HenningW
Well-known
I'm sorry Roland; I guess it didn't come out properly in my comments but I found the older f/1.9 lens to be better and more useable on the M8 than the new f/2. The older lens had better resolution across the field and less focus shift. That definitely works better for me in spite of the lower contrast, which as Sean has pointed out, can be an advantage.
Henning
RLG
Established
SteveRD1
Well-known
At F8 this lens is stellar - just as good as any Leica I have used. BUT since I have never tried a 28 Cron, I have one arriving tomorrow and I am doing a head to head against the Ultron in real world shooting, at all apertures. I will post the results at my site in a week or two. I want to see just how close they are for my style of shooting and if I can save a few bucks, that would be great.
But yea, from F4-F8, my copy of the Ultron is actually pretty amazing for the $$. I have found ZERO focus shift after 200 shots so far. I still see soft corners, but again, its a $500 lens not a $4000 lens. I do notice the pics with the CV are much duller than with my Leica lenses. They need much more work.
But yea, from F4-F8, my copy of the Ultron is actually pretty amazing for the $$. I have found ZERO focus shift after 200 shots so far. I still see soft corners, but again, its a $500 lens not a $4000 lens. I do notice the pics with the CV are much duller than with my Leica lenses. They need much more work.
jvr
Well-known
Haven't been posting for a while: just taking photos.
But since I own and have used both "fast" 28 CV (the f1.9 and the new f2) and the 28/2 Summicron ASPH, maybe I ought to share my experience.
I've used all the lenses in 4 bodies: a Epson R-D1s, a Leica M8, a Leica M3 and a Minolta CLE. In every occasion, all the lenses are easily recognizeable by looking at the pictures, especially when flare may be a problem and/or wide-open. Anyway, all the lenses are relatively low-contrast (I mean, lower than a Skopar type lens or a Elmar, but higher than, say, a Jupiter-9 or old Canon). For me, that's a bonus on digital and a non-issue in film (I scan and print digitally and painfully learned that high-contrast slides or B&W negs look great but scan bad, even with my Coolscan 4000ED...).
Please keep in mind that, IMHO, film and digital cameras are different beasts and even in digital, the Epson and the M8 are very different (that's why I still keep the Epson).
First of all, the Summicron ASPH is the "best" lens of them all, at least on pure technical grounds. It'd better be, looking at the price. I consider it a fantastic lens and worth of the price, if you can afford it. Most pictures are keepers, rgd technique. My Summicron is the "de facto" lens on my M8 (where it alternates with the UC-Hexanon, another fantastic lens). Most of the times, I simply take the 28 Cron, the 21/2.8 Zeiss and the CV 50/1.5 Ultron and I would be incredibly happy shooting all my life with these lenses.
On film, the Summicron also excels. Unfortunately, on _my_ Epson (and I stress "my"), the Summicron does not focus perfectly (which is a mistery, since my Epson focuses perfectly my CV 35/1.2 Ultron wide-open, as accurate as my M8 does...). When used stopped down, that is not an issue and even wide-open, local contrast is so good that even slightly misfocused pictures are perfectly ok to A4 size.
But the Cron is very expensive, really.
So expensive that my first 28 "fast" lens was a CV 28/1.9, that I used for long in my Epson and on the M8 for a while. I have a love/hate relationship with this lens. My best pictures with it are incredibly good (this lens has a way of drawing in B&W that still fascinates me, even after all these years) but my worse pictures can really irritate me. My major gripe a very annoying veiling flare that can sometimes appear. It's much better with a deeper hood (good for the Epson, bit of vignetting on the Leica, unusable on film) but even then sometimes I get a "weird" shot that really infuriates me. That also happens in film but digital is worse (could it be that the CCD is more reflective and "interacts" more with almost flat rear element? Who knows?). On a lower level of complain, color balance is not as accurate (warm and different from other CV lens I own) and the lens is "bigger" than the Summicron. Apart from that, the 28/1.9 Ultron is a very good lens. It resolves almost as well as the Summicron, although the lower global contrast makes the photos less "poppy". Nothing a good contrast bump can't equalize. Pity about the flare and the color balance. Also, especially on the Epson, corners are worse than the Summicron, with a "strange" drawing pattern that makes things look like they are "moving". probably, that has to do with the light strinking on a more accute angle. It's even more noticing on OOF things, so bokeh in the corners can be "weird". On film, I don't feel that so much and the special sensor on the M8 goes a long way to eradicate that problem (together with fall-off).
The new CV is, again, different. In most ways, is closer to the Summicron than to the old Ultron: improved veiling flare control, color rendition (slighlty cooler than the Summicron but more accurate - as in "more like all my other lenses" - than the old Ultron), size, contrast. My sample resolves less than both the Summicron and the old Ultron but the difference is of no consequence in real printing. Corners are always worse than the Summicron and it's not only "resolution". My sample shows the same kind of "movement drawing" in the corners that the old version shows (btw, we can easily see this kind of drawing on the corners of the photos posted in this thread!) and contrast is lower (the Summicron is just perfect for the M8 sensor, IMHO). Again, most of the times those differences are of no consequence. But there is the odd shot where it shows up and can be annoying. I really can't detect any focus shift that worries me on the new Ultron. In that regard, is much better than the CV 35/1.4 (I bought one and sent it back after 2 days).
Why did I buy the new Ultron? First, because I really like to experiment around...
Second, because I had the idea I could use it and sell my Summicron and keep the difference... But truth is, everytime I open up a few files from the Summicron, I have the feeling I'll regret the decision later. And so, since I bought it, the new Ultrom has stayed on my Epson and doing a very good job there. While, at the same time, my old Ultron now sits on my CLE and sometimes even graces my M3 (both bodies usually loaded with the month's fashion of B&W film).So, until now, I kept all three lenses...
Summary...
The old Ultron is a very different lens from both the Summicron ASPH and the new Ultron and it provides a look that's not very different from my older lenses (Leica, Canon). So different, that I bought a Summicron... On the other hand, I am sure that, if I had the new Ultron, I would never have bought the Summicron, as the overall performance of the Ultron 28/2 is more than enough for me (I can't say the same about the old one, espcially because of color rendering and, most of all, flare). But, again, the old Ultron has a way of drawing in B&W that can be breathtaking (maybe high resolution, together with low overall contrast, gives lots of shades of gray? A bit like my old Leica lenses?). The Summicron seems to get the best of both and add a few things on top (perfect focus, perfect global contrast, mechanical handling, color rendition, etc).
If I was in the market for a low-cost Summicron, the new Ultron is a no-brain buy. And, I guess, the reason why I'm keeping it is because I know, one day, I'll get reasonable and sell the Cron to someone even pickier than myself...
Someday, when I have the time, I'll try to take out all three lenses and try them, side-by-side, on the real world. Most diferences show-up in controlled testing but their impact in "real" photography is all it matters in the end, at least IMHO.
BTW, sometimes I feel we are spoiled by quality in this digital and 100% magnification on 19in screens era : I scanned all my slides, B&W and color negs (20k+) and I could not believe the amount of misfocused, camera-shaken, grainy and low-resolution-lensed photos I took in the past...
But fact is, most of them would withstand a projection on a big screen, let alone a print to 30x40cm (the biggest print I've ever made from 35mm). On the other hand, it was remarkable to see how good my leica lenses from the 50s were.BR,
Joao
RLG
Established
Thanks jvr for all this information. Having read reflections of different users of the Ultron 28 2.0 I started doubting if I have made a good choice. At a moment I even considered of selling it and buying an Elmarit instead. Anyway, the wallet is empty after buying the M8, so I'll keep on using the Ultron 28 2.0 on the M8 (I purchased the lens for use on my Bessa R2M but had never used it with the Bessa).
Best
Best
ferider
Veteran
I have tried a variety of CV lenses, multiple copies sometimes (including the 28/1.9). One thing is sure for me: If you have a good copy, keep it.
Reg. the 28/1.9 flare, it is true, it flares easier than my other 28mm lenses. I've not experienced "veiling flare" though (as I understand it), only contrast sudden degradation and ghosts when getting close to very bright light.
One of the major reasons why I like it is it's color rendition. It does something that I only know from other CV S.C. lenses, and from lenses from the 60s, like the Nikkor 50/1.4. I guess this is another version of what jky wrote about B+W rendering.
Roland.
Reg. the 28/1.9 flare, it is true, it flares easier than my other 28mm lenses. I've not experienced "veiling flare" though (as I understand it), only contrast sudden degradation and ghosts when getting close to very bright light.
One of the major reasons why I like it is it's color rendition. It does something that I only know from other CV S.C. lenses, and from lenses from the 60s, like the Nikkor 50/1.4. I guess this is another version of what jky wrote about B+W rendering.
Roland.
Last edited:
Tom Niblick
Well-known
So, tell us again exactly why you sold your 28 Elmarit ASPH. After all was this not THE lens designed to go with the M8? Was it too contrasty? Too edgy? Did you really need F2?
I'm not giving you grief. I'm just curious.
Tom
I'm not giving you grief. I'm just curious.
Tom
Tom Niblick
Well-known
Never mind. I read your blog. Who can argue with a 28 cron?
While CV lenses are good, the 28 and 35 crons are legendary.
Now you'll have to sell lots of advertising to pay for it.
While CV lenses are good, the 28 and 35 crons are legendary.
Now you'll have to sell lots of advertising to pay for it.
rwchisholm
Established
My first CV 28 f2 was a dog -- terribly soft. Sent it back to Cameraquest for a replacement -- Love the replacement - sharp, nice, good colors. Rob
SteveRD1
Well-known
Hey guys,
I sold my Elmarit as i wanted a faster 28. I have an event coming up on Sunday and I could use F2! I ended up buying and keeping the 28 Summicron. Got it for $2400 plus shipping used, mint in box. Also put up my write ups and comparisons of both just a few minutes ago.
Thanks!
I sold my Elmarit as i wanted a faster 28. I have an event coming up on Sunday and I could use F2! I ended up buying and keeping the 28 Summicron. Got it for $2400 plus shipping used, mint in box. Also put up my write ups and comparisons of both just a few minutes ago.
Thanks!
S
sreidvt
Guest
What methodology are you using to test for focus shift and what increments are you using for focus bracketing series sets to establish base resolution wide open?
Last edited by a moderator:
S
sreidvt
Guest
Hi Henning,
I just saw this post for the first time. It's interesting to note that your focus shift results are among those that corollate with what I saw in my testing.
Ironically, Stephen Gandy had cited you (to me) as one of the people who tested and found no focus shift with the 28/2.0. I think there must have been a misunderstanding somewhere.
Best,
Sean