Advice for a Voigtlander 35/1.7 LTM & Haze

[Teemō1]

I'm looking for one of these to pair with my black Bessa R. Currently I only have a Super Rokkor 5cm F1.8, but was considering the Ultron for something wider and more importantly, more modern.
The dilemma is, I want at least the original box if not all the original papers inside, and if I can't have all that then I at least wanted one in top condition with the hood and caps.

The black lenses are only painted/lacquered, which seems not to be very durable at all - less so than the very old Rokkor, while the silver lens is anodised. Does the silver lens really look terrible on a black Bessa? I'll be travelling overseas soon so it is fairly important that my gear doesn't instantly draw attention to me as if I were an unregistered photojournalist in a precarious region. I don't have any silver lenses, new or old, so I really have no idea what it's going to look like!

The Minolta lens with a vented hood only just touches the 50mm framelines and the Ultron is even wider, so I will at least lose the whole corner with the hood attached, won't I? Is it bothersome? Was a vented hood that also allows to attach larger filters made for the Ultron? I often put a polariser on the front of the hood so I can see the effect through the viewfinder. 😉

I realise I am a bit priced out with trying to get one of these in the condition that I want one (must be a keeper of a lens, hey?), but once I get it I don't plan on selling it. I've checked all of the places I know and there's none in black that are in good condition and reasonably priced.
There is a complete silver kit but the lens has haze in it. I have experiencing disassembling and cleaning lenses.
This lens has 2 cemented doublets, and I believe each side of the lens comes out as a optical block around the aperture. Does anyone know if the haze is only forming on the lens surfaces adjacent to the aperture (in which case I can clean them), or also within the optical blocks (which may or may not be sealed) or even worse, between the cemented elements?
Obviously this depends on a case by case basis but the haze overall looks quite mild however I can only judge this by one image through the front and another through the back. It looks okay to me but will probably have a big impact on backlit images.

Lastly, are there any alternative lenses I should consider under US$500? The near-zero distortion was a fairly important factor, as well as the low-light capability.

Thanks for any help!

 

[Benjamin Marks]

1) forget the box - it won't make your pictures better.
2) why should you care what we think of the aesthetics of your camera? Just go shoot it.
3) Stay away from a lens with haze unless it is deeply, deeply, discounted. Like "price of a full CLA" discounted. Who knows what other issues it has?
4) Ebay has lots of C/V 35 1.7's in LTM that cost less than US $500.
5) Look at Canon screw mount lenses, if you are looking for an alternative to C/V.

 

[Teemō1]

1) forget the box - it won't make your pictures better.
2) why should you care what we think of the aesthetics of your camera? Just go shoot it.
3) Stay away from a lens with haze unless it is deeply, deeply, discounted. Like "price of a full CLA" discounted. Who knows what other issues it has?
4) Ebay has lots of C/V 35 1.7's in LTM that cost less than US $500.
5) Look at Canon screw mount lenses, if you are looking for an alternative to C/V.

Thanks for your reply. The box is purely a collecting/storage thing and usually indicates that a lens hasn't been used much.

As for the colour/finish, I'm actually concerned that the silver lens will draw a lot of unwanted attention - overseas, in certain places where I will be going, the police are very happy to 'mistake' tourists for foreign journalists due to domestic tensions. Assuming some people here shoot street photography, they may know whether or not it draws attention in practice. Personally, although the black will match, I'd rather have the silver model because the black paint clearly isn't very durable...

Sold prices are $300-400 but after GSP and tax, it's about another $100. Can you believe I could only find one of these listed nationally for sale? - And they want way more for it than the market rate.
I will check out the Canons too.

The lens with haze is deeply discounted. The haze issue has been discussed here before and at least one member cleaned it themselves, but again it could be anywhere within the lens, so I will ask the seller for some more details. The lens is a bit soft, with moderate contrast wide open anyway, isn't it?

It seems that there is no exact serial number range that is affected by the haze, which means it could happen to any lens given the right environmental conditions. Therefore I'm probably worrying too much about it! :bang:

 

[Benjamin Marks]

As for the colour/finish, I'm actually concerned that the silver lens will draw a lot of unwanted attention - overseas, in certain places where I will be going, the police are very happy to 'mistake' tourists for foreign journalists due to domestic tensions. Assuming some people here shoot street photography, they may know whether or not it draws attention in practice. Personally, although the black will match, I'd rather have the silver model because the black paint clearly isn't very durable...

I don't have a sense of how reasonable a fear this is. Knowing nothing about the country you plan to visit, there are plenty of places where carrying any "tech" openly marks you as an outsider. "Black" is not "invisible" and the notion that silver rather than black being what gets you noticed by the police seems like "magical thinking" to me. If stealth is your concern, take a smartphone. But you have to do what makes you feel safe. Alternatives would be spray paint or black duct tape on a silver lens, but there are a million good reasons why that is not a good idea.

My own sense from shooting in US urban areas is that your demeanor makes as much of a difference as anything else. But this is all theory, and hardly worth the electrons I am using to write it. I think you need to ask yourself why you want to photograph in places where it appears to put you at physical risk. There are plenty of good answers to that question, but I think once you are honest with yourself about your goals, then the other answers to your questions will fall into place.

I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions about a box being included in the sale. I think boxes mostly matter to collectors, who are really not interested in photographing with the lens per se. They are interested in the lens' qualities as an object in a market of other collectable objects. Same can be true of collectors of comic books, baseball cards, or firearms for that matter. If you are planning on owning the lens for a long time, as your original posts suggests, then really the primary concern is the quality of the glass.

I wouldn't characterize the CV 35/1.7 lens as "a bit soft". I'd characterize it as modern and clinically sharp. I'll post some quick shots in a minute to show you what I mean.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If it is very sensitive people, restricted, controlled areas you'll be out just by looking to specific direction and trying to advance.
All of those black on black talks are always nothing but self-delusion.
Oh, I'm invisible.
No, you are not.

Nobody knows about fog removal from those lenses. We had thread about to many listings of this particular lens with fog, but I can't recall anyone fixing it.

Get black Color Skopar. First,very first version. This is photojournalism lens. It has focus tab. And it is small. By the time you will focus Ultron, I would already take the picture with complete confidence.
This is the difference between tab and no tab lens. I get rid of this Ultron lens, because it is not suitable for photojournalism. Fogged or not.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

My Nikon F90X came with immaculate box and manual. It had been used almost daily by a professional photographer.

I have no view on your other constraints, but if the answer is to buy a lens with haze to use for photos, you're asking the wrong questions.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Here's a test shot made a moment ago with the CV 35/1.7 wide open on an Olympus OM-D E-M1II on a tripod with an adapter and the anti-shake turned off (to be precise, the LTM lens has an LTM-M adapter, and then it is affixed to the camera with a M- u4/3 adapter):

And here's a crop showing the center of the test target.

In contrast, here's a Zeiss 35/2 Biogon @ f:2:

and here's a similar Biogon crop:

Now here's a 35 Summicron Asph at f:2:

and the corresponding Summicron crop:

What does this tell us? Well, what I see in the above images is that 1) the C/V lens and the Biogon have similar degrees of chromatic aberration wide open (to my eye, the C/V looks a little sharper than the Zeiss, but draw your own conclusions), 2) both are perfectly sharp enough to use wide open for any practical application involving street photography, and 3) the Summicron is a step ahead of both the C/V and the Zeiss in sharpness wide open, as it should be costing 10x or 3x the price of the other two lenses. FWIW, I think C/V was putting together the Zeiss lenses for them on contract. In fact. I would argue that the whole reason to own a Summicron Asph, which is a lens of astonishing capability, is the tiny advantage that you see illustrated in the pictures above. 90% of the cost is in that last 10% of quality, and it has been ever thus.

Bottom line: the C/V 35/1.7 is plenty sharp for your intended purposes, and anyone trying to sell you one of these with the story that it is "soft" either has a bad copy of the lens (they do exist), or is selling damaged goods. BTW, I have had my CV 35/1.7 since new (over 10 years ago) and there is no evidence of haze. Don't know where the box is, though. 😉

[Edit: many, many lenses show a bit of chromatic aberration when used wide open. Stopping down a stop or two reduces this -- that is one of the reasons that stopping down a lens increases apparent sharpness (it is really a contrast gain, but it reads as higher resolution in the finished print). The reason that this doesn't usually matter is that a) photographers who care about CA for landscape/still life are typically using a tripod and smaller apertures, and b) street photographers are rarely shooting with their lenses wide open unless light levels are really low, and in that case the focus is on getting a shot at all. ]

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It doesn't tell match if ff lens is on x2 cropper. Diffrent DOF.
And mft has no RF. MDF and WO shows focus shift with many lenses.
You could get it in focus, WO, but closed down it will shift.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

It doesn't tell match if ff lens is on x2 cropper. Diffrent DOF.
And mft has no RF. MDF and WO shows focus shift with many lenses.
You could get it in focus, WO, but closed down it will shift.

LOL. Really? Well it shows something, which is more than we had before in this discussion. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, Ko. DOF and crop discussions on the Internet are like discussions on religion. Useless, really.

Sigh: you can't really talk about DOF unless you are also talking about final print size and viewing distance. In this case, the question was NOT about DOF, if was about whether the C/V lens was "soft" -- perhaps the above shows you that it is, or not. Draw your own conclusions. The point was to give the OP some data points, as he currently owns NO 35mm lens for his Bessa. Because of the lens mount, and the lens-to-flange distance, the Bessa has even fewer choices available to its owners than a Leica M. So cut the kid a break.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I agree here fully with Benjamin. His test supports what I have been thinking for ten or more years. The Ultron 35mm f/1.7 is a great lens.


Erik.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

LOL. Really? Well it shows something, which is more than we had before in this discussion. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, Ko. DOF and crop discussions on the Internet are like discussions on religion. Useless, really.

Sigh: you can't really talk about DOF unless you are also talking about final print size and viewing distance. In this case, the question was NOT about DOF, if was about whether the C/V lens was "soft" -- perhaps the above shows you that it is, or not. Draw your own conclusions. The point was to give the OP some data points, as he currently owns NO 35mm lens for his Bessa. Because of the lens mount, and the lens-to-flange distance, the Bessa has even fewer choices available to its owners than a Leica M. So cut the kid a break.

Cropper will never show FF lens corners. You understand it or it is not given to you, yet. 🙂
Here is next to none modern lens which isn't sharp in the center. In fact my 35 2.8 LTM lens from fifties is just as sharp in the center on digital.

All of FSU RF lenses I have seen on x2 cropper like yours are excellent.
But any FF lens on x2 cropper just sucks.

I'm not sure if you are film user at all. Sorry, can't recall film pictures by yours.
If lens has no damaged optics it will perform well on film. Especially for your limited concern and gear capabilities, which is center of FF lens only.

Here is two versions of CV CS 35 2.5 in LTM. Canon 35 f1.8, f2 and f2.8 and Summaron 35 3.5. Those are not rare lenses in LTM.

Ultron 35 1.7 LTM is not only prone to haze, it also has flaw in lens block attachment to the focus part. After some use it starts to wobble. Fixable, but flaw.

 

[Takkun]

Not my image, but I don't think a chrome lens on black body looks bad at all. Honestly, if anything, i think it makes it look more 'vintage' and therefore less "I am a professional journalist"—from a distance, definitely looks like a film or P&S. Not to mention it looks less stealthy, if you're trying to avoid that appearance--who would use a big silver lens if they're trying to be super discreet? I don't know where you're traveling to, so I won't say you're overthinking it. You might have bigger issues to deal with there.

Echoing comments on the box and paint quality. I buy everything used, and a box and papers show some level of care for the product, but not worth seeking out. The paint on the black version does indeed flake, and bad. Bought mine used with some very slight brassing, and looked like it'd been in a war zone within a month.

Never had a haze issue with mine, but did have the wobble. Mine specifically got progressively worse until it was unusable, and then had some sort of intensely frustrating decentering/loose element issue. Still have it sitting around until I find someone willing to work on it.

Yet before that, optically, stellar little lens. Yes, it is a little softer in corners wide-open, but not noticeably or unpleasantly so. Bokeh is great, and while you don't have much of a choice on a LTM body, why I chose it over the 35/1.4.

 

[Teemō1]

I don't have a sense of how reasonable a fear this is. Knowing nothing about the country you plan to visit, there are plenty of places where carrying any "tech" openly marks you as an outsider. "Black" is not "invisible" and the notion that silver rather than black being what gets you noticed by the police seems like "magical thinking" to me. If stealth is your concern, take a smartphone. But you have to do what makes you feel safe. Alternatives would be spray paint or black duct tape on a silver lens, but there are a million good reasons why that is not a good idea.

My own sense from shooting in US urban areas is that your demeanor makes as much of a difference as anything else. But this is all theory, and hardly worth the electrons I am using to write it. I think you need to ask yourself why you want to photograph in places where it appears to put you at physical risk. There are plenty of good answers to that question, but I think once you are honest with yourself about your goals, then the other answers to your questions will fall into place.

I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions about a box being included in the sale. I think boxes mostly matter to collectors, who are really not interested in photographing with the lens per se. They are interested in the lens' qualities as an object in a market of other collectable objects. Same can be true of collectors of comic books, baseball cards, or firearms for that matter. If you are planning on owning the lens for a long time, as your original posts suggests, then really the primary concern is the quality of the glass.

I wouldn't characterize the CV 35/1.7 lens as "a bit soft". I'd characterize it as modern and clinically sharp. I'll post some quick shots in a minute to show you what I mean.

Good advice, thank you! Possibly I am better described as a hoarder than a collector in that case. 😛

The images you posted are quite useful, since I also happen to own m4/3 for a digital camera. All 3 are clearly good lenses, and CA is very easy to correct in post, hence why distortion and sharpness were main concerns. I have a Minolta MC 35/1.8 for SLR and I'd say it's like the Zeiss and Voigtlander together when wide open. Details are very much there, just with low overall contrast and bleeding edges. And, nearly no distortion and high performance when focused down to 0.3m, which is unusual for a lens without floating elements. I would probably have just taken it instead but the aperture is stuffed in it.

With vintage lenses, I have noticed that many seem to have a lot more CA on a digital camera than they do when shot on film - perhaps that is due both to the sensor stack of digital and the low contrast of negative film, perhaps not really challenging the lens in the same way. In general it is hard to say that there were many bad lenses made in the days of film cameras while many get a bad rep. when shot on the Sony A7 series. My understanding is that this LTM Ultron was designed for film, where as the M-Ultron was redesigned to consider the digital sensor stack and actually performs more closely to the Leica Asph.

 

[Teemō1]

If it is very sensitive people, restricted, controlled areas you'll be out just by looking to specific direction and trying to advance.
All of those black on black talks are always nothing but self-delusion.
Oh, I'm invisible.
No, you are not.

Nobody knows about fog removal from those lenses. We had thread about to many listings of this particular lens with fog, but I can't recall anyone fixing it.

Get black Color Skopar. First,very first version. This is photojournalism lens. It has focus tab. And it is small. By the time you will focus Ultron, I would already take the picture with complete confidence.
This is the difference between tab and no tab lens. I get rid of this Ultron lens, because it is not suitable for photojournalism. Fogged or not.

You make a good point, and there is a lot of security surveillance and police patrolling streets so I think, being a foreigner, I will stick out like a sore thumb regardless of what I'm doing. To be clear, I'm not a photojournalist and do not intend to be, but naturally there is some element of 'documentary' when you are a tourist in a new and unusual place. I have considered that it is possibly best just to not take photos at all there, outside of guided tours, although I will be living with locals - they are probably going to copy my entire catalogue upon departure. I will be using film and probably just my phone, so it may be possible to post the film out undeveloped but I will have to investigate the logistics of that further.

There are plenty of Skopars available. Do you know if they have much distortion? I am guessing sharpness is good into the corners wide open too?
Does either lens have any focus shift when stopped down compared to wide open?

My Nikon F90X came with immaculate box and manual. It had been used almost daily by a professional photographer.

I have no view on your other constraints, but if the answer is to buy a lens with haze to use for photos, you're asking the wrong questions.

I'm only considering it because it is highly discounted and otherwise in excellent condition. I am sure if I cannot clean it myself (if the blocks are locked together with cement) than an optical technician probably could get them apart.

The seller has described it as haze but it's so faint it is barely seen in photos with the elements backlit (he showed me photos taken through the front and the back). In my experience with old lenses, haze due to helical or aperture grease does not penetrate into these types of sealed blocks in normal use. I noticed that hazy lenses definitely have no problem selling to someone, eventually. According to the person here who has cleaned their lens, it is just condensation: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160595

 

[Teemō1]

-clipped-

Not my image, but I don't think a chrome lens on black body looks bad at all. Honestly, if anything, i think it makes it look more 'vintage' and therefore less "I am a professional journalist"—from a distance, definitely looks like a film or P&S. Not to mention it looks less stealthy, if you're trying to avoid that appearance--who would use a big silver lens if they're trying to be super discreet? I don't know where you're traveling to, so I won't say you're overthinking it. You might have bigger issues to deal with there.

Echoing comments on the box and paint quality. I buy everything used, and a box and papers show some level of care for the product, but not worth seeking out. The paint on the black version does indeed flake, and bad. Bought mine used with some very slight brassing, and looked like it'd been in a war zone within a month.

Never had a haze issue with mine, but did have the wobble. Mine specifically got progressively worse until it was unusable, and then had some sort of intensely frustrating decentering/loose element issue. Still have it sitting around until I find someone willing to work on it.

Yet before that, optically, stellar little lens. Yes, it is a little softer in corners wide-open, but not noticeably or unpleasantly so. Bokeh is great, and while you don't have much of a choice on a LTM body, why I chose it over the 35/1.4.

The reverse-psychology approach is interesting for sure. 😀 Definitely, I think I will probably be approached sometimes just because I'm obviously 'not from around there', and probably taking photos will be the last thing on my mind then. I won't say it looks terrible with the silver lens but that black hood does help to cover it up. These cheap vented hoods are a godsend, I've wondered how they make them so cheaply!

The wobble I'm aware of - possibly can get better fitting screws or tap a new hole, or just glue the threads down.

Do you have a photo of the brassing now on your Ultron? Just curious...

 

[presspass]

Repeating what was said earlier - consider a Canon f2.0. It is a much smaller lens and you give up a minimal maximum opening. The only problem with the Canon is the lens hood. I don't think Canon made one for this lens, but I have been using a Fuji 40mm diameter hood and it seems to work well. The rendering is more modern than my other LTM lenses but not obnoxiously so. They, too, can have haze. Neither lens has a focus tab, if that's important to you. The CV 35 2.5 gets rave reviews.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

....

There are plenty of Skopars available. Do you know if they have much distortion? I am guessing sharpness is good into the corners wide open too?
Does either lens have any focus shift when stopped down compared to wide open?
....[/url]

I can't recall distortion to be something bugging me within years I used all three different versions of this lens. Same about focus shift. Can't recall any.
It was sharp like any other normal lens. No corners smearing.

Nine pages of images from this lens, many are taking with film.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?
t=97500&page=1

Hundred of mine with Color Skopar 35 2.5. All on film. Some of them with it on R.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=57054281@N08&view_all=1&text=Color Skopar 35

This one should be wide open. It was getting dark and it was crappy Polypan F 50.


Bessa R and Color Skopar 35 2.5 P. Focus on fire pit.

... I am sure if I cannot clean it myself (if the blocks are locked together with cement) than an optical technician probably could get them apart.
....

Absolutely. For more than half of the price you paid for this lens.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Repeating what was said earlier - consider a Canon f2.0. It is a much smaller lens and you give up a minimal maximum opening. The only problem with the Canon is the lens hood. I don't think Canon made one for this lens, but I have been using a Fuji 40mm diameter hood and it seems to work well. The rendering is more modern than my other LTM lenses but not obnoxiously so. They, too, can have haze. Neither lens has a focus tab, if that's important to you. The CV 35 2.5 gets rave reviews.

Get 40 to 40.5 adapter and filter on it. No hood needed.

This is what Tom A told about this lens:

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2280792&postcount=15

You must have very special version of Canon f2.0. They are tabless lenses.

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/canon-35mm-f2-versions.253748/

 

[rfaspen]

If there is haze between cemented elements, no you will not have them separated by anyone. First, I strongly suspect the cement in modern CV lenses is not balsam but new UV cured cement. Essentially permanent. Second, if the cement is separable there are few who can or will attempt the repair in a RF lens. The last person I know of in the US has retired. The few less well known techs likely stick to older LF lenses that are easier to work with, collimate, and with balsam cement. If you happen to find someone competent who will work on cemented elements in the CV 35/1.7, they will cost at least 1.5 times the value of the lens.
Just saying.

 

[presspass]

I apparently was not clear when I said tab less lens in reference to the Canon. I meant to say it does not have a tab.