28mm Summicron vs. 28mm Ultron

[Bill Blackwell]

The test set was taken with a Leica M8. Both lenses were 6-bit coded and had an IR/Cut filter mounted with lens identification turned on. Comparisons were posted at f/2, 4, and 8. In each comparison the Summicron pic appears to the left and the Ultron to the right.

The test was shot in RAW and converted to jpg in Photoshop (with no processing). I only posted the test pics on PN because they will take larger file sizes than RFF.

Test folder here:

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=861270

 

[Bill Blackwell]

BTW, each of the test shots were focused on "28mm Summicron-M - f/16" on the identification sheet.

 

[Krosya]

I like Ultron better

 

[padraigm]

Well the summicron certainly seems to be sharper

 

[noimmunity]

The difference between the two is, to my eyes, marked until f/8.
Wide open, there seems to be considerable CA on the Ultron, less sharpness, less contrast, and less saturation. The summicron shows its neutrality and fidelity of rendering colour (perhaps a little cool), while the ultron has a colour cast at all apertures.

Thank you for sharing the test.

Would be interesting to see the two compared in B&W.

Also more close focus shots could potentially bring out the strengths of the ultron a little more.

 

[Tom A]

There is surprisingly little difference between them. The Ultron 28f2.0 is marginally sharper in the center at f2 whilst the Summicron 28 is better in the corners!. This is the same conclusion I come too whilst shooting with them in bl/w. What it is interesting is the warmer tone to the Ultron versus the rather cold rendition of the Summicron. Of course shooting only bl/w I would not see that. My testing was done with film too and that is different from digital.
On a personal note - I prefer the ergonomics of the Ultron versus the Summicron, but that is strictly my opinion. I find the Summicron a bit clumsy to operate and I prefer the small hood of the Ultron.
I suspect that either of these lenses would do well in the hands of a skilled user.

 

[Dan States]

Other than a warmer cast to the Ultron I don't the difference...What am I missing here? The Ultron is 1/5th the price of the Summicron so there MUST be a visible difference right? Dear God PLEASE let me see the difference!

 

[monochromejrnl]

28/2 summicron prices are about to nosedive ;P

not much of a difference (at least not one that matters to my eye) and certainly not one to justify the monumental price difference

 

[Bill Blackwell]

This is how I typically test my lenses - in not perfect, but controlled conditions.

I agree the Ultron is very nice, especially for the price. The RAW test results are more dramatic. The Ultron is fairly consistent through all stops, at least on par with the Leica wide open, but as you stop down the Summicron improves dramatically delivering exceptional sharpness and contrast. The two lenses do not return to par until f/16 (the Ultron has one stop beyond to f/22).

One of the visual differences between the two lenses is the Summicron's blue tint in the white areas - this can be seen less dramatically in the small jpeg files in the link.

I would have happily kept the Ultron had I not already owned the Leica.

 

[35mmdelux]

to my discerning eye kind of a mixed bag. I cannot honestly say that one is the absolute winner nor can I say that the Cron pulls away.

(I have the 28mm EM ASPH). Tks for the test. Paul

 

[loneranger]

Extremely interesting test and this is why: The ultron wins wide open, and the summicron wins stopped down.
So, at least in my opinion, the ultron is the more useful lens because the only reason one would buy an f2 lens is for the wide open performance. If you do not need f2, then 28/2.8 would be cheaper and less weight and probably as sharp at f8.

 

[sanmich]

The Summicron seems sharper to me.
Also, as a film shooters, I have to consider that the "corner" in this M8 experiment is far from the corner of film frame, and further degradation of the image is going to happen in the corners.

A while ago, Being not entirely satisfied by several aspects of the Ultron, I bought an Hexanon and tested both at f/2.8. The hex won hands down in terms of sharpness and resolution.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

Well,
maybe I am just unlucky then with my copy or I am expecting too much.

Attached picture was taken wide open on the M8. I am curious what the results will be on the M6.

Best regards,
Uwe

 

[Bill Blackwell]

... Attached picture was taken wide open on the M8. I am curious what the results will be on the M6...

Did you use a tripod? It looks like you might have a slight camera shake.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

Did you use a tripod? It looks like you might have a slight camera shake.

@ 1/4000? Somehow I don't think so.

Best regards,
Uwe

 

[kevin m]

The wild-card when Leica gear is being compared is always price, and in this case, as in many others, it's difficult, to say the least, to say that 6x the price buys much difference in real-world performance.

If you shoot locked down on a tripod, then why shoot 35mm? Why not MF or, better, a 4x5 camera?* And if you're using your 35mm M-mount camera the way God and Oscar Barnack intended - hand held - then these differences are largely moot.




*Why not own both? The cost difference between these two lenses would allow a smart shopper to own a very nice medium format and 4x5 camera plus the Ultron for what the Summicron costs.

 

[ferider]

The lens should not behave like this, Uwe. Something wrong.

Roland.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

Roland,
I hope so.
Here's another one.

My local models wide open @1/8000, so no camera shake involved.

I am actually very pleased with the centre sharpness of the lens, but unfortunately it's a very small centre:

IQ degrades dramatically towards the edges:

Best regards,
Uwe

 

[Uwe_Nds]

The left edge looks as bad:

Best regards,
Uwe

 

[Bill Blackwell]

In response to Kevin's remark, I would use a tripod for testing purposes to remove any variables not inherent in the optical performance (like camera shake).

In response to Uwe's test shots, IMHO for the test to be fair you should start stopping down to see how the lens behaves as the DOF opens up. To be fairer yet, it would be nice to have another lens to compare it with.

I would agree a tripod should not make a difference when the shutter speed is pushed beyond even 250-500th of a second.