35mm Ultron Problem?

[grouchos_tash]

This is an update to my previous question

I bought an adapter for my X-T10 to further test my Ultron. Your feedback is gratefully received! I understand that it's not going to be super sharp/contrasty at 1.7 but my Jupiter 8 is sharper at f2! Remember that these weren't taken on a full frame sensor so it only gets worse beyond what you see at the edges!

I shot them on a tripod with the self timer and as parallel to the book case as I could. I focused at f1.7 then didn't refocus for each shot thereafter.

Thanks again!

f1.7
1.Ultron1.7 by Gary Harding, on Flickr

f2
2.Ultron2 by Gary Harding, on Flickr

f2.8
3.Ultron2.8 by Gary Harding, on Flickr

f4
4.Ultron4 by Gary Harding, on Flickr

f5.6
5.Ultron5.6 by Gary Harding, on Flickr

f8
6.Ultron8 by Gary Harding, on Flickr

f11
7.Ultron11 by Gary Harding, on Flickr

f16
8.Ultron16 by Gary Harding, on Flickr


Hi all,

I was hoping I could get your opinion on the following images. I just bought an 35mm f1.7 Ultron for my M6/Bessa R2a. I shot a roll of Portra 160 to test it out but I have found that most of the shots are either very soft or just clearly out of focus. What confuses me though is that some aren't, even at the same distance, my focusing couldn't be that bad! I have ordered an adapter ring for my Fuji X-T10 to test the lens more easily.

These two were both on a Bessa R2a, Portra 160 (realised I had rated it at 64 by accident) shot at 1/125 and f8/5.6. Scanned on a Epson 4490.

Nothing in focus??? Also, very soft in the corners.



This one seems ok, but still soft?



Thanks!

 

[Huss]

Try it on your M6. Could be an RF calibration issue.

 

[grouchos_tash]

Try it on your M6. Could be an RF calibration issue.

Good point 😎

 

[grouchos_tash]

Scrap this, it looks like it's the scanner has given up 🙁

Different camera, different lens, different film...

You can't let here but when you get in close there is banding through the image.

 

[grouchos_tash]

I've updated my question, see post #1 🙂

 

[presspass]

Are you using the M mount Ultron or the older LTM version with an adapter?

 

[grouchos_tash]

Are you using the M mount Ultron or the older LTM version with an adapter?

It's a the older LTM version with a Voigtlander adapter (same one I used for my skopar which was fine).

 

[presspass]

Do you have, or can you borrow, another adapter to see if that's creating the issue? I have an LTM Ultron and use it with both Leica and Voightlander adapters on film Ms and a Bessa R2. I will try it later today with an M8 - my only digital Leica - and see how that works. Sorry I can't get back to you sooner than tomorrow.

 

[grouchos_tash]

Do you have, or can you borrow, another adapter to see if that's creating the issue? I have an LTM Ultron and use it with both Leica and Voightlander adapters on film Ms and a Bessa R2. I will try it later today with an M8 - my only digital Leica - and see how that works. Sorry I can't get back to you sooner than tomorrow.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try it now on a 50mm adapter I have and see if that makes a difference!

 

[grouchos_tash]

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try it now on a 50mm adapter I have and see if that makes a difference!

Didn't make any difference 🙁

 

[presspass]

Now you've got me wondering about my sample. When I get home, I'm going to shoot some photos with a properly-adjusted IIIc on HP5+ and see what happens. i'll also take some with the M8 and both adapters. I did notice your digital shots got much sharper at 5.6 and smaller, so it appears the depth of field is making a difference. That said, it's not much good having a 1.7 lens you can only shoot at 5.6 and smaller.

 

[zuikologist]

Is the lens fully intact. The Ultron has a reputation for coming apart over time.

 

[grouchos_tash]

Now you've got me wondering about my sample. When I get home, I'm going to shoot some photos with a properly-adjusted IIIc on HP5+ and see what happens. i'll also take some with the M8 and both adapters. I did notice your digital shots got much sharper at 5.6 and smaller, so it appears the depth of field is making a difference. That said, it's not much good having a 1.7 lens you can only shoot at 5.6 and smaller.

Yeah exactly! I had a nokton 40mm f1.4 that was always sharp at f2 which made me think the ultron was going to be the same.

 

[grouchos_tash]

Is the lens fully intact. The Ultron has a reputation for coming apart over time.

I can feel a very slight bit of movement, like a clunking feeling if I wiggle the lens. But this isn't any more that the 50mm lens I have which is sharp.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

You may have a loose element or group in there. That would grossly affect focus at larger apertures. I had one of these lenses about a decade ago and it disassembled itself. I put it back together tightly, ensuring that I took care to recenter the optics (I used a vibrating cell phone to get it as close as I could) and once it was tight, it was tight for good. I dabbed black nail polish on all the surfaces which had to be tightened (not the threads) to act as a holding agent, not thread locker. It was good to go and sharper than when I got the lens.
Also be aware that proper RF calibration is actually more critical with fast wides than it is with longer lenses. DOF can take up a lot of the slack in a lens or RF which is out of adjustment but then you may as well be scale focusing and guessing. Even that tiny bit of wobble you feel could put the RF cam way off.
Good luck.

Phil Forrest

 

[grouchos_tash]

You may have a loose element or group in there. That would grossly affect focus at larger apertures. I had one of these lenses about a decade ago and it disassembled itself. I put it back together tightly, ensuring that I took care to recenter the optics (I used a vibrating cell phone to get it as close as I could) and once it was tight, it was tight for good. I dabbed black nail polish on all the surfaces which had to be tightened (not the threads) to act as a holding agent, not thread locker. It was good to go and sharper than when I got the lens.
Also be aware that proper RF calibration is actually more critical with fast wides than it is with longer lenses. DOF can take up a lot of the slack in a lens or RF which is out of adjustment but then you may as well be scale focusing and guessing. Even that tiny bit of wobble you feel could put the RF cam way off.
Good luck.

Phil Forrest

Thanks for the comment. I would have a check inside but I can't work out how to get the front off. I can unscrew it by hand but it wo't come all the way off, any ideas?

PS I have checked the rangefinders on both my cameras 🙂

 

[Phil_F_NM]

IF I RECALL CORRECTLY (and that's a big if because I repaired the 35mm f/1.7 back in 2007 then sold it a few years later) the aperture ring has to come off then you can access the rest of the lens.
This lens is unique in that its hard infinity stop is adjustable and there are three or four positions for screwing the focusing ring to. Don't lose the tiny little ball bearing for the f/stop detents. Once you get under the aperture ring you should be able to see where you can get to the optical cell to tighten up the whole unit.
Careful with the helical and try to clean the old grease off then replace it with some new thin silicone lens or watch grease. this will take up a lot of slop and help prevent rattling.
Again, I did this repair quite a few years ago and I'm going from memory but once I got the lens tightened up, it was a fantastic performer.

Phil Forrest

 

[grouchos_tash]

IF I RECALL CORRECTLY (and that's a big if because I repaired the 35mm f/1.7 back in 2007 then sold it a few years later) the aperture ring has to come off then you can access the rest of the lens.
This lens is unique in that its hard infinity stop is adjustable and there are three or four positions for screwing the focusing ring to. Don't lose the tiny little ball bearing for the f/stop detents. Once you get under the aperture ring you should be able to see where you can get to the optical cell to tighten up the whole unit.
Careful with the helical and try to clean the old grease off then replace it with some new thin silicone lens or watch grease. this will take up a lot of slop and help prevent rattling.
Again, I did this repair quite a few years ago and I'm going from memory but once I got the lens tightened up, it was a fantastic performer.

Phil Forrest

I found some instructions on RFF that kinda mirrors what you did. I think I could too easily get this wrong so I'm gonna try sending it back to the seller (eBay :bang🙂, wish me luck!

 

[presspass]

I did test my Ultron on an M8 last night and find I have the same issue you do. Compared with other 35s, it is very soft/out of focus wide open at the closest distance. I did a quick comparison with other 35s, including a Summilux pre-asph, an Asph, and two Summicrons, all shot wide open. All were spot on and much sharper at their closest focusing distances. I will do the film from my IIIc tonight and see if that's any different, but I doubt it will be. Stopped down to 2.8, the Ultron is fine.

 

[grouchos_tash]

I did test my Ultron on an M8 last night and find I have the same issue you do. Compared with other 35s, it is very soft/out of focus wide open at the closest distance. I did a quick comparison with other 35s, including a Summilux pre-asph, an Asph, and two Summicrons, all shot wide open. All were spot on and much sharper at their closest focusing distances. I will do the film from my IIIc tonight and see if that's any different, but I doubt it will be. Stopped down to 2.8, the Ultron is fine.

It musn't be that bad if you'd never noticed 😀 Although mine doesn't get sharp till f5.6! I have looked a reviews online which nearly all rave about how sharp it is??

The seller has accepted my return through eBay only because he has to. He also said 'If there are any faulty 'linkages' I will open a case via ebay'. I don't really know what this means?

I hope it gets sorted soon, I'm getting sick of getting poor quality items from eBay. So far I have bought 4 cameras described as being in excellent working condition that didn't work :bang: