Reid Review: 28 2.0 Ultron focus shift

[Sparrow]

Tom, personally I don’t think you will ever prevent these fundamentalists from making these vexatious posts, or damning Cosina with faint praise for that matter, by presenting the truth.

However I suspect that I, along with the majority of members, are aware of your many years of experience in contrast to theirs and I am sure I is only the ethos of RFF that makes it impossible for us to label them fools.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

Three points:


A ) If you really, really, really want to know if the 2/28 Ultron suffers from focus shift and how much, there is only one way to find out and that is via scientific means under controlled and repeatable conditions. In short, you need to test 1-3 examples on an optical bench and MTF machine.

Shooting objects in your living room or the great outdoors will give you a general idea of how the lens performs, but this is a far too inaccurate methodology to ascertain the finer details.

Same for an aperture by aperture performance evaluation.

Unless the test was conducted with scientific equipment, it is conjecture. An opinion arrived at by non scientific evaluation and therefore should be considered an estimate or 'best guess'. It should not be taken as the final word. This sort of test will give you a general idea of how the lens performs, but since everyone on the internet is ready to split hairs about issues like this, it is silly to argue about the results of such a test, because it is not accurate enough to provide a reliable conclusion.

First of all, I really wanted to like the Ultron and I didn't intend to do any scientific evaluation.
The first copy I got was unsatisfactory in the corners and the dealer - after seeing the pictures - immediately exchanged the copy w/o further questions. The second copy was not any better, so I decided upon a refund - the general idea I got from the two copies was sufficient for me to know that I would not be happy with the Ultron.

B) Testing M lenses is complicated by the fact that they are used on both analog and digital cameras. What may produce passable results on film based cameras, may be a problem on the M8. Also keep in mind that the M8 is a crop format camera, so evaluating corner performance is a mixed bag of goods and the results will obviously not apply to a full frame analog body.

Agreed. However, from what I found myself, the M8's sensor appears very demanding - so a lens that performs well on the M8 should not be problematic on a full frame analog body.

C) Does anyone here believe for a moment that Garry Winogrand, the master of the 28mm, ever sat around considering if his Canon 2.8/28 suffered from focus shift, excessive flare or weak corner performance? Probably not. He was too busy thinking about making pictures.

I couldn't care less about what Garry W. or others did or thought.

The 2/28 Ultron probably blows away 98% of 28mm lenses produced in the past few decades. Don't worry about it and go out and shoot.

Probably not - from what I experienced and what I am reading here, the Ultron is rather mediocre and definitely not up to the Summicron. This afternoon, I had a word with a salesperson in the Leica shop in Hannover and he confirmed this.

Cheers,
Uwe

 

[IlijaB]

Tom, personally I don’t think you will ever prevent these fundamentalists from making these vexatious posts, or damning Cosina with faint praise for that matter, by presenting the truth.

However I suspect that I, along with the majority of members, are aware of your many years of experience in contrast to theirs and I am sure I is only the ethos of RFF that makes it impossible for us to label them fools.

What do you mean by "You" and "a majority of members" Versus "them"? All I know is that Tom has financial advantages in praising and selling VC lenses to a crowd. He's extremely, heavily, biased. There is not one single post where Tom doesn't praise VC lenses. That's fine... but it's biased. We all know that.
But let's get back to "them" as you say. What do you know? And even better: How do you know?
How can you come to such conclusions? And if I was Seal or Bruce Springsteen, would I be in the "us" or in the "them" group?

And please tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Tom needs your support as I wasn't attacking him by any means. I carefully looked at the example shots and came to my own conclusions.

 

[thomasw_]

You are not experienced enough with some of Tom's prior posts in my view. Tom doesn't always rate CV equipment as the best at all. As a newbie to the forum I would suggest that you read some of the old posts more closely.

 

[kevin m]

Tom, personally I don’t think you will ever prevent these fundamentalists from making these vexatious posts, or damning Cosina with faint praise for that matter, by presenting the truth.

However I suspect that I, along with the majority of members, are aware of your many years of experience in contrast to theirs and I am sure I is only the ethos of RFF that makes it impossible for us to label them fools.

Stewart, you're way out of line, here. Tom said his criteria for testing a lens is that he shoots 400 speed film, handheld; Sean's tests were conducted on an M8. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that they're both right, so there's no need for you to sling mud publicly, is there?

My experience in this matter was using a lens collimator for the two years I worked as a camera tech in a motion picture camera rental house, working on Angenieux zooms, Cooke and Arri primes and many Nikon and Canon lenses coverted to PL mount, so I have some familiarity with the subject. In addition, I adjusted the FFD on 16 and 35mm movie cameras every day, often making adjustments based on what lenses the production was using.

What experience do you have on this subject, Stewart?

