Just how good is the CV 35mm Ultron?

S

SalmanA

Guest
I find myself in a bit of indecision over whether or not to buy the CV 35mm Ultron. Reading through the archives of photo.net there seem to be enough mixed opinions about this lens that make me almost want to not buy it. But RFFers mostly give this lens good reviews. But then there are also the occasional reports of flaring issues and internal ghosting with this lens that I've read about.

I realize that this may be an unfair or invalid comparison to make but how well does the CV 35mm Ultron compare (in sharpness, contrast and colour saturation) to let's say the 35mm lens on the Olympus Stylus Epic or the Canon EF 35mm f/2 lens (for SLRs)?

My only frame of reference at the moment is the Olympus Stylus Epic , whose 35mm f/2.8 lens I find is very good slightly stopped down. And I've been generally very pleased with the Canon (non L) 24mm and 50mm prime lenses that I use with my EOS film SLR.

The CV 35mm Nokton is out of my budget so it would appear that the 35mm Ultron is my only choice for a new affordable fast 35mm prime.

Thanks!
 
I had one on loan to me for a month and I used it extensively, though I'm not sure what happened to the negatives... I liked the bokeh wide open and I remember it being reliably sharp. I particularly liked the size...not too big and not too small.
 
Don't worry about the comments from the p.nut gallery - I don't think anyone there takes pictures!
The Ultron is an awesome lens - I use it all the time! Flaring and ghosting? Never seen any problems. I've never compared it side by side under the same conditions with the Stylus but I think you could safely assume it's a better lens. I don't think there is much point in the comparison with the Stylus or the Canon lens because you won't be able to use either on your RF.
 
It rarely leaves my M7. A great lens all the way across its f-stop range. Someone mentioned some problems handling/finding the f-stop ring while shooting, but I've never experienced any inconvenience using the lens—ergonomically or otherwise. Get it. You won't regret it.

:)
 
Check out Tuna's work in the gallery. He's pretty quiet around here but posts tons of great pictures, many of which are reportedly taken with the CV 35/1.7.

Here are some random shots of his, I hope he doesn't mind the linking.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=36417&cat=500&ppuser=2655

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=23944&cat=500&ppuser=2655

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=20887&cat=500&ppuser=2655

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=28926&cat=500&ppuser=2655

Like any good photographer, he gets a lot out of this lens because of his post-shooting routine in photoshop.
 
The 35/1.7 is a stunning lens. This review puts it well - "It is my privilege to review the Ultron 35-mm f/1.7 lens. This masterpiece is a part of the line of other 8 lenses created for Voigtlander Bessa rangefinder cameras."
 
You cannot be wrong with the Ultron 35mm/1.7. It has been my primary lens since 2003 and it has served me well and the 35mm perspective is very natural for documentary and street work. You could take a look at my PBase gallery for photos taken with this excellent lens.
 
I have the 35mm Skopar and Ultron. When shooting B&W, the Ultron gets all the use. It does a great job rendering midtones, isn't too contrasty, and is very sharp. I've personally never experienced any ghosting or flaring...but I have a feeling that those that do like to take head on pics of the sun. :p
 
Like someone said before, it is not too big nor too small and not too heavy. I also have the CV 35/f2.5 but it is too small (lots of pictures featuring my fingers !) and too contrasty to my liking. I've been looking for another 35mm lens but found no other (either too small like the summicron or too big like the ZM biogon and much more expensive !).

Get it, you won't be dissapointed, it's a great lens.
 
I had one and I like it. It's sharp with good bokeh. It's physically well-built. The only thing I don't like is the short focus throw (less than 90degree from infinity to 0.9m), but it's similar to ZM biogon (90degree from infinity to 0.7m).

I like longer focus throw but this is just personal preference.
 
Peter said:
You cannot be wrong with the Ultron 35mm/1.7. It has been my primary lens since 2003 and it has served me well and the 35mm perspective is very natural for documentary and street work. You could take a look at my PBase gallery for photos taken with this excellent lens.
Click to expand...

Before Peter beat me to it, I was going to suggest you take a look at his gallery:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=132

Any doubts you have about the 35 ultron should be easily laid to rest when you see the fine work he's done with it. In my experience CV makes excellent lenses, indeed some of my favorites. good luck :)
 
Thanks for the responses everyone! You have allayed my doubts about this lens considerably - and besides, there isn't much of an alternative to this lens considering its price.

Conor: thanks for the links to Tuna's work; some amazing work indeed.

Peter: I've seen some of your documentary work on PBase, but now I'll go back for a more detailed look. Thanks.

Xabi: I am not sure how I'll like the short focus throw, but I guess there's only one way to find out.

Thanks again for all the replies.

Cheers,
 
I've sold my Ultron 1.7/35mm in favor of a 2.5/35mm. I never was happy with it, starting with ergonomics. Contrast was always too low for me, even with B&W and used together with my 40 year old Canon glasses - to hold my tongue about color slides! Usable wide open for people, but no real improvements to f/5.6-8. Definitely one of my weaker lenses. After all, I have enough highspeed 50's, 85's and better like a compact than a highspeed 35. Worst was heavy flare and ghosting with any backlight. Not usable for landscapes. Worse than my old Canon 2/35mm without hood - albeit sharper at f/2 and better bokeh. But what is a 35mm worth which fail at landscapes? Anyway, the pancake 2.5/35mm works much better for me. Sharp enough, contrasty and less flare even with no hood. And cheaper.

cheers Frank
 
Last edited:
For a short period of time I owned both the 35mm Ultron and the Skopar. I did a comparison of the two lenses. The results can be seen here:
http://www.empusa.co.uk/gallery/Lens-comparison

The lighting/weather conditions on the day were not the best, but two main differences could be seen. At apertures smaller than f4, the Skopar has slightly higher contrast. The Ultron has far better bokeh at maximum aperture.

I could see no signs of flare or 'ghosting'. The lighting condition on that day would have shown such effects as I did take some shots into the sunlight.

Following the test I kept the Ultron and sold the Skopar. I've never regretted that decision. The Ultron is now my most used lens.
 
kinok1: the first set of colour shots are very nice!

Gabriel: the first two shots are awesome! I particularly like the "White Noise Machine" shot.

I hope to order my kit (R2A + 35/1.7) early next week. :)

Thanks!
Regards,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom