laverda3c
Member
Hey Folks,
tried posting this to the CVUG mailing list but it disappeared into the ether (never came through the list even though I get all other mailings and my preferences are to receive my own posts). Hopefully I get some responses here.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I have recently bought a 2-lug black M5 body for the convienence of a metered leica. Now I need a lense. I am interested in exploring the wide-side (currently my widest lense is a 35mm) so I thought that to get my toes wet I should buy a 28mm and maybe head further and further down the path to shorter focus lengths in due course. I also like shooting wide-open in low light. So it looks like the CV Ultron 28/1.9 would be the logical choice. I have some questions regarding this lense.
1. How are the OOF details rendered with this lense wide open? Is a smooth and creamy bokeh?
2. I have not seen many reviews of this lense. Is it not a good lense?
3. Will it mount on a M5? I know that I will need an SM to M adapter - I would like for *no* frame-lines to come up. Is this possible?
4. Can I use the outside edges of the viewfinder image as an indication of the coverage of a 28mm lense or should I buy the viewfinder as well?
5. Which colour? Obviously the adapter is silver so it might make sense to go with a silver lense on a black body. It might look a bit strange with a black lense/silver adapter/black body. Does anyone have either combination that they are willing to share a picture of. The silver finish looks to be impressive as well.
Looking forward to hearing some responses,
advTHANKSance
Mark -%)
tried posting this to the CVUG mailing list but it disappeared into the ether (never came through the list even though I get all other mailings and my preferences are to receive my own posts). Hopefully I get some responses here.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I have recently bought a 2-lug black M5 body for the convienence of a metered leica. Now I need a lense. I am interested in exploring the wide-side (currently my widest lense is a 35mm) so I thought that to get my toes wet I should buy a 28mm and maybe head further and further down the path to shorter focus lengths in due course. I also like shooting wide-open in low light. So it looks like the CV Ultron 28/1.9 would be the logical choice. I have some questions regarding this lense.
1. How are the OOF details rendered with this lense wide open? Is a smooth and creamy bokeh?
2. I have not seen many reviews of this lense. Is it not a good lense?
3. Will it mount on a M5? I know that I will need an SM to M adapter - I would like for *no* frame-lines to come up. Is this possible?
4. Can I use the outside edges of the viewfinder image as an indication of the coverage of a 28mm lense or should I buy the viewfinder as well?
5. Which colour? Obviously the adapter is silver so it might make sense to go with a silver lense on a black body. It might look a bit strange with a black lense/silver adapter/black body. Does anyone have either combination that they are willing to share a picture of. The silver finish looks to be impressive as well.
Looking forward to hearing some responses,
advTHANKSance
Mark -%)
Alec
Amateur
Hi Mark.
A quick contribution.
1. I have not done or seen 'scientific' analysis on this lens' bokeh, but I never found it distracting. Here you can see front & back bokeh:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=24832&cat=5526
2. Here is an older thread discussing this lens:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2481
Even Erwin Puts (you'll learn who he is if you don't already) writes that it is "close to outstanding", and "an older 28mm lens from Leica is blown to pieces by the Ultron". I guess that is enough for my needs!
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/voigt2890.html
An additional hint is that when you see it appear on the second-hand market the seller usually apologizes by saying he just bought the Summicron 28mm...
3. The Ultron does not extend very far into the body, so I cannot see why it wouldn't be compatible with the M5. My suggestion is to buy the (proper) 28/90 LTM-to-M adapter, so that you can pretend the 90mm frame is really the spotmeter field. And you can keep using it when you 'upgrade' to M6.
4. I once had a M5, but only with 35/50/90, so I cannot answer this one for sure.
Without glasses the full M2 viewfinder would not be far from 28mm field, so *if you don't wear glasses* you should give it a try. If you do, you should buy one of Aki Asahi's donut protectors.
5. Look on the Cameraquest site for pictures of different combinations. The black finish has a reputation of flaking off - my chrome is fine (only the front cap is prone to scratches).
In a nutshell: if you want a fast 28mm, there is one slightly better alternative to the Ultron, but it is something like four times more expensive. Only drawback: it is big for a rangefinder lens, but I haven't found that an issue (nor should you if you chose a M5
). So go for it and post pictures!
A quick contribution.
1. I have not done or seen 'scientific' analysis on this lens' bokeh, but I never found it distracting. Here you can see front & back bokeh:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=24832&cat=5526
2. Here is an older thread discussing this lens:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2481
Even Erwin Puts (you'll learn who he is if you don't already) writes that it is "close to outstanding", and "an older 28mm lens from Leica is blown to pieces by the Ultron". I guess that is enough for my needs!
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/voigt2890.html
An additional hint is that when you see it appear on the second-hand market the seller usually apologizes by saying he just bought the Summicron 28mm...
3. The Ultron does not extend very far into the body, so I cannot see why it wouldn't be compatible with the M5. My suggestion is to buy the (proper) 28/90 LTM-to-M adapter, so that you can pretend the 90mm frame is really the spotmeter field. And you can keep using it when you 'upgrade' to M6.
4. I once had a M5, but only with 35/50/90, so I cannot answer this one for sure.
Without glasses the full M2 viewfinder would not be far from 28mm field, so *if you don't wear glasses* you should give it a try. If you do, you should buy one of Aki Asahi's donut protectors.
5. Look on the Cameraquest site for pictures of different combinations. The black finish has a reputation of flaking off - my chrome is fine (only the front cap is prone to scratches).
In a nutshell: if you want a fast 28mm, there is one slightly better alternative to the Ultron, but it is something like four times more expensive. Only drawback: it is big for a rangefinder lens, but I haven't found that an issue (nor should you if you chose a M5
). So go for it and post pictures! Huck Finn
Well-known
Alec said:In a nutshell: if you want a fast 28mm, there is one slightly better alternative to the Ultron, but it is something like four times more expensive. Only drawback: it is big for a rangefinder lens, but I haven't found that an issue (nor should you if you chose a M5
By all accounts, this is just a great lens. I almost bought it, but in the end, I didn't like the size, so I chose the VC 28/3.5 since my uses don't require the speed & I much preferred the very compact size of the slower lens on a rangefinder.
Alec has given an incredibly comprehensive summary of the reports on this lens. My only dissent would be with the comment that there is "one . . . alternative . . . if you want a fast 28 mm . . ." The ZM 28/2 is a second alternative & the price differential is much more reasonable than the comparison with the Summicron - $800 @ CameraQuest for the ZM vs $489 for the Ultron with adaptor at CQ. I'm not recommending the Zeiss because the Ultron is a great buy for a fast lens. Just pointing out that there is another alternative.
Huck
Alec
Amateur
Huck, I hate 'being right all the time' (my kids tell me often enough), but the Biogon 28mm opens only to f/2.8, so at f/1.9 the Ultron is bound to be much better
It depends on what Mark calls fast. Until I lay my hands on a Noctilux or 1.2/35 Nokton, f/2 is fast to me!
It depends on what Mark calls fast. Until I lay my hands on a Noctilux or 1.2/35 Nokton, f/2 is fast to me!
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I have one of these, so will try to supply some answers; bear in mind that most of my experience with it involves using it on an Epson R-D 1.
I honestly don't know how to evaluate "bokeh," and in any case it may be different on a digital camera vs. film (because the digital imager's microlenses may change the characteristics of out-of-focus areas.)
It's an excellent lens in terms of sharpness and usability. The fact that there aren't a lot of review probably is just because rangefinder-camera lenses are of limited interest compared to gawdawful plastic SLR zoom thingies.
Probably not via an adapter. Cameras with projected-frame viewfinders (e.g. the M5) use a slotted mask to create the framelines, and a movable plate that covers and uncovers various sets of slots. The mechanics of this system arer designed so it will always display one set of slots or another. You might be able to file the actuating tab on the adapter JUST enough to position the plate between sets of slots, but it would be very touchy and might not work; personally, I don't think I'd bother. If the framelines really drive you crazy, you could extinguish them by putting a piece of tape over the frosted window on the camera front, depriving the slotted mask of its illumination.
Dunno; that's an M5-specific question. If you care about framing accuracy at all, I'd think you'll want a viewfinder eventually.
The adapter is only 1mm thick and is about the same diameter as the rear of the lens, so when the lens is mounted on a camera the adapter is almost invisible. The rear flange on the black lens is finished in chrome, and so is the camera body mount, so the adapter blends into those regardless of which lens finish you have.
There are lots of pictures of the Voigtlander lenses on various camera bodies on the CameraQuest website. Here's one I linked from there, showing the black 28/1.9 on a black Hexar RF. As you can see, the chrome adapter is very unobtrusive; most of the chrome you see back there is actually the camera body flange. The shallow chrome ring with the scallop cut out of the top is the only portion of the adapter that's visible:
I honestly don't know how to evaluate "bokeh," and in any case it may be different on a digital camera vs. film (because the digital imager's microlenses may change the characteristics of out-of-focus areas.)
It's an excellent lens in terms of sharpness and usability. The fact that there aren't a lot of review probably is just because rangefinder-camera lenses are of limited interest compared to gawdawful plastic SLR zoom thingies.
Probably not via an adapter. Cameras with projected-frame viewfinders (e.g. the M5) use a slotted mask to create the framelines, and a movable plate that covers and uncovers various sets of slots. The mechanics of this system arer designed so it will always display one set of slots or another. You might be able to file the actuating tab on the adapter JUST enough to position the plate between sets of slots, but it would be very touchy and might not work; personally, I don't think I'd bother. If the framelines really drive you crazy, you could extinguish them by putting a piece of tape over the frosted window on the camera front, depriving the slotted mask of its illumination.
Dunno; that's an M5-specific question. If you care about framing accuracy at all, I'd think you'll want a viewfinder eventually.
The adapter is only 1mm thick and is about the same diameter as the rear of the lens, so when the lens is mounted on a camera the adapter is almost invisible. The rear flange on the black lens is finished in chrome, and so is the camera body mount, so the adapter blends into those regardless of which lens finish you have.
There are lots of pictures of the Voigtlander lenses on various camera bodies on the CameraQuest website. Here's one I linked from there, showing the black 28/1.9 on a black Hexar RF. As you can see, the chrome adapter is very unobtrusive; most of the chrome you see back there is actually the camera body flange. The shallow chrome ring with the scallop cut out of the top is the only portion of the adapter that's visible:
Last edited:
Huck Finn
Well-known
Alec said:Huck, I hate 'being right all the time' (my kids tell me often enough), but the Biogon 28mm opens only to f/2.8, so at f/1.9 the Ultron is bound to be much better
It depends on what Mark calls fast. Until I lay my hands on a Noctilux or 1.2/35 Nokton, f/2 is fast to me!
You're right, Alec. Sorry, I had my head up my arse! :bang:
richard_l
Well-known
I haven't checked my Ultron for bokeh. It's too much fun shooting it at hyperfocal distance at f/8 or f/11, which essentially puts everything in the field of view in focus. Using hyperfocal on the Ultron effectively turns an old-fashioned manual RF into a P&S on steroids. (I mostly exploit OOF effects on still lifes and portraits, for which I prefer longer focal lengths, at least 50mm.) It is definitely a fine lens, with very good definition, high contrast, and negligible distortion. With XP2 Super it seems to exhibit more contrast than my 50mm Summicron.
I don't know anything about the field of view of the M5 finder. You can eliminate the framelines by putting tape (such as black photographic masking tape) over the framelines illumination window, but you may really need an auxiliary 28mm viewfinder.
I don't know anything about the field of view of the M5 finder. You can eliminate the framelines by putting tape (such as black photographic masking tape) over the framelines illumination window, but you may really need an auxiliary 28mm viewfinder.
regit
Established
A little OT, but does the Ultron absolutely need the shade? As mentioned, the Ultron is a little big for an RF lens and with the hood, frameline is partially blocked. I wonder will one take a big hit by not using the hood.
Alec
Amateur
Even if flare is not an issue, I do not trust either myself or my three boys enough to expose the front element to external aggressions!regit said:
richard_l
Well-known
I don't think CV would have included the shade with the lens if they didn't consider it essential.
regit
Established
Alec said:
This is not a problem yet ... but one day, I sure hope I need to consider this point
regit
Established
richard_l said:
The CV21/4 comes with a hood... but with a filter, the hood become useless... Unless Cosina is trying to sell the LH-1 in the CV21 case, I think flare-resistance has a lot to do with optical design, the Nikkor 28/2 comes to mind for example.