Leica LTM Summaron 35mm/f3.5 or Voigtlander Ultron 35mm/f1.7 ?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Have not tried the CV lenses, but I love the Summaron 3.5: ridiculously sharp, but "classic" in its tonality. A big bargain, relative to other Leica lenses.
 
I'm of the opinion that the Ultron 35mm which I own, is the finest 35mm I have ever owned, and I've used a lot of them being my favourite focal length.

Not tried the Summarons; but the Ultron takes a good picture and renders colour and black and white how I like it.

The Skopar is good, but it's a contrasty lens, which sometimes is no bad thing. I'm not sure how glass can make something contrasty; but the Ultron's rendering suits my style to a tee.

I'm confident in raw technical terms it'll knock the spots off any Summaron, but each look has its uses and at the end of the day, it's the person behind the lens that will make the most difference, Summaron or Ultron.

Vicky
 
have Not tried the ultron
but the summaron is Sweeeet & Sharp...a Classic indeed..
No slouch in low light either /neopan 1600, summaron 3.5
4054478554_c917cafd9e_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
another LOW LIGHT this with the 2.8 summaron
except for the extra stop I can't tell the Difference between the 3.5 /2.8 summarons ...BOTH are Sharp
4170973137_0a998e6fb6_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have the Summaron 35/2.8 with eyes for the M3- and it is as good as the Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5, which I have in S-Mount. Also have the 3.5cm F1.8 in S-Mount, faster and as sharp as the F2.5.

The Ultron is a big lens, more the size of an SLR 35/2.8. Well balanced on a Canon P. It is going to be big on a IIIf.

I keep a Canon 35/2.8 on my Leica III. Less than the price of the 35/3.5 Summaron, quite sharp, and lower-contrast. It is small, and uses 34mm filters. Runs ~$150 or so.
 
I've got Helen's 35/3.5 Summaron and a 35/1.7 Ultron and a 35/2.5 Color Skopar and honestly, you can't go wrong with any of them. Each one has its own look and way of drawing and each is quite distinctive. All three are quite sharp on my M8. Have a look at my photosets from each, all taken with the same M8 and maybe that will help you get a feel for each lens:

1951 Leica 35mm f3.5 Summaron

Voigtländer Ultron 35/1.7

35mm Voigtländer Color Skopar...
 
Is it possible to know at what aperture the photographs were taken? If not, I'd suggest that the the comparison isn't terribly meaningful. All of these lenses will give excellent results at f8 or thererabouts, it's when you open them up that differences may appear.
 
lawrence said:
Is it possible to know at what aperture the photographs were taken? If not, I'd suggest that the the comparison isn't terribly meaningful. All of these lenses will give excellent results at f8 or thererabouts, it's when you open them up that differences may appear.
Click to expand...

Oh Hi Lawrence
the two Evening blk & white shots are shot WIDE OPEN
first one @ 3.5
middle color shot @ 5.6
last one @2.8 / the only one w the 2.8 summaron
:) Best-H
 
Well, you could look at them and the ones with the shallowest DOF, especially ones shot at night, are probably shot pretty close to wide open, as that's how I usually work in those conditions. For instance, the B&W shots of Omaha's Old Market district in the Color Skopar set, were almost all shot at f2.5, with the exception of the frames that were obviously shot in daylight.

I don't keep detailed records of settings and, sadly, the exif data doesn't include aperture. That said, close examination of the exif data, especially the recorded shutter speed, might give you a rough idea of how wide-open the lens was at exposure.

I'm sorry you couldn't glean anything meaningful from the 1,110 photos I made available.
 
jonmanjiro said:
Tom,

I'm biased like Vince, but the W-Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 is an excellent lens! If the W-Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 wasn't such a darn good lens, there would be a lot more talk about its slightly slower but no less worthy sibling. Here's a few pics taken with my sample :)
Click to expand...


Jon, how about a more related question: the nikkor 35/3.5 vs. the summaron 35/3.5? Any clues? :D
 
maggieo said:
Well, you could look at them and the ones with the shallowest DOF, especially ones shot at night, are probably shot pretty close to wide open, as that's how I usually work in those conditions. For instance, the B&W shots of Omaha's Old Market district in the Color Skopar set, were almost all shot at f2.5, with the exception of the frames that were obviously shot in daylight.

I don't keep detailed records of settings and, sadly, the exif data doesn't include aperture. That said, close examination of the exif data, especially the recorded shutter speed, might give you a rough idea of how wide-open the lens was at exposure.

I'm sorry you couldn't glean anything meaningful from the 1,110 photos I made available.
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for the information, it was just that there were an awful lot of photos to go through without it.
 
If you have any specific photos you were wondering about, I might be able to provide more info. Keep in mind, they're all shot on an M8, so I won't be any help when it comes to what happens on the edges of a full 35mm frame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom