35mm's..skopar vs ultron vs canon

[Siluro]

I went through the same decision process a couple of years ago and ended up with the Ultron. I haven't regretted it one bit - it is a fantastic lens and I really, really love its character. Smooth and detailed ,without too much 'gritty' sharpness; has a great 3D 'pop' with smaller depths of field. I shoot mostly B&W, and quite a lot of low light and its qualities work really well for me in these areas.

Despite the fact that it is bigger than some other 35mm RF lenses, it isn't really too big - it sits quite nicely on Leica M bodies.

The only thing that has bothered me at times is its tendency to flare - its not terrible but you do have to be careful at, say, a gig with lights coming in from the side. However, if you point it straight at a light source it doesn't seem to have a problem. Maybe I just need a better hood?

All in all at great lens!

 

[Chris101]

... Maybe I just need a better hood? ...

As you can see from my avatar, I have put the slotted Leica 35/50mm snap on hood on my Ultron. It really helps with flare, especially in that I often use filters.

I really like the results I get from the lens. Sharp, sharp, sharp to be sure. But I also love the 'bokey' quality, and sometimes, the flare, when it works for the picture. But I do have a couple nits. First off, the aperture ring is loose and too easy to accidently turn while focussing. Second is the funky construction of the lens. Twice now (I have had it about two years) I have had to take the lens apart to tighten internal bolts. It's not as bad as autofocus Nikkors I've repaired, but way worse than Schneiders I've hacked (Tessar 75, SA 75 and Componon 135.) I had to go through six tiny bolts, two rings and an almost microscopic, free-bouncing detent ball in order to get to the trouble spot. Btw, this forum was very helpful in pointing me to instructions for the proper teardown procedure.

 

[Bingley]

Update from my post above... I sold the CV 35/2.5 skopar, and kept the Ultron. I sold the 35 skopar not b/c I was displeased w/ it (it's a fantastic little lens), but b/c I'd acquired a Rokkor-M 40 that gives a similar look but is a stop faster while still being very compact. The Ultron gives a different look and, of course, is faster still, so it stayed.

 

[mojobebop]

i've got the ultron.
great lens.
little tight on the focus ring however.

 

[kermaier]

The Canon is a really good lens. Moderate contrast and quite sharp, which works especially nicely in b&w on a digital camera (the R-D1 for me). Color rendition is kind of vintage-looking, which you may not like unless you're specifically going for that look. I have both the older chrome version, which is the smallest 35/2.8 I've seen (haven't handled the Skopar, though) and the newer black/chrome version, which handles even more nicely IMO.

I also have the 40/2 M-Rokkor, which is a fantastic lens: very small, lightweight, well-made, sharp as can be and very nice bokeh. The M-Rokkor is a tremendous bargain, at about $300 for Summicron image quality.

I've heard good things about the 35/2.5 Skopar, though I haven't used it. I have the 28/3.5 and 50/2.5 Skopars, and they're both excellent compact lenses.

::Ari

 

[januaryman]

I have and kept all three lenses. The CVs are similar to each other, I find, but for color the Skopar is better. The Canon is wonderful for classic BW (did I already say this?) but now that I have the Canon 35/2.0 all bets are off and IT is the king of my 35s. Just need to decide if I keep all these 35s or what - decisions, decisions.