How much would a Ultron f/1.7 35mm cost?

[theotse]

Hello,

I'm planning to buy a Ultron f/1.7 35mm lens. Someone is offering the lens at USD$375. The lens is boxed and is mint, do you guys consider it as a good deal?

 

[dexdog]

Yep, $375 is a good price for a lens in excellent condition.

 

[jsrockit]

Yes, going rate is $350 to $450 these days.

 

[dreilly]

More on ebay recently...so be aware.
doug

 

[jsrockit]

October 2, 2011 ... $355 on ebay. Prior to that 2 went in the $500+ range but were both buy it now... probably people who could not wait.

 

[shadowfox]

Man, I should hang on to mine then, hopefully it attains a cult status, so one day I can trade it with a pre-ASPH 35mm Summilux 😀

 

[nobbylon]

Man, I should hang on to mine then, hopefully it attains a cult status, so one day I can trade it with a pre-ASPH 35mm Summilux 😀

The Ultron is just as good as a Summilux from 1.7 up! It's also as good as a v4 Summicron from f2!
A seriously under valued lens IMHO.
The only issue I have albeit minor is the short focus throw compaired to the other 2 plus it's a little bigger.
I did a comparison poll a year or so ago and the one people preferred before I named the lens was the Ultron.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Anyone knowing how 1.2, 1.4, 1.7 and 2.5 (all CV 35's) compare if we talk about barrel distortion?

Thanks!

Cheers,

Juan

 

[ferider]

Anyone knowing how 1.2, 1.4, 1.7 and 2.5 (all CV 35's) compare if we talk about barrel distortion?

Thanks!

Cheers,

Juan

1.7 = 2.5 (basically none in either; like a Summicron)

1.2 = 1.4 (slight barrel for both)

Note that the modern Summilux ASPH v1 and v2 have noticeable and similar barrel distortion, too. As has you Hexar AF, Juan. 🙂

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

1.7 = 2.5 (basically none in either; like a Summicron)

1.2 = 1.4 (slight barrel for both)

Note that the modern Summilux ASPH v1 and v2 have noticeable and similar barrel distortion, too. As has you Hexar AF, Juan. 🙂

🙂
That's interesting, Roland... I would have never thought about barrel distortion with the Hexar AF's lens: I mean, there's no choice even close to that tool in the whole world... That's a “too important lens” to me, as to even judge it in any way... I got other lenses (and formats) for low distortion if I am shooting with tripod or the camera leveled and I decide to include straight lines close to frame borders... By the way, I never did test that 35 f/2 in the Hexar AF, and have never found any noticeable barrel distortion (randomly coming) yet, but I might give it a chance soon to see if it's really like the Nokton 35 1.4... Seriously, I never saw again that picture where the 35 1.4 Nokton's distortion was so wild... To me it was surprising: I just remember it reminded me of zooms at the wide end...

Or are you and I splitting hairs too much? Here's a link to that thread where you did post an image of the Nokton 1.4 with diagonal lines instead of straight ones close to the borders... On that thread Tom A. did comment he had just tested some 35's, including all 35's by CV, and some other brands' ones, and he found all were quite close about barrel distortion... On T&T's Flickr site I saw the images, and although a more precise test would show results in a more serious way (all this is indeed boring!) I remember the Nokton 1.4 looked (to me) worse than the Nokton 1.2... I also remember on that thread there was an image made with the 35 1.4 (a tree in the background) showing exactly the same busy bokeh that can be seen sometimes on images from the 40 1.4, so all this is really relative... Anyway, here's the link to the thread:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=84610

And these are Tom's images:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=36506481@N00&q=F331

I agree with him: in most cases thinking of this is just wasting time.

If you have at hand an image from the Hexar AF with wild barrel distortion, I'd like to see it, to know what to expect, or to know what to avoid doing in those situations... Thanks!

Cheers,

Juan

 

[jsrockit]

The only issue I have albeit minor is the short focus throw compaired to the other 2 plus it's a little bigger.

How is the short focus throw a bad thing?

 

[micromoogman]

I bought mine for $200 but it suffered from the very common wobbling of the aperture setting bezel...a very simple fix done by yourself in 10 minutes.

 

[nobbylon]

How is the short focus throw a bad thing?

I find it easier to get spot on focus with a longer throw. More of a turn gives less movement on the patch.
It's the same with my 105 Ai Nikkor. The Ais has a shorter throw and is less accurate on the focus.

 

[ferider]

I agree with him: in most cases thinking of this is just wasting time.

Me too, Juan, and that's why I'll leave it at what I said before, when answering your question. Remember, I like my Nokton & Hexar AF very much and use them frequently.

Roland.

 

[jsrockit]

I find it easier to get spot on focus with a longer throw. More of a turn gives less movement on the patch.
It's the same with my 105 Ai Nikkor. The Ais has a shorter throw and is less accurate on the focus.

For longer lenses that makes sense, but for 35mm? Its funny how everyone views things differently. I prefer short focus throws because they are faster. I rarely miss focus due to a short focus throw.

 

[nobbylon]

yes, get your point for 35 and indeed never had a problem with the Ultron.

 

[Lord Nikon]

I bought this lens with a Bessa-R when I was 21, or so. Like an idiot I sold it last year.

To make up for my stupidity, I bought the 35F1.7ultron lens, another Bessa-R, an M6, a cheap Russian 50 (OK, so it came with the Bessa), a CV75, and a summicron 50DR.

How is the short focus throw a bad thing?

I think its short enough to be difficult.

I'l bring mine to the next NYC meetup.

 

[jsrockit]

I'l bring mine to the next NYC meetup.

Cool, I've owned it before and liked it for its short focus throw. 😀

 

[Krosya]

And Ultron 35/1.7 can be made to focus closer, just like Nokton 50/1.5 - two awsome lenses! No wonder all these lenses are going up now.