JohnL
Very confused
Not sure if I should post this here or in the Voiglander area, but ...
Sooner or later, I plan to get a fast 35mm lens. If it's a CV, it'll probably be sooner. If it's a Leica or Zeiss, it'll probably be later, for obvious reasons.
The two fast CV offerings are the 1.2 Nokton and the 1.7 Ultron. Both have received mixed reviews. Erwin Puts seems torn between praising them and qualifying this with negative details. I am sure he is right, but all this makes it difficult for me to form an opinion of my own, so I would really appreciate it if any users of either (or preferably both) of these two lenses could give me some feedback on their practical use in real life. Clearly, use of these lenses is for low light situations.
I am aware that both are quite large, especially the Nokton. I would probably try to avoid using a hood on either, because of the viewfinder interference.
Any thoughts?
Sooner or later, I plan to get a fast 35mm lens. If it's a CV, it'll probably be sooner. If it's a Leica or Zeiss, it'll probably be later, for obvious reasons.
The two fast CV offerings are the 1.2 Nokton and the 1.7 Ultron. Both have received mixed reviews. Erwin Puts seems torn between praising them and qualifying this with negative details. I am sure he is right, but all this makes it difficult for me to form an opinion of my own, so I would really appreciate it if any users of either (or preferably both) of these two lenses could give me some feedback on their practical use in real life. Clearly, use of these lenses is for low light situations.
I am aware that both are quite large, especially the Nokton. I would probably try to avoid using a hood on either, because of the viewfinder interference.
Any thoughts?
R
ray_g
Guest
I have had the ultron, and like most of the CV users here, I found it to be quite a good lens. If it is still available for $249 (NOS) at photovillage, it would be an unbeatable bargain.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Hear hear for the Ultron (LTM). I also hear good things about the Nokton (M)...but it's about four times the price of an Ultron.
Any of the Leica Summaron lenses are good, and the 35 Summicrons are nice. You have lots and lots to choose from.
I don't know why your choice would be decided by the mount. It's usually the performance and/or price range that decides it, not the mount, which is the predicament (so I thought).
Any of the Leica Summaron lenses are good, and the 35 Summicrons are nice. You have lots and lots to choose from.
I don't know why your choice would be decided by the mount. It's usually the performance and/or price range that decides it, not the mount, which is the predicament (so I thought).
Toby
On the alert
I've got the 35 ultron and it is a good lens but sometimes a little too low contrast for my taste, I've not tried it with a yellow filter because of a deep seated prejudice against filters I can't really explain....
richard_l
Well-known
That's funny. My only gripe about the 28 Ultron (besides its bulk) is too much contrast, even with XP2 and no filters. What's going on with the Ultrons?Toby said:
JohnL
Very confused
I think I confused you. Either mount is OK. It's for use on an M camera. What I meant was no Nikon S or Contax G suggestions!gabrielma said:
peter_n
Veteran
Richard the CV lenses are not consistent WRT contrast. I have a 35mm/f2.5 pancake which is very contrasty, and a new 35mm Ultron for which I got a roll back yesterday. Definitely less contrast with the Ultron. Nice lens though.richard_l said:
John. below is the link that lists the Ultron at $249. Silver only.
http://www.photovillage.com/html/voigtlander.html
GeneW
Veteran
Count me in as another happy Ultron owner. I've never had a contrast problem with the lens, but mine will flare sometimes. Consequently I removed the little wannabe hood that comes with it and put on a proper 39mm vented hood and I get better overall results that way.
Gene
Gene
JohnL
Very confused
Thanks for the link, but I read someone on a thread here mention how he just got the last one of those. Not ready to jump just yet, anyway.peter_n said:
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
GeneW said:
Oh! Is that what that thing is?
I'm another happy Ultron user. I have both CV 35's (1.7 [ray_g's old one] & the 2.5). I'm grabbing the 1.7 more and more.
JohnL
Very confused
Certainly the ultron has many more users than the nokton, judging from this thread. Now when I get this lens, whatever it may be, it would strictly be for low light use, i.e. indoors without flash and outdoors after dark. I'd never put it on the camera outdoors in daylight.
Now here I am in my study and it's late afternoon and I take a reading with my lightmeter at ISO 400, and I get 1/40 at f/1.4. I can handhold that with a 35mm lens, but at f/1.7 it's getting a bit dicier, and it's not even dark outside yet!
Now here I am in my study and it's late afternoon and I take a reading with my lightmeter at ISO 400, and I get 1/40 at f/1.4. I can handhold that with a 35mm lens, but at f/1.7 it's getting a bit dicier, and it's not even dark outside yet!
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
JohnL said:
the 2.5 is so contrasty outdoors in bright direct (California) sunlight, that I've no qualms about using the Ultron to help manage that task. (never say never, John
)
back alley
IMAGES
doesn't rover have a nice canon 35/2 available? or did it get sold already?
great lens...
joe
great lens...
joe
Huck Finn
Well-known
For detailed opinion, reference Sean Reid's reviews at www.luminous-landscape.com. Go to the index & look for Epson. The two articles are "Wide Angle Lenses for the R-D1" & "Fast Lenses for the R-D1."
Huck
Huck
JohnL
Very confused
Well ... hardly ever! (HMS Pinafore)RayPA said:... (never say never, John
JohnL
Very confused
Huck,
Thanks for link. Can't get into LL right now - server seems to be down - but I'll try again later.
Thanks for link. Can't get into LL right now - server seems to be down - but I'll try again later.
M
merciful
Guest
Perhaps for you, but if I had either, I'd use it wide open most of the time to get the depth-of-field I like.
JohnL said:
Huck Finn
Well-known
JohnL said:
John,
I was in a rush before, on my way out the door. I have time now, so here are the direct links:
www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/fastlensreview.shtml
www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml
Best of luck with your research,
Huck
djon
Well-known
Don't pass up opportunities on Canon 35 f2. Properly sized, sharp as heck, moderate contrast. The only 35 I might prefer would be 35 Elmar 2.8, but that's more money and a stop slower.
thpook
Squawkbox Delux
I quite liked the Canon 35 f/1.8 that I used for a while. I had the CV 35 f/2.5, and liked it, but I recently traded it for an ultron. I haven't seen any results from the ultron yet, but I like the build of the lens, and I really like the short throw.
If I had the money, and could choose any 35mm I wanted, I'd grab the 35 summilux. As it is, I'm not looking for any more. I think the ultron is just enough for me now.
If I had the money, and could choose any 35mm I wanted, I'd grab the 35 summilux. As it is, I'm not looking for any more. I think the ultron is just enough for me now.