Canon LTM Canon 35mm f2 LTM -vs- Voigtlander Ultron f1.7 ASPH LTM

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
R

richowirawan

Member
Local time
1:44 AM
Joined
Jun 21, 2018
Messages
12
Hi guys, does anybody here have any experience on the 35mm f2 LTM? I'm considering to get one of these or a Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f1.7 ASPH LTM. Still not sure though, seems there's no one head to head comparison between the two.

I know that the Ultron is released in 1999 which is considerably newer than the Canon but does that make that much difference? Some also said that the color rendition of the Ultron is rather dull compared to Canon?

Need some feedback on this, cheers.
 
The Ultron 35mm LTM is a great lens.

Leica M2, LTM VC Ultron 35mm f/1.7, 400-2TMY.

Erik.
16693328096_96d54352b9_c.jpg
 
Canon has fairly severe barrel distortion, voigländer very little. Watch out for haze in the Ultrons (Canons too I supppse?)
 
The Voightlander is not quite as sharp wide open; closed down it's much better. It also has a 39mn filter thread vs the Canon's 40mm, making it easier to get lens hoods or filters. The Canon is sharp in the center wide open but a bit soft at the edges. The ergonomics of the two lenses is different but both handle well. I only shoot black and white film with them, so I can't help with color signatures. Both are excellent lenses.
 
It is true that the sharpness of the Ultron improves on stopping down, but that's true for all the lenses. The question is: is the full aperture usable? In the case of the Ultron: yes, fully usable in my opinion. Lovely rendering.

Erik.
 
I used to have Ultron 35/1.7 LTM and now have Canon 35/2. Both are fully usable at any aperture (but I personally don't expect extreme edge-to-edge sharpness wide open from a lens that costs $300). Ultron is twice as big as Canon.

Since Ultron LTM can't focus down to 0.7m either (my only complaint about the Canon 35/2), I have no desire to switch back to Ultron. And no desire for the newer M mount since Voigtländer obviously can't afford to put a screw in the lens that would limit close focusing to 0.7m (it's an M mount lens, people DO use M mount lenses on M bodies, for god's sake!!!).
 
Ultron has one of the best rendering, IMO.
Canon is small lens.
Ultron LTM has too many listings with haze for its age.
Canon LTM lens might be fogged anyway.
Ultron lens block getting loose is known occurrence.

My Ultron was not with haze, but lens block became loose. It was easy to fix.
I sold it, because it has no focus tab and it was slowing me down.
But, I think, it is possible to add focus tab.

Canon was my candidate for small lens, but after seeing pictures from it, I was not impressed.
 
Thanks for the advice. Does the Ultron comes with a clickable aperture? I have a Jupiter 8 (with no clickable aperture ring) which made me have to check the aperture every time I want to shoot.
 
I got several Canon 35/2 lenses over the past years. I would sell the lens but then buy another one later on. Then the CV lenses started to emerge, and the 35/1.7 seems to have a great reputation. I used to think that Canon RF lenses keep their value better than CV lenses, but with so many excellent CV lenses and with "high end" new M mount CV lenses, the older CV lenses seem to be "sort of collectible", and the CV may be a better buy than the Canon 35/2. Just my thoughts on this issue.
 
This thread pushed me to set my CV Ultron LTM 35/1.7 on my M7 ...I have a Delta 3200 in the camera...i'll take a few pictures tomorrow...
robert
PS: it was the first lens (and the only one for a long time) I bought when I first had my Bessa R!

This is from that time, 2006, Hp5 and Bessa R

U3692I1141595691.SEQ.0.jpg
 
I bought the LTM Ultron when it first came out, but found it ergonomically poor, and large, so I rarely used it. But it was one of the best lenses I have owned in subjective terms re:rendering. Now I have an M-mount 2nd or 3rd version Summicron, which at less than half the size of the Ultron is a definite keeper, but not an option for LTM.
 
mdarnton said:
I bought the LTM Ultron when it first came out, but found it ergonomically poor, and large, so I rarely used it. But it was one of the best lenses I have owned in subjective terms re:rendering. Now I have an M-mount 2nd or 3rd version Summicron, which at less than half the size of the Ultron is a definite keeper, but not an option for LTM.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate how ergonomically poor the Ultron is for you? I'm fine with the larger lens, I never really put my RF in a bag, it's always hanging on my shoulder.
 
richowirawan said:
Can you elaborate how ergonomically poor the Ultron is for you? I'm fine with the larger lens, I never really put my RF in a bag, it's always hanging on my shoulder.
Click to expand...

I'm not who you directed this to, but I found it good ergonomically and size-wise. It has no focus tab, if that's important it might be possible to attach one. On a Canon 7, it's almost big enough to balance the camera and just large enough to comfortably find focus and aperture rings, and I have slim fingers for a man. Tabbed lenses can be smaller but lenses with rings need a certain size I think. I believe the size would be great on an M but yes, large on an ltm Leica.
But again, do check for haze with a flashlight. I've had very bad luck trying to find one without, and have given up for now.
 
I think the Canon 35mm F2 had a good reputation on film and before CV started making new lenses. It was the cheap alternative to the Summicron. Once there were other alternatives, it seems to have lost a little bit of its appeal. That said, it is F2, it is small, and it is good enough for photography. I prefer the ultron, but ... neither are bad in any way.
 
Canon 35mm f2 on Sony A7RIII

Canon 35mm f2 on Sony A7RIII

Hi,

I currently own two of these, one is Version 1, the other Version 2.
Didn´t test them side by side as the newer one just arrived yesterday.
So I only can say a little bit about the older one, which I also only have since a couple of days.

I'm quite impressed by its performance on the Sony so far.
Well It does suffer from field curvature wide open at infinity, but I wouldn't use it wide open for landscapes with needed corner sharpness.

Anyway, it is not bad with backlight, no big contrast loss. The ghosting is pleasing me, giving me the imo nice vintage look.

I love the bokeh, sunstars are not really famous but I like them.

Will definitely keep the newer one, it came for an acceptable price with the ltm 135mm f3.5, both in mint condition.
The older one is more used, scratched paint on the barrel but would one expect from a 56 year old lens that has been used and loved...:)

_CR_1029 by C R, auf Flickr

_CR_1008 by C R, auf Flickr

_CR_1082 by C R, auf Flickr

https://www.flickr.com/photos/146474230@N05/albums/72157698392538150/with/45441347304/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom