CV 35mm/f1.7 - what about it?

[kshapero]

I know everyone is talking about the CV 35/1.4, but how about the 35/1.7? I would like to hear what folks think about it? it sure is a lot cheaper and I have a M-mount adapter for it.

 

[Bingley]

The "Ultron Goodness" thread in this forum may be a good place to start! I recently purchased a 35 Ultron from an RFF member, and there have been a number for sale in classifieds at pretty reasonable prices (around $250-300). RFF members Marc Jutras and Tuna use the lens a lot (see Gallery).

 

[satbunny]

I know everyone is talking about the CV 35/1.4, but how about the 35/1.7? I would like to hear what folks think about it? it sure is a lot cheaper and I have a M-mount adapter for it.

I had one (it got broken in transit) and it is a good useful lens. Nice images.
It is a little big, but sometimes that looks good and gives you some room to work with.
I did replace it with a f2.5 pancake, largely for cost reasons..

 

[ZebGoesZeiss]

To me, it's a member of the same family as the 35mm Summicron IV (pre-ASPH): Lower contrast than the more "modern" lenses (like the ASPH Sumicron). In my opinion, the Ultron shows better resolution though - having owned them both. As satbunny stated - the size is somewhat "large", but nothing I would worry about.

Compared to my 35mm Summicron ASPH, it is off the "value for money"-scale. My only hope is that the new 35mm/1.4 from Voigtländer is this good...

 

[cmogi10]

I say save up the extra money and go with the Zeiss Biogon in the 35 department.
I think it's worth it.

 

[zuikologist]

It's a good lens, well made, performs well. What's not to like.

 

[meven]

It's a great lens, I love it on my R-D1!

 

[Krosya]

Ultron 35/1.7 is a great. As a matter of fact it's so good, that since I got mine about 2 years ago, I never felt like I need any other 35mm lens! And this is from a huge fan of Hexanons!. Ultron is that good! I may be selling mine soon though, as I finally broke down and got another 35mm lens - Nokton 35/1.2. Have to see which I like the best. May, however, keep Ultron anyway, as a fast superb yet smaller 35mm. We'll see.
The only thing I don't like about the Ultron (and this is really not the Ultron's only issue) - is that mine, as most black CV lenses brassing a good bit. Pain seems to come off too easy. On the other hand, everything else is great - glass and mechanics. So, this way noone would steal it, as it looks well used. 😉

Oh yeah, and it has a cool concave front element, unlike just about every lens out there!.

 

[varjag]

I now have a couple of rolls processed from mine. I wouldn't say it is "low in contrast", it has tons of it compared to 1960s-70s glass. At f/1.7 resolution largely goes away and only contrast seems to retain the picture. Still the aperture is there when you need it and usable enough. It improves quickly at 2.5-2.8.

In a night situation the lens is very flare resistant: it had no problem withstanding direct light from huge ship projector lights - something that would drive my vintage glass crazy.

It built well. The aperture ring is a bit too close to focus ring. The DOF scale is not very readable. I have no problems with its size though, it invades only a small part of 35mm VF frame.

 

[ferider]

It's a great lens. About the size of the C-Sonnar, that you know.
Available new for US 340 from Adorama, and MIB for US 300 from
Photovillage.

http://www.adorama.com/VT3517.html?searchinfo=ultron&item_no=4

Great for color since contrast not as strong as for example with the 35/2.5.
As sharp as my summicron pre-asph at f2, and better bokeh. Pretty flare resistant, for example (my avatar):

The only complaint I have is .9m min. focus. Which is OK if you carry also
a 50, but for example in a 35/75 combo, I would like to have .7m.

IMO, you would be hard pressed to tell photos taken with the Ultron and with the
Biogon apart. They have very similar signature.

Roland.

 

[JTK]

It's not just "large," it's GIGANTIC.

Compare to 35/2 Canon...which is tiny, virtually as fast, frabjous optically, far better built (like Leica). Canon's one drawback is filter size and shade ...UV filter was hard to find (I found a mint Canon UV), vignettes slightly when shade's used with that 'bay-guy's conical shade, WANT a vented shade...

 

[ferider]

Well, yeah, it's significantly bigger than a canon 35/2 and Summicron. But it's also half
stop faster. And not bigger than the Biogon, for instance.

Here some M2 camera porn where you can see the size:

 

[rwchisholm]

I am going to be putting my silver CV 35 Ultron up for sale on this site, due to changing interests. It is in mint condition, it is the on Sean Reid tested on his site. I have the Milich code-able lens mount adapter as well.

Look for it in the classifieds, if interested!--rob

 

[rover]

It's not just "large," it's GIGANTIC.

Compare to 35/2 Canon...which is tiny, virtually as fast, frabjous optically, far better built (like Leica). Canon's one drawback is filter size and shade ...UV filter was hard to find (I found a mint Canon UV), vignettes slightly when shade's used with that 'bay-guy's conical shade, WANT a vented shade...

Yeah, but in my opinion the Canon 35/2 is way too small to be used, just an ergonomic nightmare to try to turn that aperture ring. And I don't like images from it, way to harsh. And once you put a hood on it the size advantage disappears.

See, one man's treasure is another's ....

The Ultron would be perfect I think if not for that .9 minimum focusing distance which I have run up against as an issue.

 

[KoNickon]

A great lens, simply stated. I love the size and ergonomics, and the images it produces are superb.

 

[shadowfox]

Hehe, looks like the Ultron virus is spreading 🙂

Several people whose opinions I respect spoke highly about this lens. That's why I chose it when I am looking for a 35mm lens.

I have no doubt that the Biogon is probably better (I am a big fan of Zeiss lenses on the SLR side), but the Ultron is good enough for me 🙂 and I can't complain about the price either.

 

[rover]

I have no doubt that the Biogon is probably better (I am a big fan of Zeiss lenses on the SLR side), but the Ultron is good enough for me and I can't complain about the price either.

My thoughts too. I sold my first Ultron for a IV Summicron. I had a love hate relationship with the Summicron, excellent images, but it was too small and hard for me to handle, much like the tiny Canon 35/2 I sold. I never felt comfortable using it. So I sold it for another Ultron.

I do really like what I have seen from, and having handled one, the feel of the Biogon, but the price has me at bay. I think I am going to give the small lens thing a try again with the new CV 35/1.4....but I am not yet committed.

 

[januaryman]

It's the right size for me and that's the main reason I picked one up in the classified here. Even with some marks on the front element, the images were up to expectations, so I kept it. I have the Classic 2.5 as well, but it's to dang small.

Samples:
Wide open--

I think this was f/4

 

[JTK]

Preference for CV over smaller Canon might mean arthritis, huge hands, or a camera much bigger than Canon P or Barnack ... Such as M6 and Voigtlander 🙂

"And once you put a hood on it the size advantage disappears."

Not true...Canon with a shade that's twice as deep is about 2/3 Ultron length with it's token shade (and Canon weighs far less, yet is bronze). Add a real shade to Ultron and...

Canon real shade doesn't protrude anywhere near as much into P viewfinder as Ultron does with standard shade. Don't know how that seems on M.

Describing Canon as "harsh" seems praise for an Ultron characteristic called....

 

[kinok1]

It was one of the first lenses I bought when I got in to this whole rangefinder mess..

I have to say, its fine at 4 and above.

But for low light, especially in high contrast lighting (ie. concert photography)

It doesn't hold up for me.

Flares miserably. For the price. A nice walk around lens. But I wouldn't push it professionally.

G