How good is the CV 35/1.7 Ultron

The Ultron is my favorite lens. It's on my camera all the time and it's the one I use for about 99% of my work. It's really sharp but not too contrasty like the Skopar (personal taste). It's sharp but with a silky look. Highlights are beautiful.

I find it's a perfect match with the Heliar 75/2.5. Pictures from both can be hard to differentiate, except for the field of view and compression.

Since I use a meter or the one inside my R2, the 1.7 aperture doesn't bother me at all.

For samples, check my gallerie, my website or my shots from the Montreal RFF meeting
 
Great lens and i'm constantly trying to justify spending a fortune on a summicron asph. To be honest I doubt that I would see any difference in the pictures I take. Maybe if I was printing large with a focomat then it would be justifiable but not when scanning negs and digitizing!
 

Attachments

  • Bordeaux.jpg
    Bordeaux.jpg
    159.5 KB · Views: 0
is the cv 35/1.7 much more compact than the cv 35/1.2 in reality? by the shots i have seen, the 1.2 doesn't seem that much bulkier....but perhaps this is not so?
 
thomasw_ said:
is the cv 35/1.7 much more compact than the cv 35/1.2 in reality? by the shots i have seen, the 1.2 doesn't seem that much bulkier....but perhaps this is not so?
Click to expand...

The 35/1.2 is much larger. Compare the dimensions (length x diameter in mm):

35/1.7 Ultron (47.8 x 55)
35/1.2 Nokton (77.8 x 63)

You can find a review of the Ultron here:

www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/voigtl01.html

It was also reviewed by Popular Photography back in July, 2000. Perhaps you can get access in back issues at your local library.
 
I've used a 35/1.7 a lot on an R-D1s, on which it gives a FOV around 50mm, which is my focal length of choice. Absolutely no complaints about the optics, build, or price, it's a terrific lens, sharp, not too contrasty, reasonably compact and light.

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom