Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/20

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: : Re: [Leica] Barnack IIIF question.
From: Simon Stevens <>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 22:07:25 -0400

Noel wrote:

Gentlemen, I believe the 941xxx serial number simon Stevens asked about
was in reference to the Elmar lens he described. Re-read the paragraph
below, and see if it reads that way to you. Simon, if it does, the
Rogliatti list shows that lens is from 1951, a very good year, but being

born in it, I may be somewhat biased.

Mine was 1967, which makes me about the same age as a couple of my
beloved M lenses. The IIF body serial number in question is 596XXX which
according to Stephen Gandy's site is also 1951, so I guess it and the
lens are matched. Nevertheless, given the information you have all given
me it doesn't sound like a good deal and since the camera is a
consignment, the dealer doesn't have the authority to negotiate the
price. The same goes for a very clean, but overpriced SL which another
dealer here has. Oh well, but thanks for the info.

By the way, though, since we are on this subject. Does anyone have a
practical experienced-based opinion on how much difference the coating
on the elmar makes? I had a pre-war elmar with my old IIIa which was, of
course, uncoated and which flared at the drop of a hat, but was very
nice otherwise. Is the coated version more flare-resristant?

Simon Stevens

Replies: Reply from "Dan Post" <> (Re: Re: [Leica] Barnack IIIF question.)