28mm Summicron vs. 28mm Ultron

[Bill Blackwell]

To be clear, the CV lens I tested against the Summicron was the recently introduced M-mount 28mm Ultron f/2 (NOT the screw mount version). This M-mount model is said to be far superior compared to the now-discontinued f/1.9 screw-mount model.

 

[Captain]

To be clear, the CV lens I tested against the Summicron was the recently introduced M-mount 28mm Ultron f/2 (NOT the screw mount version). This M-mount model is said to be far superior compared to the now-discontinued f/1.9 screw-mount model.

How did you get one that was coded? After going to that trouble you then on sold it?

 

[J J Kapsberger]

...if you're using your 35mm M-mount camera the way God and Oscar Barnack intended - hand held - then these differences are largely moot.

I don't entirely agree. The Summicron seems a lens with greater contrast. That would show up in hand held shots. The test didn't show how the difference in contrast in real world shooting would set the two lenses apart. Also, the test didn't address bokeh, low-light performance, glare tendencies.

I think it's too early--especially based on this test (as interesting as it is)--to say that there would be no differences between these two lenses in hand-held shooting.

 

[ferider]

To be clear, the CV lens I tested against the Summicron was the recently introduced M-mount 28mm Ultron f/2 (NOT the screw mount version). This M-mount model is said to be far superior compared to the now-discontinued f/1.9 screw-mount model.

I would really like to see evidence of any optical difference. That verdict is still outstanding.

Yes, the 1.9 is bigger with different mechanics, obviously. But the design is similar with one asph element in the old lens replaced with two spherical elements in the new lens.

The 1.9 did well in tests both done by Sean Reid and Puts, that I can back up with my personal experience.

Like for other manufacturers, there is sample variation with CV lenses. Probably some lemons out there for the 1.9. As for the 2.0 as well (See Uwe's shot). Unfortunately, that's just the way it is, IMO. Of course, a lens hand-picked by Cosina's CEO might have gone through more rigorous Q&A ...

Roland.

 

[kevin m]

I think it's too early--especially based on this test (as interesting as it is)--to say that there would be no differences between these two lenses in hand-held shooting.

Not "no differences," just not enough difference to really matter in hand-held shooting. Resolution seems roughly equal, and contrast can quickly be addressed in either the darkroom, or photoshop. If anything, I regard high-contrast lenses as a bit of a liability when working with a digital sensor; a flatter, duller image recorded on the sensor is much easier to work with. 🙂

 

[Bill Blackwell]

How did you get one that was coded? After going to that trouble you then on sold it?

I could have easily hand-coded the lens flange with a sharpie, but I happened to have a spare John Milich lens flange, which activates the 28mm framelines. I just changed the original flange out and coded my spare for a 28mm Summicron.

One thing to note about the 28mm Ultron f/2 - Cosina rotated the screws on the mount slightly to the right so 6-bit coding is no longer placed where any of the screws are located.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I would really like to see evidence of any optical difference. That verdict is still outstanding... Yes, the 1.9 is bigger with different mechanics, obviously. But the design is similar with one asph element in the old lens replaced with two spherical elements in the new lens...

True - Not having tested the two Ultrons myself, I am relying on what others have said. So I admit I could be wrong about this.