Canon 35/1.8 v. Ultron 35/1.7?

[Bingley]

I'm interested in getting a faster 35 mm for my P & 7. Does anyone have advice on the merits of the Canon 35/1.8, or should I save my pennies for a CV Ultron 35/1.7? I've read some very favorable reviews of the latter lens in RFF threads over the last couple of months, but I'm wondering whether it is better than the Canon to justify the extra cost.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

 

[dazedgonebye]

Looking forward to answers on this one....

 

[Carlos Cruz]

I think that ultron focuses closer 0.9 m whereas canon has the closest focus at 1m, so there's 10 cm or 4 inch difference between them. Hope this helps 😛

 

[John Shriver]

I'm very happy with my Canon 35/1.8. Small and light. The Ultron is large.

The Canon is 5 ounces, the Ultron is 8 ounces. The Canon uses 40mm filters (a hassle), the Ultron uses 39mm filters. The Ultron is deeper and fatter than the Canon.

The extra size and weight of the Ultron would not be a "problem" on a P or 7, where they would be on a "Barnack" camera (Canon or Leica bottom-loader).

But, the Ultron is almost certainly a "better" lens than the Canon. Sharper, more contrasty, more retrofocus (better for M8), etc.

 

[VictorM.]

The 35/1.8 Canon is probably my 'most used' lens so far (my 40mm Summicron is getting there slowly). Heavystar has 40 to 40.5 adapters to help solve the filter/shade issues. I bought a CV 35/2.5 Pancake several years ago and found it almost as good as the Canon except it vignetted noticeably at wide apertures. The Canon not only vignetted less, it cleared up at 2.8-4.0 while the CV wasn't as good until f/8. The CV also gave 'harsher' looking negatives that didn't seem any sharper than the Canon. I sold the CV Pancake and kept the Canon.

 

[Sonnar2]

In daily overall use, I always preferred my Canon 2/35 over the Ultron 1.7/35 because of its handling and contrast. The 2/35 isn't very sharp at f/2, probably the 1.8/35 isn't sharper and has less contrast. If you need to shoot wide open mostly the Ultron is probably the better choise. But I was dissapointed of its performance at f/5.6 and especially flare behavior.

just my 2c
Frank

 

[Joe Vitessa]

The Ultron gives a very modern look -- lots of contrast, sharp, and yes, even a little harsh to my eyes. My Canon 35mm 2.8 is not so fast, but I prefer the look of the negatives, especially for B&W. The small size is great, too.

 

[jky]

Just was following this thread & I was wondering.... how much does a Canon 35mm f1.8 or f2 go for?
Thanks & cheers, j

 

[Bingley]

Thanks for your comments. My use of the term "better" was a little vague. Since I already have a sharp, contrasty 35 mm lens, my interest here is in getting something faster for low light/indoor work, but which could be a little less contrasty too.

I have to say that I've learned a great deal from reading many of the posts of those who've responded on this thread -- you folks are terrific!

 

[Sonnar2]

There is at least one reason for the Canon 1.8/35: you don't lose much money if you later decide not to keep it. It's not so common. Probably you have seen D.Stella's site with the nice pictures taken with the 1.8/35.

 

[Bingley]

Thanks, Sonnar2. Yes, indeed, I am familiar with his site. But I was (and am) curious about others' experiences with this lens and with the Ultron 35/1.7. You make a good point in favor of getting the Canon, though.

BTW -- I've really enjoyed your website!