pre-war Elmar 3.5cm 1:3.5

[Sjak]

Somehow, I cannot get this lens out of my head. In part, I want one for the historic significance, but of course, I will use it too (on various cameras)

If available at non-stratospheric price range, a nickel version would be my preference, but this is not an absolute must.

Are there any pitfalls I should be aware of with this lens? Are fakes a big issue, and what warnings should I look for? Maybe some recommended dealers for this type of historic lenses? (preferably in say Belgium/Netherlands/Germany/Austria)

And of course, if anyone wants to share some pictures taken with this lens, that would be highly appreciated.

Other comments, thoughts or references on this lens are of course also welcome!

[tb_a]

Maybe this will help you a little bit further: http://forum.mflenses.com/leitz-elmar-3-5cm-t76519.html

[Nordentro]

Yes, that's my post

Well, Im like you, I like those old gems and I have many lenses chosen for something else than just IQ. The Elmar is enjoyable for sure, but have it's flaws. The corners are quite weak and the contrast is not skyhigh, but fixable in PP. All in all, good lens for the age. I bought mine on eBay...

[Sjak]

Thanks!

I'm not considering it for pixel-perfect results, but more as a "time machine"

And small form factor is also a big plus in my book.

[cooltouch]

I'm a big fan of the 50/3.5 collapsible Elmar. Many folks tend to ignore it because it is slow. That's a big mistake.

I've told the anecdote here before, but perhaps it bears repeating:

I used to be a camera dealer. I was at a show, just sort of relaxing before they opened the doors for the general public. Another dealer, a guy who specialized in large format, walked up to me and handed me two B&W glossy 8x10s. The scene was a small, white country church, set in a picturesque meadow. He asks me if I can tell which one was shot with a 4x5 large format and which was shot with 35mm. So I look at both for a moment, and hand them back. I point to one and say, "This is the 35mm."

He asked how I could tell. "The grain," I said. That was the only way I could tell the difference between the two images. The 35mm, since it had to be enlarged more, showed more grain. There was no difference in sharpness or contrast between the two images. He told me what the large format setup was that he used, and I don't recall it anymore, but he was using a good lens, so he wasn't handicapping anything. I do recall his 35mm setup, though. It was a Leica IIIg with a collapsible 50/3.5 Elmar.

It was around that time that I owned a Leica M3 and I was using a LTM collapsible Elmar with it, I had the Leitz adapter. It was for sale, but I was shooting with it up to the point where I sold it. I look back fondly at the images I took with that Elmar. It was a cool lens.

[Sjak]

That's a really nice anecdote!