35mm's..skopar vs ultron vs canon

M

marcwilson

Member
Local time
1:30 PM
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
14
Location
England
View My Gallery
Hi guys,

I am looking at picking up my first 35mm lens to see what's what (at a certain budget) and I have found...for all pretty much the same price..a screw mount skopar 2.5, and ultron 1.7 and a canon 2.8. (the canon and ultron are the same price and the skopar just a touch more)

I hear the skopar is smaller but more contrasty, the ultron a bit smoother, obviousely faster, but a bit bigger and the canon...well not as good as its faster canon siblings.

But really...its my first 35mm (its for walk around shooting with plus-x)...any real reason I should choose any of these lenses over the others? I know its not the end of anything as any of them can be sold again for no or little loss if it does not feel right but I can only try one to start with!!

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
I guess you have to ask yourself how fast a lens you want.
I have the Ultron and the Color-Skopar P2 and I like them both about the same but for different reasons.
If IQ is your main concern, I think that the Color-Skopar will give you better results. It did for me. It's also an M mount lens, so you won't have to buy an LTM to M adapter.

I obviously can't speak on the Canon, but I wouldn't want a 35mm slower than f/2.5.
 
The Ultron usually sells for more than the Skopar - I like the Skopar for color. The Ultron had been my fave 35 until I picked up a Canon 35/2.8 (there's one in classifieds right now) and I just got a very nice price on the lens I've been lusting over for a year - the Canon 35/2.0 - haven't even run a roll on it yet, though.

The CV lenses are more modern, I find, more contrast, the Skopar seems to just suck in the colors. The Canons are more classic, less contrasty, good resolution, but a softer look to the photos. If I were doing just BW and was on a tight budget, I'd get the Canon 35/2.8 and pray for a 2.0 to show up on the cheap. If money is no object, visit Kevin's Cameras and pick up the 2.0 - he has some gem like examples that I could not afford.

I have some sets on Flickr showing examples of all lenses I mentioned here, except the newest.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/januaryman/sets/
 
Last edited:
edited post to mention skopar is the screw mount version. fastest lens not essential to me. skopar certainly is the smallest which is very nice..just wondering as i can get the more expensive ultron for a bit less perhaps that is the way to go?
(wether m or screw not a problem right now...still trying to find a body for this trip so may be either)

its for shooting black and white only, skopar is only £25 more than the canon so price problem not a real problem...ultron in between.
 
I own the Ultron and the Canon. I sold my Skopar not too long ago. So i've used all three lenses. The Skopar is great, but I found it a bit too contrasty. It's nice and small, though the lens hood adds a bit of bulk. I love the Ultron. My only beef with the lens is that it's a bit big. Besides that it's all kinds of awesome. I'm not sure what the complaints about the Canon lens are. I've heard it's not that good, but never actually heard why. It's small, and so far it takes pictures I can't complain about. You can see photos i've shot with all three lenses on Flickr.

The Canon.
The Ultron.
The Skopar.

For B&W I would get the Canon or the Ultron. The Skopar is way too contrasty a lens.
 
Last edited:
For performance - go for the Skopar 35f2.5 - it is as good as anything Leica produces pre-Asph. The Ultron 35f1.7 is very good, but I prefer the Skopar to it. As for the Canon's - I find the 35f2.8 a "middle of the road" lens. OK, but not spectacular. The 35f2 or f1.8 is markedly better, though they are both "vintage" lenses and designs.
As suggested, go to Flickr and "tag" the lenses you are interested in and look at how they perform. You cant really discern resolution on the screen, but it does give you an idea of out of focus areas and, to some extent, color rendition.
 
The Skopar has one advantage over the other lenses: 0.7m min. focus. This helps if you carry it around as your only lens and want to shoot people close-up, for instance. It's rendition is almost in-distinguishable from the pre-asph Summicron to me.

Roland.
 
I'll check out the flickr stuff.
Out of interest does anyone have a shot of the skopar next to the ultron...so I can see the actual physical difference?

and just to throw an extra hat into the ring...I can also pick up a 40mm nokton 1.4 sc for the same price as all the others...sc no problem as shooting bw...and a touch less wide...and an M fit so no adaptor needed.

can you have too many choices?
 
Last edited:
marcwilson said:
I'll check out the flickr stuff.
Out of interest does anyone have a shot of the skopar next to the ultron...so I can see the actual physical difference?

and just to throw an extra hat into the ring...I can also pick up a 40mm nokton 1.4 sc for the same price as all the others...sc no problem as shooting bw...and a touch less wide...and an M fit so no adaptor needed.

can you have too many choices?
Click to expand...

think they have that on the cameraquest site.
 
I have all three, and of the three, I usually end up with the Skopar on my camera. I like the contrast, the sharpness (perceived or otherwise), and the size. I like the look of the Canon too. It's kind of a gritty street look. I don't shoot them wide open very often. I use them as daylight street shooters, so I get close to wide. I really like the Skopars, especially the 28/3.5.


.
 
I also own all three of these lenses, and generally agree w/ the assessments above. A few additional thoughts:

1) The chrome Canon 35/2.8 is tiny; it feels smaller than the CV skopar, although I haven't done a side-by-side comparison. The Ultron is MUCH larger than either of the other two. If pocketability is a concern, points to the Canon and CV skopar.

2) Image quality on all three lenses is really good. You can't go wrong w/ any of them. On balance, if I absolutely had to choose a "best" of the three, I'd pick the Ultron though.

3) Do you plan on shooting in very sunny locations, or in lots of harsh, contrasty light? If so, points to the Canon and Ultron. Less contrast, less likely to blow out highlights, than the skopar.

4) Will you be shooting color more, or B&W more? As noted by Jim, the skopar is a great lens w/ color film, and the Ultron is not too shabby either (in fact, of the two, I prefer the look of the Ultron). OTOH, I love B&W in the little Canon 35/2.8.

5) The CV 35 skopar is often recommended as a great first 35 lens. There's a good reason for that. It's a great little lens.

But, bottom line: you can't go wrong w/ any of them.
 
Thank you for all the replies...great reasons to get any of them really.

I'm leaning towards either the skopar or canon (it's the black and chrome version of the canon) due to the size as with this focal length lens on it's nice to be as portable as possible...and may well end up going for the 40mm nokton due to its perhaps more natural view which I'm liking these days after many years shooting really wide, and it seems to be as small as these other two but perhaps with a touh less contrast with its single coating...all nice for plus-x I think and with the added darkroom control for increasing contrast if I wish.

Thanks again.
 
These are all very fine lenses. The Canon is superbly built and small. The Skopar is small and a good deal. The Ultron is optically superior to the other two (noticeably so), and fairly compact. It is usually the most expensive of the three, although bargains can be found occasionally.
 
I have had both and now have the Ultron as my 35mm of choice, the Skopar is now going to be put up for sale.

I prefer its focussing ring (as opposed to the focussing lever) and optically it's been brilliant. I can't say I have made much use of it wide open as yet but at f/8 to f/16 it is beautifully sharp (I've mostly just been doing landscapes since I got it) and I have to say it's the best lens I have ever owned. It has a real character that say a optically brilliant but slightly clinical L series Canon lens has.

It slightly obscures the lower left of my M2's viewfinder but I can honestly say that this lens with my M2 has made photography new again and extremely fun.

Most of my recent photos on my Flickr pages are taken with the Ultron:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/
 
The 35/2.5 Skopar was my first modern LTM 35 (after Jupiter-12). Now I've got the Nokton 40mm and I hardly ever use the Skopar. The Nokton became my most favorite and most used lens on M6 with 35mm framelines.

Go for the Nokton. Speed does matter. It also handles much better.
Also, 40mm is great: one step back - "it's a 35", one step forward - "it's a 50".
 
I did not like my 35mm Skopar. I am looking for an Ultron 1.7 or Nokton 1.4 SC (if I sell something, haha).

Edit: Marc Wilson, my name is Sam Wilson
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

8
Help me Choose a 35mm for an Canon RF Article
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
wlewisiii
W
Roastchestnuts
Tiny Voigtlander 35mm f3.5 Aspheric
2 3
Replies
54
Views
5K
Yokosuka Mike
Yokosuka Mike
Timmyjoe
Canon A-1 vs Canon AE-1Program
Replies
17
Views
820
Bob Michaels
Bob Michaels
N
Canon LTM 35mm f2, Canon 35mm f2.8, Jupiter 12 - opinions on these lenses?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
10K
titrisol
titrisol
D
Canon 28mm f3.5 or f2.8 on Leica M - Anyone one using one?
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
13K
Deleted member 65559
D
Back
Top Bottom