Just how good is the CV 35mm Ultron?

Sonnar2 said:
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
Click to expand...
Was it you that said the exact same thing (90% same) about the 28 Ultron?
 
Gabriel and Tuna, great work, very impressive. I have the 35/1.7, haven't used it enough to really have a strong opinion, but I would like there to be a larger lens hood available, such as there is for both the 1.2 and the 40/1.4. Unfortunately, all there seems to be, other than getting a generic rubber hood, which would probably interfere with the v/f, is the tiny circular hood it comes with, which is really hardly worth putting on the lens.
 
Mine is on loan to my son for his 2 lens system (that and a 75/2.5). I used mine as my main wide angle lens for about three years and loved it. It is a great lens for the money and seems to have held up well.

I have moved to a 40/1.4, but that is for a bit more speed. Both are great lenses for the money.

B2 (;->
 
With the 40/1.4 I would like to know if it behaves with backlight as bad as the 1.7/35?

cheers Frank

PS, Hi Brian. Never had a C/V 28mm. I'm quite happy with my old Canon 3.5/28mm. It's a far better "landscape" lens than the 1.7/35.
 
mc_vancouver said:
Gabriel and Tuna, great work, very impressive. I have the 35/1.7, haven't used it enough to really have a strong opinion, but I would like there to be a larger lens hood available, such as there is for both the 1.2 and the 40/1.4. Unfortunately, all there seems to be, other than getting a generic rubber hood, which would probably interfere with the v/f, is the tiny circular hood it comes with, which is really hardly worth putting on the lens.
Click to expand...

I came across an old Leica 12504 hood that clips perfectly on the Ultron. It has cut outs so it doesn't block much of the view and I haven't noticed any vignetting.

I like the handling of the Ultron, but I wouldn't mind if it was slightly shorter. I have an old Summicron 35 too that is compact but fiddly to use with two tabs that almost collide. Imagewise both are really good, but I haven't done any side by side comparisons.

Jacob
 
W0h Gabriel, your shots, make me want to order that lens right away...

But I allready got a 40mm VC.. so I'd better go for something wider..
 
I have the 2.5 Skopar, and the 1.7 Ultron. I like them for different uses, the Heliar is contrastier, the Ultron has better bokeh IMO.

Did buy a nice vented lenshood from american_eagle to fit the Ultron. Now I'm happy with it.
 
I'll add to the chorus - the 35 Ultron is my most-used lens.

If you're doing 11x14 prints with a lot of crunchy detail at the edges you'll notice some softening at the print edges when shot wide open, but the majority stays very sharp. I find it sharper than the pics I get with the Olympus Epic and a lot sharper than those shot with my Canon EF 50 1.8.

I've never had any ghosting issues with mine and I've shot a fair bit into light sources at night. Flare is quite well controlled as well.

For me the combination of good sharpness and nice bokeh is the real key. I actually like the lower contrast because I shot primarily black & white and find it easier to get the tonal detail I want from my prints starting from a less contrasty neg. It's not as magical (IMHO) with colour print film but I've been really happy with the look of slow colour slides shot with it.
 
I had an Ultron and sold it because I wanted to try a 35 Summicron (IV version), sold the Summicron and bought another Ultron because I liked it better.
 
Anyone have side by side comparison shots of the CV 40 1.4 vs CV 35 1.7? Also, anyone want to comment on the relative contrast, accuracy and sharpness of the two lenses?
 
I too have only high praise for the Ultron. It was my first RF lens and it's still with me. In my personal experience I like it better than Canon EOS EF 20-35L 2.8 lens, which is highly regarded. Great sharpness, contrast, bokeh. Ergonomics work well for me, but some don't like it. I don't use it as much since I got M-Rokkor 40mm/2 lens, but it's always with me, just in case. Some people say it's great ... for the price, I say - it's just great. From what I hear (and no personal experience here), only Biogon or new Asph Leica is better.
I recommend Ultron - no questions about it.
 
the canon ef 50 1.4 is in a class of its own in terms of low price optics, really! I still have not found a lens that can best it in resolution on my velvia 100f, but for the most part the lens is poorly made (many fail or start to give problems early in life) and its slow to focus, but really, the cv lenses are great, if you dont know if you want the ultron do what I did, buy a lens used, if you like it fine, if you dont sell it for what you bought it for. I didnt sell my skopar pII....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom