CV Ultron 35/1.7 Ultron IQ - normal?

[Uwe_Nds]

Yesterday I received a mint 35/1.7 Ultron and I have to say, I am satisfied with it's ergonomics and build quality looks fine with me.
Stopped down to f4, the image quality also looks very ok, however wide open there's a lot of blooming - is this normal for the Ultron or did I get a lemon?

Thanks in advance for your advice!

Cheers,
Uwe

Overview:

Crop wide open:

Crop @ f4:

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Uwe,

Yeah, looks normal to me. How much do you expect from a lens at that price, wide open?

Beats a pre-aspheric Summilux.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

Dear Roger,
Well, I am most pleased with my 75/2.5 Heliar and with my second copy of the 50/1.5 Ultron.
Following all the hype about the 28/2.0, I was very disappointed with the two copies I tried, so I just wanted to make sure.
Actually, I can very well imagine that the blooming is very nice for portraits - will definitely keep it then and give portaiture a try with it. 🙂

Thanks for your advice!

Best regards,
Uwe

 

[ferider]

I'm not sure, Uwe. I am sure that the effect has nothing to do with the purchase price, however.

They do vary. Digital or film ? Any filters (ND?) ?

Also, if you bought it used, check if there are any visible drops on the inside elements.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

I know that the CV QA is not that consistent - that's why I was asking.
The pictures were taken with the M8 and Leica UV/IR-filter. I also noticed the effect w/o the filter.
I will check - thanks for the advice.

Cheers,
Uwe

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Uwe,

The 75/2.5 Heliar is indeed a remarkable lens, but much easier to compute and build. A fast 35 is another matter. I thought it an excellent lens but regard the veiling flare or 'blooming' as about what I would expect on an overcast day, which is as bad as it gets for this sort of flare. But as Ferider says, were you using a filter? Or of course a hood?

My own feeling is that using an extremely compact 35/1.7 wide open under conditions like this is asking for trouble by going beyond its design parameters. Under poor light (which is normally extremely contrasty) a degree of veiling flare can be a positive advantage.

The only way to get lots of contrast, wide open, with fast wide-angles is (unfortunately) to pay lots of money for state-of-the-art lenses.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

Dear Roger,
Yes, I was using the standard mini-hood and the UV/IR-filter.
Regarding compactness: I was reading that it was supposed to be quite bulky and I was positively surprised - ok, it's bigger than the 25 Snapshot Skopar, but IMHO far from being big.

And I will try to make use of the "limitations" of the lens then. See what it does to Ania. ;-)

Cheers,
Uwe

 

[ferider]

All I can say is that the Ultron that I used on film, the Ultron that Raid used for his 35mm test, and my 35/1.4 SC Nokton (on film) do not do this (crops provided):

http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/6899672_cHtWF

http://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/317348

I have never seen this behavior from 35/1.2 photos either.

They all certainly have lower resolution than the 35/1.4 ASPH wide open, and some have higher distortion (not the Ultron), but not that type of veiling flare. That flare looks like flare from a lens of the 60s, not a modern aspherical design.

I remember, however, a while back somebody posting a similar looking image taken with an RD1, and it was somehow attributed to the digital medium.

Roger, what does Frances think ? She has some great Ultron photos on your web-site ? 🙂

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[ferider]

As an example, a crop with 1.4 Nokton on the left, classic lux in the middle, ASPH lux on the right. The only lens with visible veiling flare is the classic Summilux. And even there is not as bad as in Uwe's example.

Roland.

 

[zuikologist]

The UV filter could be the problem.

 

[payasam]

My Ultron 35 has behaved pretty well at f/2. I must say, though, that I haven't looked as critically as you have done, Uwe and Roland.

I could barely afford the lens, Roland, and I wouldn't call it cheap in absolute terms. Relative to a Summicron, of course it costs little. I'd also be careful about blackguarding the entire CV line on grounds of cost.

 

[ferider]

I agree, Mukul (as you surely know). Costs and value are only very remotely related.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

Dear Roger, ferider, zuikologist and Mukul,

Thank you very much for your opinions.
I found that the results look much better in b&w:

Cheers,
Uwe

 

[shadowfox]

Uwe, I have an Ultron and I have never seen a hazy look like your first picture up there from it, even wide open at f/1.7

But then again I never used it on an M8 either.

 

[veraikon]

Yesterday I received a mint 35/1.7 Ultron and I have to say, I am satisfied with it's ergonomics and build quality looks fine with me.

Das Statement solltest du im LuF nicht bringen 🙂
[ for foreign readers: just a friendly advice to Uwe_Nds 😀 ]

I just own a 35/1.2 Nokton from VC and it is the one of the lenses I´ll never miss. The other cream of the top lenses of VC should be as I heard the 50/1.5 and 75/2.5 and the 35/2.5 .
Perhaps you should try the 35/2.5

 

[nome_alice]

with the ultron 35/1.7 i use a 39mm vented hood from heavystar ebay seller and have had no problems with glare.

it will help a lot in cutting down glare from such an overcast sky.