionally on my M2 and M3. Right now I am waiting for a IIIc and and an Elmar F3.5 L39 to be delivered. The lens has the modern aperture settings and from the photograph it seemed to be coated, but I could be wrong. We'll see how they perform together.
That's Chiswick House - an 18th Century Palladian style "villa" in West London. It's close by to where I live in Chiswick, and has lovely gardens to photograph! Even closer is a wonderful art deco building I sometimes photograph called Voysey House. www.voyseysociety.org/voysey/buildings/sandersons.html
I have a film Leica but I rarely shoot film anymore. I use this lens on a Fujifilm X-T2 with a similar type conversion tube as yours. And I can get Infinity to insane level Macro. I would estimate minimum focus distance at about 1 Inch.
I don't understand how this lens, collapsed, could touch the sensor. Wouldn't that mean that on a film camera, it would touch the film? I tried collapsing a Soviet copy of this fully while on a NEX-M39 adaptor on the A7ii, and it doesn't touch. You can also mount on a film camera, with the back open (I suppose an M + adapter would be necessary for this) and check--it doesn't reach the film plane.
a couple things: 1. it’s 4 elements in 3 groups, with aperture between first two elements. 2. you’re de-centering is likely attributed to using the extension (not the helicoid) to focus.if the lens is not locked at full extension, it can easily de-center.
You’re right. My version is 4/3, not 5/3. 5/3 was the design for an earlier lens. And I agree on the alignment of the barrel when it’s not locked into its full extension. Many thanks, Simon
So, I'm prompted to wonder if there are examples of photos from the 30s or 40s that are as sharp as the images you have shared here. I've certainly never seen any, but I've mostly only seen published images poorly printed in magazines. I'm curious to understand the relative contributions of lens and film to this one aspect of the picture.
Handholding slower, grainier film in those days along with possible loss in quality at the enlargement step from the enlarger lens and film flatness of the negative carrier would contribute to that. And I'm unsure of how much digital sharpening is being used here
I've shot a lot of film on mine, and it is very very sharp. If you look especially for studio work, or later published collections that were made off the original negatives (some of Eisenstadt's retrospectives, for instance, because he held on to boxes and boxes of organized negatives), you can find very sharp and crisp images.
Thanks a lot for sharing your experience. A film camera is just a box with no relevance for the picture quality. It is only the lens that counts. This is also true for digital cameras with all the tech crammed into the box. I use this lens in a slightly newer version as well as a (non collapsable) 3,5cm from 1937 on my Fujifilm X-T30. Being an APS-C camera, the pictures are as sharp as they can be even in the corners. Their look can simply not bereplicated by more modern lenses. Nice.
Gorgeous photographs from a senior citizen lens! These older lenses have unique color rendering. It makes me wonder if there would be a market for uncoated lenses? Retro is in. What would a modern uncoated lens render like?
If you want to collapse it into a mirrorless digital camera, a cheap and reliable way to protect your sensor is to put 1 or 2 sturdy O-rings around the lens barrel. Makes for a very compact setup with an L39 adapter!
The Elmar has 4 ellements in 3 groups, not 5 in 3. It is a Tessar design, but with the apperture just behind the front element. You should correct this. Thanks for the video.
Apologies - I took the earliest version design. Sadly I can't correct this in the video, UA-cam won't allow posters to amend videos after posting. But I have mentioned it in other comments.
Hairy balls :D sorry. I've had one for a while because I found it for cheap (later factory coated in good shape), but haven't had much inspiration to use it. Then I found a 1932 standardized Leica I for equally as cheap, and boy howdy does the combination feel great. It is one of those things that is better than the sum of its parts. Like you said, there are less ancient and better lenses and cameras, but there aren't that many better combos than a Leica 1 + 5cm Elmar.
I have a very, very similar Soviet copy (Industar 10 aka FED 50mm F3.5), and it's claimed that it won't hit the A7 sensor; not that I have tried to find out. I've also adapted it in a funny way, turning it into M42 lens, then putting it on the focusing helicoid (as I adapt any M42 lens, for up to 30mm variable extension). When I collapse the lens it reaches infinity, plus I have up to 30mm extension with the lens collapsed. Unlike with normal M42 lenses, I can extend the lens itself of course, and this double extension turns it into a real macro lens. To be honest, it feels nicer to focus the lens with the helicoid anyway, but it doesn't feel as "vintage", for those who care to use the tab. I can improvise the hood, but if the aperture is tricky to use without it...
@@Simonsutak So you can increase the flange distance, decrease the minimum focus distance, but not sacrifice infinity focus? The more I think I understand how optics work, the more I don't know anything.
@@MobiusCoin This is only possible because this is a collapsible lens. Originally the lens can only achieve right flange distance when extended, with M42 adapter, it can achieve it when it is collapsed. Really a brilliant solution, although not that "vintage" looking.
Many thanks for your question. Most Leitz Elmar 50mm f3.5 old collapsible lenses I’ve seen reviewed on-line and for sale have f4.5. The f4.5 changed to f4 with the introduction of post war ‘Red Scale’ versions. I’d be amazed if my lens is a fake - I bought it with a Leica Standard (I) camera and the serial numbers/dates seem real.
Two weeks ago I've stumbled upon Canon Serenar 50mm f2 (Canon take on Leica Summar 50mm f2) from early 50's. Look & feel is great, not to mention historical value (and rarity, only 1400 was made according to some sources) however, performance not so good comparing to similar designs from same era (it's great but Biotar is better, for example)
Okay, I replayed it three times and you did say 'hairy balls'. Hey, it's Friday, 4pm and I just logged off my work computer. I'm feeling giddy!
As always, a superb and well narrated video. I shot with my Contax II and Sonnar F/2 lens for the first time last week and discovered the highs and lows of bright light on an uncoated lens. I know better now having watched your video.
Leica's collapsible Elmar lens is well known for its image quality. Knew an old friend who used the same lens on his Leica IIIf and traveled widely shooting Kodachrome 64. Years ago bought a refurbished Leica M3 and paired it w an Elmar 50 f2.8 lens. Results were quite good. Good point about older lenses that were not coated, which did affect flare and were not as sharp as modern lenses. I have since acquired DR Summicron f2.0 in fine condition (but heavily built). Acquired a Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 Nokton which is an older design with modern coatings. Share your enthusiasm for the older gear which present day shooters dismiss too quickly. Well done.😊
I started watching your videos for the micro four thirds lens reviews. I've continued watching your channel because of you enthusiasm and your videos are fun to watch.
I now use multiple types and brands of camera. I understand why you want to use different cameras.
Thank you for this, my father was a collector, (about 650 camera's) 6 Leica's + 4 extra lenses are coming my way, thanks to your video i ordered the right connectors for my sony.
That's an incredibly impressive collection. Enjoy your father's lenses and cameras!
Very good review and great information, thank you.
Little mistake is that the Elmar is not a 5 element Lens, it has 4 elements in three groups.
Many greetings, an thank you for the great review of this great little lens.
Christian
Thank you. Yes, I should have been clearer about the evolution of the Elmar's elements and groups. My understanding is that the very first version had 5 elements in 4 groups. The next version had 4 in 3. And so did the third version. Source: wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Main_Page
The 5 elements was the Elmax, the predecessor Lense of the Elmar
Love your reviews sir!
That was great Simon! I really enjoyed it. You are a fine photographer. 🙌🔥
Very glad you reviewed this lens. They are lovely and I've gotten great results on mine with both film and digital. And I love that I can pocket my little Barnack when out on a walk.
Wonderful review as always. The new format is educational, informative and inspirational. Humorous as well. You must have employed some new screenwriters. The Leitz Elmar 5cm f3.5 is indeed a legendary lens. Impressive image quality considering that it was manufactured almost 100 years ago. Especially the macro images. Though Trinity Lane in Cambridge was also extraordinary. While I do own a Leitz lens from an old slide projector - I've not ventured further down this rabbit hole simply on price. Though are starting to appreciate their deep history and highest quality industrial design. I get concerned when you mentioned that the lens wasn't hugely expensive to buy. Because in a months time - it will have become hugely expensive to buy.
Nota Bene on the hood: There IS a small thread that can take a hood or filter, and there are hoods that thread into the front of the lens. Some of these hoods can hold various color filters. Kodak actually made a lovely set complete with hood and several filters, which I have. But they are not ideal as you cannot adjust the aperture once the hood is threaded in (well, maybe you can if you use a needle).
Many thanks - I’ll look out for that Kodak set.
Really nice format!
And good informative reviews overall, thanks! 🙌
Thank you for another great video
I love my Elmar. Later versions were coated, and it makes a big difference
Simon, I have a IIIF with the 50mm f3.5 lens but I also have ( luck found it on flea bay) a Leica hood that incorporates aperature adjustment in the more modern f3.5,4,5.6,8,11. Thought you would find that interesting. I enjoy your shows.Thanks,
Very interesting. I recognize Burlington House, and that pathway with the hedges! I also recognize the tube station where I got off to visit there. I’m from California and visited last September so it’s fun to see a place I visited, especially where so few travelers like me go to. Thanks.
Great spots! I'm married to an American, and friends/in-laws who visit love this area. It's become a destination location for them.
Excellent video. Thank you very much.
0:41 what do you mean by "still in production"?
I meant the Standard (without rangefinder) was still in production whilst Leitz had started to produce the rangefinder Leica II (pre WWII).
Those Barnack cameras are the most beautiful cameras I can think of. Love my IIIG and the fact I can use a whole armada of M39 lenses apart of the Leitz lenses. The sharpness is impressive, probably way over what Film could catch.
I have it. Great lens. Mine was made in 1949. Oldest lens I have.
Awesome episode Simon thanks for this. I recently picked up a cheap Canon L3 body only so started to source an LTM lens for it. On FB market place I found an Elmar with M adapter for 200 nzd I thought that was a decent deal. The lens arrived today looking forward to trying it out cheers 📷
I have a couple of 5 cm Elmar M collapsible lenses, one is F2.8, and the other F3.5. I use them occassionally on my M2 and M3. Right now I am waiting for a IIIc and and an Elmar F3.5 L39 to be delivered. The lens has the modern aperture settings and from the photograph it seemed to be coated, but I could be wrong. We'll see how they perform together.
Hopping to see Sonnar Olympia f2.8 18cm early version on your review.
What is this white art deco building in many of the shots here (around 5:15, for instance) please?
That's Chiswick House - an 18th Century Palladian style "villa" in West London. It's close by to where I live in Chiswick, and has lovely gardens to photograph! Even closer is a wonderful art deco building I sometimes photograph called Voysey House. www.voyseysociety.org/voysey/buildings/sandersons.html
Art Deco 😂😂😂
I have a film Leica but I rarely shoot film anymore. I use this lens on a Fujifilm X-T2 with a similar type conversion tube as yours. And I can get Infinity to insane level Macro. I would estimate minimum focus distance at about 1 Inch.
I don't understand how this lens, collapsed, could touch the sensor. Wouldn't that mean that on a film camera, it would touch the film?
I tried collapsing a Soviet copy of this fully while on a NEX-M39 adaptor on the A7ii, and it doesn't touch. You can also mount on a film camera, with the back open (I suppose an M + adapter would be necessary for this) and check--it doesn't reach the film plane.
a couple things:
1. it’s 4 elements in 3 groups, with aperture between first two elements.
2. you’re de-centering is likely attributed to using the extension (not the helicoid) to focus.if the lens is not locked at full extension, it can easily de-center.
You’re right. My version is 4/3, not 5/3. 5/3 was the design for an earlier lens. And I agree on the alignment of the barrel when it’s not locked into its full extension. Many thanks, Simon
Could the decentering be due to the lens disassembly/assembly for cleaning etc?
So, I'm prompted to wonder if there are examples of photos from the 30s or 40s that are as sharp as the images you have shared here. I've certainly never seen any, but I've mostly only seen published images poorly printed in magazines. I'm curious to understand the relative contributions of lens and film to this one aspect of the picture.
Handholding slower, grainier film in those days along with possible loss in quality at the enlargement step from the enlarger lens and film flatness of the negative carrier would contribute to that. And I'm unsure of how much digital sharpening is being used here
I've shot a lot of film on mine, and it is very very sharp. If you look especially for studio work, or later published collections that were made off the original negatives (some of Eisenstadt's retrospectives, for instance, because he held on to boxes and boxes of organized negatives), you can find very sharp and crisp images.
Thanks a lot for sharing your experience. A film camera is just a box with no relevance for the picture quality. It is only the lens that counts. This is also true for digital cameras with all the tech crammed into the box. I use this lens in a slightly newer version as well as a (non collapsable) 3,5cm from 1937 on my Fujifilm X-T30. Being an APS-C camera, the pictures are as sharp as they can be even in the corners. Their look can simply not bereplicated by more modern lenses. Nice.
Gorgeous photographs from a senior citizen lens! These older lenses have unique color rendering. It makes me wonder if there would be a market for uncoated lenses? Retro is in. What would a modern uncoated lens render like?
If you want to collapse it into a mirrorless digital camera, a cheap and reliable way to protect your sensor is to put 1 or 2 sturdy O-rings around the lens barrel. Makes for a very compact setup with an L39 adapter!
The Elmar has 4 ellements in 3 groups, not 5 in 3. It is a Tessar design, but with the apperture just behind the front element. You should correct this. Thanks for the video.
Apologies - I took the earliest version design. Sadly I can't correct this in the video, UA-cam won't allow posters to amend videos after posting. But I have mentioned it in other comments.
"If you ignore the hairy balls..." Sometimes they just get in the way. :)
Hairy balls :D sorry. I've had one for a while because I found it for cheap (later factory coated in good shape), but haven't had much inspiration to use it. Then I found a 1932 standardized Leica I for equally as cheap, and boy howdy does the combination feel great. It is one of those things that is better than the sum of its parts. Like you said, there are less ancient and better lenses and cameras, but there aren't that many better combos than a Leica 1 + 5cm Elmar.
i have lenses with the 'hairy' bokeh balls before i think its to do with opitcal fauls such as basalm seperation, lens seperation, or debris
Yes, I agree, I was careful to say "my copy". I'm not assuming this is a common model-wide characteristic. (Perhaps I should have said this too!).
I have a very, very similar Soviet copy (Industar 10 aka FED 50mm F3.5), and it's claimed that it won't hit the A7 sensor; not that I have tried to find out. I've also adapted it in a funny way, turning it into M42 lens, then putting it on the focusing helicoid (as I adapt any M42 lens, for up to 30mm variable extension). When I collapse the lens it reaches infinity, plus I have up to 30mm extension with the lens collapsed. Unlike with normal M42 lenses, I can extend the lens itself of course, and this double extension turns it into a real macro lens. To be honest, it feels nicer to focus the lens with the helicoid anyway, but it doesn't feel as "vintage", for those who care to use the tab. I can improvise the hood, but if the aperture is tricky to use without it...
harry ball bokeh interesting lens
Does the lens still focus to infinity on the M42 mount?
Yes on my M42 to Sony e-mount adapter.
@@Simonsutak So you can increase the flange distance, decrease the minimum focus distance, but not sacrifice infinity focus? The more I think I understand how optics work, the more I don't know anything.
@@MobiusCoin This is only possible because this is a collapsible lens. Originally the lens can only achieve right flange distance when extended, with M42 adapter, it can achieve it when it is collapsed.
Really a brilliant solution, although not that "vintage" looking.
Sir, Is that lense a fake version? The auth version has the F3.5 then F4, but your version is F3.5 then F4.5
Many thanks for your question. Most Leitz Elmar 50mm f3.5 old collapsible lenses I’ve seen reviewed on-line and for sale have f4.5. The f4.5 changed to f4 with the introduction of post war ‘Red Scale’ versions. I’d be amazed if my lens is a fake - I bought it with a Leica Standard (I) camera and the serial numbers/dates seem real.
The industar 50-2 is based on this lens
Two weeks ago I've stumbled upon Canon Serenar 50mm f2 (Canon take on Leica Summar 50mm f2) from early 50's. Look & feel is great, not to mention historical value (and rarity, only 1400 was made according to some sources) however, performance not so good comparing to similar designs from same era (it's great but Biotar is better, for example)
I have the Soviet rip off version of this lens. The Industar 5cm f3.5. I wonder how they would do in a competition?
CANT IGNORE THE HAIRY BALLS LOL
i think you should compare this lens with cheap industar lenses.
Tagalog Word of the Day: Utak. Definition: [noun] brain; intellect; intelligence; mind; mastermind.
The bubbles look like they've captured microscopic algae or fungi of some sort.
lol. “Hairy balls.”
Did I just listen to hairy balls x) ?
I'd maybe suggest you avoid the phrase 'hairy b___s' (7:48) in future videos?
I'd maybe suggest the opposite. I like a sense of humour.