Dan States
Established
I've been using an Ultron 28mm for a few weeks now, and after running a boat load of Acros through it I thought I'd share my USERS impressions as a former 28 Summicron owner.
I'll start by mentioning that for the years I owned one, the Summicron 28 was for me, the BLE (best lens ever). It was only because I had migrated to the Hasselblad that it was sold off.
I'll also mention that my previous experiences with Voigtlander lenses has been, frankly, the pits. I had owned three other VC lenses. A 90, and TWO 50mm Skopars. The 90 was ok, but the Skopars were rubbish. The first was defective and the second was just a lousy lens.
When I bought the Ultron I braced myself for dissapointment. In fact the results have been truly eye opening.
I've actually found that for all practical purposes the Ultron is the equal of the Summicron from F2.4-16. It is LESS prone to flare, and most importantly, does not vignette like the Summicron. Used on an M6 with Fuji Acros developed in stock D76 for 7:30 at 68F the results are in most cases the equal or better of the much more expensive lens.
Flatness of field is outstanding for both lenses. FYI The Ultron is better at the corners of full frame prints than the highly regarded Biogon ZM 35mm F2! Performance at the corners of the fram is excellent for both the Summicron and the Ultron.
(For those who are wondering, I print all my photos at 7-11 times enlargement, and use a 25x magnifier for grain focus and sharpness confirmation.)
Recently there have been comments about the Ultron being a "medium contrast lens". I have to say I just don't see that with uniformly developed black and white negative film. On identical film with identical development my Ultron shots are printing at the same contrast setting on the Leica V35 enlarger that the Summicron shots were at apertures 2.4-16
I know some of the contrast comments come from Sean Reid's comparisons of histograms from the RD1. It's important to remember that the light falloff of the Summicron causes portions of the frame to look artificially dark, extending the histogram. I would like to see histograms of tight center crops from both lenses to wash out the strong light falloff from the Summicron.
The Summicron IS a bit smaller, and probably better constructed. However in operation both are outstanding to the touch. Focus and aperture are butter smooth and sure.
To sum this up, at all apertures from 2.4 on the Ultron is at least the equal on black and white fine grain film. MOST IMPORTENTLY, the Ultron is less prone to vignetting and flare.
At F2 the Summicron is truly unbeaten. It is crystal clear, where the Ultron has a bit of a "fog" around highlights. That said, it's hard to justify the price difference of the two lenses. When the Summicron came out I paid about $1799 for a new one. Today that same lens lists for the absurd price of $2995. At $444 the Ultron is not only the value winner, but a performance peer!
Best wishes
Dan States
I'll start by mentioning that for the years I owned one, the Summicron 28 was for me, the BLE (best lens ever). It was only because I had migrated to the Hasselblad that it was sold off.
I'll also mention that my previous experiences with Voigtlander lenses has been, frankly, the pits. I had owned three other VC lenses. A 90, and TWO 50mm Skopars. The 90 was ok, but the Skopars were rubbish. The first was defective and the second was just a lousy lens.
When I bought the Ultron I braced myself for dissapointment. In fact the results have been truly eye opening.
I've actually found that for all practical purposes the Ultron is the equal of the Summicron from F2.4-16. It is LESS prone to flare, and most importantly, does not vignette like the Summicron. Used on an M6 with Fuji Acros developed in stock D76 for 7:30 at 68F the results are in most cases the equal or better of the much more expensive lens.
Flatness of field is outstanding for both lenses. FYI The Ultron is better at the corners of full frame prints than the highly regarded Biogon ZM 35mm F2! Performance at the corners of the fram is excellent for both the Summicron and the Ultron.
(For those who are wondering, I print all my photos at 7-11 times enlargement, and use a 25x magnifier for grain focus and sharpness confirmation.)
Recently there have been comments about the Ultron being a "medium contrast lens". I have to say I just don't see that with uniformly developed black and white negative film. On identical film with identical development my Ultron shots are printing at the same contrast setting on the Leica V35 enlarger that the Summicron shots were at apertures 2.4-16
I know some of the contrast comments come from Sean Reid's comparisons of histograms from the RD1. It's important to remember that the light falloff of the Summicron causes portions of the frame to look artificially dark, extending the histogram. I would like to see histograms of tight center crops from both lenses to wash out the strong light falloff from the Summicron.
The Summicron IS a bit smaller, and probably better constructed. However in operation both are outstanding to the touch. Focus and aperture are butter smooth and sure.
To sum this up, at all apertures from 2.4 on the Ultron is at least the equal on black and white fine grain film. MOST IMPORTENTLY, the Ultron is less prone to vignetting and flare.
At F2 the Summicron is truly unbeaten. It is crystal clear, where the Ultron has a bit of a "fog" around highlights. That said, it's hard to justify the price difference of the two lenses. When the Summicron came out I paid about $1799 for a new one. Today that same lens lists for the absurd price of $2995. At $444 the Ultron is not only the value winner, but a performance peer!
Best wishes
Dan States
Last edited:
