28 Ultron

L

loneranger

Well-known
Local time
5:16 AM
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
427
View My Gallery
Well, I have read so much talk about the ultron and how good it is; I have also seen some pretty decent pics on flickr and here. Everyone is just dying to get one; It is claimed to be the lens of the century. However, I have yet to see a picture that shows why I should get this versus the amazing VC 28/3.5. All the pics so far are daylight, mostly black and white, etc..I have to say I am bored. The only reason to get this lens is performance at f2.0, at night, available light, poor lighting situation, Nan Goldin type of shots, can you guys who have it give a good reason to get it.
 
Get the 3.5 (amazing lens, discontinued and impossible to find now in black; chromes can still be bought new) and wait for a well priced 1.9 to come up in the classifieds. I love the ASPH Ultron and am in no hurry to replace it. If you are like me, you might have an LTM camera on which you can use it, too .... 😉

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Just because a lens has a wide aperture is not a good reason to get it; The performance at wide aperture is key; Otherwise there are lots of 28/2.0 out there that are cheap and available: I can think of nikon 28/2 AIS, Olympus Om 28/2, Canon 28/1.8 (a horrible lens) , etc, all are cheaper than the ultron and easy to find; Just show some pics at f2, that is all I am asking.
 
loneranger said:
Just because a lens has a wide aperture is not a good reason to get it; The performance at wide aperture is key; Otherwise there are lots of 28/2.0 out there that are cheap and available: I can think of nikon 28/2 AIS, Olympus Om 28/2, Canon 28/1.8 (a horrible lens) , etc, all are cheaper than the ultron and easy to find; Just show some pics at f2, that is all I am asking.
Click to expand...

You are correct with respect to "just because a lens is fast is no reason to get it".
The reason to get it is, if you do actually need the speed, then it's an incredible value for the money based on what we've seen so far.

As you stated, the Nikon AIS, Olympus and Canon's are cheaper and available but how many can fit on a Leica M-mount camera? 🙂

So, unless you do actually do low/available light shooting, then stick with your 28/3.5 and be happy 🙂 but know that if you do need it, the Ultron (f2.0) will be around for a while still 🙂

Cheers,
Dave
 
Loneranger,

I have not used my Ultron 28/2 at night because I bought this lens primarily to use for landscapes. So my camera has been loaded with slow speed film which makes available darkness work abit tedious. Plus if I am going out in the dark, I prefer to my Nikon F with my Nikkor 35mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.2.

Unfortunately, my scanner is not up to the task of scanning the negatives from the 28/2. But a friend of mine, David Myers of Digitalmasters Australasia has offered to scan a selection of my negatives at 8,000dpi on his professional scanners.

I will shoot a roll of Velvia 50, Efke 25 and Portra 160 this week and deliver the goods to David later this week. So with some time and patience, we should be able to post some scans that will truly show the real abilities of this lens.
 
dcsang said:
As you stated, the Nikon AIS, Olympus and Canon's are cheaper and available but how many can fit on a Leica M-mount camera? 🙂
Click to expand...

You mean like this ? 🙂

157017107_guJS5-M.jpg


Roland.
 
WHile I like that Cosina made a new Ultron and I like what I saw from it so far - It will not replace my 28 Hexanon - for my taste its a better lens than a CV 28/2. YMMV.
 
ferider said:
You mean like this ? 🙂

157017107_guJS5-M.jpg


Roland.
Click to expand...

Vow, where did you get that adapter, I would love to get my hands on one since I have the beautiful olympus 28/2 also, I had no idea there was such an adaptor. Come to think of it, I could use my olympus 21/3.5 also on the M6. I want one.
 
P. Lynn Miller said:
Loneranger,

I have not used my Ultron 28/2 at night because I bought this lens primarily to use for landscapes. So my camera has been loaded with slow speed film which makes available darkness work abit tedious. Plus if I am going out in the dark, I prefer to my Nikon F with my Nikkor 35mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.2.

Unfortunately, my scanner is not up to the task of scanning the negatives from the 28/2. But a friend of mine, David Myers of Digitalmasters Australasia has offered to scan a selection of my negatives at 8,000dpi on his professional scanners.

I will shoot a roll of Velvia 50, Efke 25 and Portra 160 this week and deliver the goods to David later this week. So with some time and patience, we should be able to post some scans that will truly show the real abilities of this lens.
Click to expand...
Thanks a lot , I will look forward to your scans.
 
ferider said:
You mean like this ? 🙂

157017107_guJS5-M.jpg


Roland.
Click to expand...

Well..... I'll be damned.... well done Roland ... well done indeed 🙂

ETA: FWIW, I'll have the Ultron in my hands by Monday evening (I hope.. depending on my retailer) - I plan on starting tests fairly soon after I get it - I'm going to compare to the Zeiss ZM 28mm Biogon (f2.8).

Cheers,
Dave
 
Last edited:
loneranger said:
Vow, where did you get that adapter, I would love to get my hands on one since I have the beautiful olympus 28/2 also, I had no idea there was such an adaptor. Come to think of it, I could use my olympus 21/3.5 also on the M6. I want one.
Click to expand...

Check with the head bartender, he sold me this one. Not sure if he still sells them. Mention that it is the Zuiko/M adapter that is RF coupled, with focus helicoid (you have to focus twice, both adapter and lens). It brings up 50mm framelines.

I bought it for the 21 that I will get at some point (long term GAS ....) 😱

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
yes, i am also waiting on seeing more results from this lens before deciding whether to buy. I noticed that one of p. lynn miller's shots at f/2 seemed to show extreme vignetting. I guess you can only ask for so much at f/2 but it makes me wonder how useful that extra stop will be. And yes, more contrasty scenes, and higher res scans to examine would be great. i suppose these samples will come in time as more folks get their hands on this lens.
 
Here is a shoot of a friend's backyard party, done with both the 35/1.4 ASPH and the 28/1.9 Ultron. No great art, but it will show the Ultron vs. the Summilux in the same situation.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/friends/ParsleyParty/

The pictures on pages 4-8 are mostly if not all with the 28 Ultron. The lighting got darker and darker as you go throught the series. You can compare them with the 35/1.4 ASPH shots on pp. 1-3 (mostly cloudy daylight & shade) and 9 (dusk). Click on the little camera icon above any picture to see the EXIF data. If it says 28mm, it's the Ultron. If it says 0mm, it's the 35 Summilux ASPH (my hand-coding marks rubbed off, no big deal).

The Ultron is a low-contrast lens, and I didn't do a lot to increase local contrast, but I think you will see that it's a respectable lens. If you use it with modern Leica lenses, you will probably have to push the blacks down a bit plus do an S-curve to make the contrasts match more closely. Remember that the Summilux costs a LOT more than the Ultron.

Hope this helps!
--Peter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom