Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/21

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

Subject: Re: Re: [Leica] Barnack IIIF question.
From: "Dan Post" <>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 09:07:59 -0700
References: <>

in re flare...
I have a 1951 era Elmar, coated and I have found that it is not too prone to
flare, but then I use a VALOO shade on it constantly- partly to shade the
front element that is hangin WAY out there in front, and because it allows
me to change the aperture more easily!
For the majority of my shots, and I use a lot of HP5, Delta 400, and Tri-X
not worrying about grain, I find that it is a very good performer, and will
match images taken with much newer glass when printed to 8x10.
I think you will find that the coated version will be a bit more resistant
to flare, but the Elmar is NOT one to point to far up to the sun, in any
case. I cannot be beat, however, for compactness, and the results are very
nice. Enjoy!
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Simon Stevens <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 7:07 PM
Subject: : Re: [Leica] Barnack IIIF question.

> 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

In reply to: Message from Simon Stevens <> (: Re: [Leica] Barnack IIIF question.)