raid
Dad Photographer
It used to cost around $300 and nobody had any interest in it. I got it to complete the Canon Trio of 1.5 lenses. 35-50-85. I have sold the 85/1.5 since I have the 75mm Summilux and the selling price was very good.
raid
Dad Photographer
The "character only" properties may cost you $3000+ as film makers are using such lenses for their movies now.
How about an asking price of $11,000?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/36382919401...4aApHsEALw_wcB
It is cheaper than the lens being offered for $12,999:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/3344272616...5gYg9gYaSCmBRMg5E4C/badDmRRU|tkp:BFBMzNzdg5dg
raid
Dad Photographer
Roland (ferider) created with me a nice 35mm lens comparison project many years ag. The Canon 35/1.5 was a surprise high performer.
Canon 35/1,5 at 2.0:
Canon 35/1,5 at 2.0:
raid
Dad Photographer
Summilux ASPH at 2.0
raid
Dad Photographer
CV Ultron 35/1.7 at 2.0
raid
Dad Photographer
Canon 35/1.8 ltm at 2.0:
I used a Bessa T with Fujicolor Reala (on a small tripod)
I used a Bessa T with Fujicolor Reala (on a small tripod)
raid
Dad Photographer
CV 35mm/1.2 at 2.0:
piero2025
Established
You are right! I remember watching a whole movie blatantly shot that way, I think it was The Green Book, I was thinking this is so f'ing obvious...Imagine losing the lens mid-shooting and scrambling like a madman on ebay, catching a plane to Japan or something...
At this point one would expect lens makers to take heed and start re-making them.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I have both Ultron 35mm's f/1.7 (LTM and M) and I like them, but that Canon ... I'm a little comforted by my steel rim's v1 and v2 (Leitz 35mm f/1.4).
gelatin silver print (35mm f/1.4 steel rim v2) leica m3
Erik.
gelatin silver print (35mm f/1.4 steel rim v2) leica m3
Erik.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I had "old" one. Most logical is to get M version with cruel focus ring. Both are ASPH. And M version was positioned as improved optically.
But I went to 35 2.5 Summarit-M. It is improved rendering to already good rendering of "old" 35 1.7 ASPH LTM. It is the only Leica M lens I'm keeping. Best Leica/Leitz lens I ever had, including build and handling. It is super lens on bw darkroom prints. Not boring, flat, but in the opposite.
raid
Dad Photographer
Erik, what do you see as “good” in the Canon 35/1.5?
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Raid, what I find good with this lens, is the way the background blur is displayed. With many modern lenses, the background blur is rendered extra out of focus, as if the designers want it to contrast EXTRA with the subject in the foreground that is in focus. I presume that this, in the minds of these designers, makes the sharpness of that subject appear sharper than it actually is.
The blur ovals in the background of this Canon, on the other hand, appear sharp and become smaller and more angular towards the corners of the image, but they remain sharp. This gives a cheerful, mosaic-like effect. I have not seen that with any other modern lens. The effect is a bit like paintings by Klimt. I think, like I've said, that many lens designers try to avoid this effect by making the background blur appear even more out of focus than it already is. I regret that. I like it when the blur circles in the background are sharply displayed, as is also the case with the Dallmeyer Super Six.
Erik.
The blur ovals in the background of this Canon, on the other hand, appear sharp and become smaller and more angular towards the corners of the image, but they remain sharp. This gives a cheerful, mosaic-like effect. I have not seen that with any other modern lens. The effect is a bit like paintings by Klimt. I think, like I've said, that many lens designers try to avoid this effect by making the background blur appear even more out of focus than it already is. I regret that. I like it when the blur circles in the background are sharply displayed, as is also the case with the Dallmeyer Super Six.
Erik.
piero2025
Established
Thank you for the fantastic tip on the M version!
The Summarit-M: it is "too sharp" for me. What I mean is that it is so sharp that in a way it "flattens" the image, same issue for example with Rollei/Zeiss lenses vs Rollei/Schneider lenses. It's difficult too describe, but, with images:
This is for me "flattened" by "excessive sharpness" (Summarit):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/n_heinzelmann/6223103011
The rendering of the mountain in the background is somehow so sharp that you lose a bit of the sense of depth.
This is for me "rightly sharp" (Voigtlander):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stilli...am/48779756356
The rendering of the surface of the water further away is not excessively sharp, giving back the sense of depth.
This is another example: everything is so absurdly sharp that the loss of perspective due to "flattening" gives it almost a cartoonish look:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/elzopilote/31739193893
I think it's very subjective and might even sound silly...
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Sorry, but I don't even know how to address it. It seems way too silly, to be exact - two of three are just wrong.
You are mixing wrong digital (Sony is not good for M lenses as Leica and it is softer for sure), film vs digital and what my main concern ... the third link is the 120 scan on film taken with Hasselblad which was severally over sharpened in PP (it is not Summarit-M 35 2.5 but 120 film shot)
In real world, single user, years of experience with film, darkroom prints and digital M - Summarit-M is nowhere near to be flat. In fact it is unique Leica lens, because it is next to modern lens, but not sharp clinically and never been flat.
This is Summarit-M 35 2.5 on scanned negative film, as sharp as it could get because it is ECN-2 film, not just regular c-41 film over sharpened scans .
Darkroom print scan:
On digital M (not Sony smearing sensors)
piero2025
Established
Thanks! I am still learning...
raid
Dad Photographer
Thank you for your explanation, Erik. I use this lens and I like the results, but you have clarified to me why I like the images from it. I resisted selling the lens for big money.
johnasavoia
Newbie
I recently picked up a copy of this lens, sacrilegiously using it on a smeary Sony sensor, but nevertheless really really enjoying it. This replaced my 35/1.4 Nokton SC and besides max aperture everything about the Ultron LTM is an improvement. Handling and ergonomics are great, size is "just right" for me, and weight feels close enough that I don't notice the extra length. I personally find the LTM much more handsome than the rather awkwardly proportioned M-mount version as well.
Again, these are all on the thick Sony sensor stack, but perhaps can show how pleasant it can render even under the circumstances.
Sony a7 Voigtlander Ultron 35/1.7 LTM by biff tanager, on Flickr
Sony a7 Voigtlander Ultron 35/1.7 ltm by biff tanager, on Flickr
Sony a7 Voigtlander Ultron 35/1.7 ltm by biff tanager, on Flickr
Really lovely to hear the good sentiments for this lens, I struggled to find many examples of it and purchased my copy almost "blind" but am quite happy with my new go to lens.
Again, these are all on the thick Sony sensor stack, but perhaps can show how pleasant it can render even under the circumstances.
Sony a7 Voigtlander Ultron 35/1.7 LTM by biff tanager, on FlickrSony a7 Voigtlander Ultron 35/1.7 ltm by biff tanager, on FlickrSony a7 Voigtlander Ultron 35/1.7 ltm by biff tanager, on FlickrReally lovely to hear the good sentiments for this lens, I struggled to find many examples of it and purchased my copy almost "blind" but am quite happy with my new go to lens.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
The M version is an impressive performer, both mechanically and optically.
gelatin silver print (ultron 35mm f1.7 M; chrome) leica m2
Erik.
gelatin silver print (ultron 35mm f1.7 M; chrome) leica m2
Erik.
mapgraphs
Established
astrosecret
Recovering rollei snob
what about the last version of the 1.7 M mount? seems like a great lens no longer made though