sleepyhead
Well-known
Hello, I've just bought a 28mm Ultron f/2 from a fellow RFFer and whilst waiting for the payment to go through and the lens to arrive...
...I thought I'd ask:
WHAT ARE THE OPINIONS/CONSENSUS ON THE IMAGE QUALITY of the "new" 28mm Ultron compared to the previous f/1.9 ASPH version.
I'm interested in hearing about sharpness, bokeh, tonal rendition, contrast, distortion, and flaring ON FILM (mainly).
I'm not particularly interested in:
Focus shift on the Leica M8
Ergonomics
The fact that one is M mount and the other LTM
Vignetting on digital, or other digital-specific issues
Viewfinder blockage with or without hoods
Any users of these two have opinions?
I used to own the 28mm f/1.9, and found it to be a quite good lens, but I didn't use it extensively to form a solid opinion. I wonder how the new version compares in the real world of image quality.
THANK YOU.
...I thought I'd ask:
WHAT ARE THE OPINIONS/CONSENSUS ON THE IMAGE QUALITY of the "new" 28mm Ultron compared to the previous f/1.9 ASPH version.
I'm interested in hearing about sharpness, bokeh, tonal rendition, contrast, distortion, and flaring ON FILM (mainly).
I'm not particularly interested in:
Focus shift on the Leica M8
Ergonomics
The fact that one is M mount and the other LTM
Vignetting on digital, or other digital-specific issues
Viewfinder blockage with or without hoods
Any users of these two have opinions?
I used to own the 28mm f/1.9, and found it to be a quite good lens, but I didn't use it extensively to form a solid opinion. I wonder how the new version compares in the real world of image quality.
THANK YOU.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Have at look at this thread. Parts of it are relevant to the questions you are asking.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72505
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72505
gavinlg
Veteran
I had a 1.9 and didn't like it at all. Lasted about 3 weeks with me and sold it. Just an average all round lens. I would get the f2 as I've heard it's improved.
sleepyhead
Well-known
Jon, thanks for pointing me towards the previous thread - it made interesting reading, but is also largely about performance on digital RF cameras, so my questions regarding performance on film still hold.
NONETHELESS, some experiences mentioned in that thread comparing the f/1.9 to the f/2 Ultrons were:
The f/2 compared to the f/1.9 is:
- a bit sharper wide open
- a bit sharper in the corners
- better flare resistance
But closed down to say f/2.8 and beyond, any sharpness differences between the f/2 and f/1.9 are probably irrelevant to average print sizes.
Any film shooters out there?
NONETHELESS, some experiences mentioned in that thread comparing the f/1.9 to the f/2 Ultrons were:
The f/2 compared to the f/1.9 is:
- a bit sharper wide open
- a bit sharper in the corners
- better flare resistance
But closed down to say f/2.8 and beyond, any sharpness differences between the f/2 and f/1.9 are probably irrelevant to average print sizes.
Any film shooters out there?
dfoo
Well-known
I found the 1.9 very sharp! However, I disliked the size immensely.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
The size certainly didn't worry me but I found it to be a little soft, I'm talking of the old 1.9, though this may have been my lens rather than the lens type in general. My one has also become very stiff to focus and wobbles like a drunk at closing time. Again, this may be my lens and the usage it gets rather than the nature and build quality of the lenses as a whole.
I'm in the process of getting the 28 Hexanon as a replacement as I've heard, and seen examples showing, it's sharper in the corners and is supposedly quite rugged?!
I toyed with the idea of getting the newer f2 version but decided against it due mainly to the reports about the Hexanon.
I'm in the process of getting the 28 Hexanon as a replacement as I've heard, and seen examples showing, it's sharper in the corners and is supposedly quite rugged?!
I toyed with the idea of getting the newer f2 version but decided against it due mainly to the reports about the Hexanon.
ferider
Veteran
I think the quality of the lens is less dependent on which of the two you get, but more on getting a good sample.
Roland.
Roland.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
f:1.9 soft wide open. Focuses accurately when stopped down. My sense from reading others' experience, is that there might be some sample variation with this model.
f:2 sharper, better contrast wide open. Lens shifts focus between 2.8 and 5.6. Can be compensated for, but you have to keep your wits about you. Tom Abrahamson has said that he has had a good experience with this lens -- you can search his Flickr page and see samples in B&W. Sean Reid has helpful (and in my experience accurate) reviews of both lenses on his for-a-fee website. In my view it's a worthwhile investment for anyone who has these A vs. B questions.
I have both. I tend to reach for the 28/2. But I have been on the hunt for an ideal 28 and among the C/V 28/2.8, C/V 28/2, 28 Elmarit/2.8 and Converted G-to-M 28 there still is no clear winner. The 1.9 is a little soft wide open, the f:2 lens has funky focus issues, the G-to-M 28 is sharp and accurate, but fiddly, and the Elmarit . . . well, I just haven't had that Ah-Ha moment. Currently, I am hearing the siren song of the Zeiss 28 biogon. . .
Ben Marks
f:2 sharper, better contrast wide open. Lens shifts focus between 2.8 and 5.6. Can be compensated for, but you have to keep your wits about you. Tom Abrahamson has said that he has had a good experience with this lens -- you can search his Flickr page and see samples in B&W. Sean Reid has helpful (and in my experience accurate) reviews of both lenses on his for-a-fee website. In my view it's a worthwhile investment for anyone who has these A vs. B questions.
I have both. I tend to reach for the 28/2. But I have been on the hunt for an ideal 28 and among the C/V 28/2.8, C/V 28/2, 28 Elmarit/2.8 and Converted G-to-M 28 there still is no clear winner. The 1.9 is a little soft wide open, the f:2 lens has funky focus issues, the G-to-M 28 is sharp and accurate, but fiddly, and the Elmarit . . . well, I just haven't had that Ah-Ha moment. Currently, I am hearing the siren song of the Zeiss 28 biogon. . .
Ben Marks
sleepyhead
Well-known
Benjamin, thanks for the info.
I'm really looking forwards to receiving my 28/2 Ultron.
Is there the impression that there's less sample variability with the 28/2 than the 28/1.9?
REGARDING THE 28MM BIOGON: I used one for a while - GREAT LENS! The image quality was perfect in my opinion (sharp, but not harsh), and the lens was small and handled well. I would have kept it except I really want a f/2 28mm lens. (And I don't want to have to sell other lenses to afford a Leica 28mm Summicron...)
I'm really looking forwards to receiving my 28/2 Ultron.
Is there the impression that there's less sample variability with the 28/2 than the 28/1.9?
REGARDING THE 28MM BIOGON: I used one for a while - GREAT LENS! The image quality was perfect in my opinion (sharp, but not harsh), and the lens was small and handled well. I would have kept it except I really want a f/2 28mm lens. (And I don't want to have to sell other lenses to afford a Leica 28mm Summicron...)
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Yeah. I keep wondering if I will have to sell all of them to buy the 28 Summicron. Funny thing is: I don't think I would be able to buy a new one, even if I sold them all. Maybe I'd get within striking distance if I included the Elmarit. Biogon anyone?
Ben
Ben
back alley
IMAGES
i am happy with a 2.8 lens so the biogon is what i ended up with.
i tried (over the years) the rokkor 28, the cv 28/3.5, a canon 28/3.5, i had briefly the cv 1.9 also but i prefer the 'zeiss look' mostly.
joe
i tried (over the years) the rokkor 28, the cv 28/3.5, a canon 28/3.5, i had briefly the cv 1.9 also but i prefer the 'zeiss look' mostly.
joe
raid
Dad Photographer
Roland,
Are you saying that a moden lens such as a CV 28mm actually has sample variations? This would be rather surprising [or alarming?].:bang:
flip
良かったね！
I cannot comment on the 28/2, but I have the 1.9. I noticed that the bokeh in some wide open shots of cherry-blossoms was decidedly tunnel-like. It reminded me of shots I'd seen with the big canon 50's, but not as prominent. Sorry - I don't know the name for this abberation.
Last edited:
sanmich
Veteran
I have came to the conclusion that certain lenses from CV do suffer from QC problems, while apparently other don't.
The CV 28, along with the CS 50mm 2.5 have too wide a range of user feedbacks to be consistent. I had an Ultron and it was, ahem..., not excellent.
I did something very weird for me and bought a slower lens (Hexanon) for more money, and the difference was stunning.
Beside these, some other lenses seem to be great. the Color skopar 35mm come to mind, and the super wides seem to shine too in the reviews.
ferider
Veteran
Yes, but I don't feel this is CV specific. Modern Leica, Nikon, Canon, etc. lenses might be just the same. Like Michael, I feel some CV lenses are more prone to sample variation than others. The Ultrons are part of this, IMO.
Roland.
Last edited:
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I've tried a bunch of the modern 28s (CV 28/1.9, ZM 28/2.8, cron 28/2, CV 28/3.5). The two best were the cron 28 and the CV 28/3,5. The cron 28 delivers. (If you are planning on really using it, just buy it used). Sharp yet very smooth with excellent colors and bokeh.
The CV 28/3.5 has a classic look about it. I'd love to have a chrome one again someday.
The CV 28/3.5 has a classic look about it. I'd love to have a chrome one again someday.
dfoo
Well-known
1.9/28 wide open. Personally I don't think that is soft at all.
ferider
Veteran
My (current) 28/1.9 is excellent and outperforms me anytime 
Beautiful bokeh and reasonably sharp even wide open. And I think I get the > 100 l/mm at f4 that Puts measured on that lens - it easily outperforms my Nikon scanner.
You all might know I am a fan of the 28/3.5 Color Skopar. In terms of resolution, however, the Ultron 1.9 outperforms it easily, at the same f-stop. Its biggest disavantage is that it's flare prone. On the other hand it does something magic to the color rendering, a bit like a classic DR Summicron, or a CV S.C. lens.
Buy two new of either lens, test them, send one back.
Cheers,
Roland.
Beautiful bokeh and reasonably sharp even wide open. And I think I get the > 100 l/mm at f4 that Puts measured on that lens - it easily outperforms my Nikon scanner.You all might know I am a fan of the 28/3.5 Color Skopar. In terms of resolution, however, the Ultron 1.9 outperforms it easily, at the same f-stop. Its biggest disavantage is that it's flare prone. On the other hand it does something magic to the color rendering, a bit like a classic DR Summicron, or a CV S.C. lens.
Buy two new of either lens, test them, send one back.
Cheers,
Roland.
Last edited:
nome_alice
Established
i have no experience with the 28/1.9 so really shouldn't be typing this response, but in true internet fashion i will anyway ;o)
i just bought a 28/2 from a fellow rff'er too, and compared to the other voigtlander lenses i own (nokton 35/1.2, ultron 35/1.7, nokton 50/1.5, color-heliar 75/2.5) it's one of the sharpest.
i've found the contrast to be similar to the nokton 50/1.5 ie it's fairly contrasty but not crazy so.
i don't know about the bokeh yet as i've not tried shooting for that with it yet.
i've shot some straight stuff and haven't seen any pincushioning or barrelling so far.
i just bought a 28/2 from a fellow rff'er too, and compared to the other voigtlander lenses i own (nokton 35/1.2, ultron 35/1.7, nokton 50/1.5, color-heliar 75/2.5) it's one of the sharpest.
i've found the contrast to be similar to the nokton 50/1.5 ie it's fairly contrasty but not crazy so.
i don't know about the bokeh yet as i've not tried shooting for that with it yet.
i've shot some straight stuff and haven't seen any pincushioning or barrelling so far.
sleepyhead
Well-known
Thanks for your responses everyone, I appreciate it.
Nome_alice, thanks - I look forwards to shooting with my new lens!
RAID - as for sample variation in modern lenses - desiging a lens is one thing, building one to specifications is another...
...And I would speculate (not really knowing anything about this subject) that the (generally) more complex modern lenses in complicated mounts would be MORE prone to sample variation than older, simpler lenses...
Nome_alice, thanks - I look forwards to shooting with my new lens!
RAID - as for sample variation in modern lenses - desiging a lens is one thing, building one to specifications is another...
...And I would speculate (not really knowing anything about this subject) that the (generally) more complex modern lenses in complicated mounts would be MORE prone to sample variation than older, simpler lenses...