 

[Sparrow]

I have non but all too often the release of a new CV product is meet with this chorus of “back focus” “bad Bokeh” “barrel distortion” or whatever, generally by people with obvious brand bias and few posts this was not aimed at you

 

[kevin m]

I don't disagree with you that too many people nitpick looking for a chimerical "perfect" lens, but not being able to achieve focus isn't a matter of subjective taste like "bokeh" is. Cheers.

 

[Sparrow]

I don't disagree with you that too many people nitpick looking for a chimerical "perfect" lens, but not being able to achieve focus isn't a matter of subjective taste like "bokeh" is. Cheers.

Sadly it only takes one or two reports to damn CV, where other brands allowed a greater margin, a bit like Caesar's wife, and, like her, with a purple bias

 

[Tom A]

What do you mean by "You" and "a majority of members" Versus "them"? All I know is that Tom has financial advantages in praising and selling VC lenses to a crowd. He's extremely, heavily, biased. There is not one single post where Tom doesn't praise VC lenses. That's fine... but it's biased. We all know that.

Unforunately, I am not "financially" adavantaged at all. yes, I get to play with VC lenses, sometimes before the are announced. Over the last decade I have gotten to know and count Mr Kobayashi as a friend and fellow photographer. This does allow me certain advantages, and yes, I want him to succeed in his ventures. I also have friends working for Leica and occasionally I get to play with their products too! If I have any kind of bias - it might be towards the choices offered for products and the prices charged for them. VC lenses tend to be affordable and extremely good value for money, Zeiss lenses are more expensive but they also make reasonably priced lenses of high quality. Leica, for a long time produced a series of rather "pedestrian" lenses - no real innovation (exception the 50f1.4 Asph and 75 f2 Apo-Asph). I am thrilled with their new line up, the 21f1.4, the 24f1.4, 24f3.8 and hypothetically, the 50f0.95. This is was Leica does best, no holds barred design and cutting edge optics. The 21f1.4 and the 24f3.8 are particularly interesting to me.
As for the Leica rep claiming the 28f2.0 Summicron's superiority over the Ultron 28f2.0 - what would you expect him to say? I strongly suspect that if you asked a Voigtlander salesman the same question, he would extol the virtues of the Ultro 28!!!!!
What is exiting at this juncture is the fact that as rangefinder shooters (digital/analog) we have choices that we could not have dreamed of a decade ago. I, and all of you, have a choice and there is certainly no lack of quality offerings. All we have to do is decide a/what do we need and b/how much are we willing to pay for it.
Rather than question Sean or anyone else who tries a product out and gives his opinion on it - decide what you want to try for yourself and make up your mind.

 

[Sparrow]

What do you mean by "You" and "a majority of members" Versus "them"? All I know is that Tom has financial advantages in praising and selling VC lenses to a crowd. He's extremely, heavily, biased. There is not one single post where Tom doesn't praise VC lenses. That's fine... but it's biased. We all know that.
But let's get back to "them" as you say. What do you know? And even better: How do you know?
How can you come to such conclusions? And if I was Seal or Bruce Springsteen, would I be in the "us" or in the "them" group?

And please tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Tom needs your support as I wasn't attacking him by any means. I carefully looked at the example shots and came to my own conclusions.

I'm so very sorry but I don't care if Tom needs my help or not, who you are or what you think.

Join in with the general conversation for a bit and perhaps you will gain some credibility or if this particular cap fits feel free to wear it.

 

[Dan States]

What do you mean by "You" and "a majority of members" Versus "them"? All I know is that Tom has financial advantages in praising and selling VC lenses to a crowd. He's extremely, heavily, biased. There is not one single post where Tom doesn't praise VC lenses. That's fine... but it's biased. We all know that.

Unforunately, I am not "financially" adavantaged at all. yes, I get to play with VC lenses, sometimes before the are announced. Over the last decade I have gotten to know and count Mr Kobayashi as a friend and fellow photographer. This does allow me certain advantages, and yes, I want him to succeed in his ventures. I also have friends working for Leica and occasionally I get to play with their products too! If I have any kind of bias - it might be towards the choices offered for products and the prices charged for them. VC lenses tend to be affordable and extremely good value for money, Zeiss lenses are more expensive but they also make reasonably priced lenses of high quality. Leica, for a long time produced a series of rather "pedestrian" lenses - no real innovation (exception the 50f1.4 Asph and 75 f2 Apo-Asph). I am thrilled with their new line up, the 21f1.4, the 24f1.4, 24f3.8 and hypothetically, the 50f0.95. This is was Leica does best, no holds barred design and cutting edge optics. The 21f1.4 and the 24f3.8 are particularly interesting to me.
As for the Leica rep claiming the 28f2.0 Summicron's superiority over the Ultron 28f2.0 - what would you expect him to say? I strongly suspect that if you asked a Voigtlander salesman the same question, he would extol the virtues of the Ultro 28!!!!!
What is exiting at this juncture is the fact that as rangefinder shooters (digital/analog) we have choices that we could not have dreamed of a decade ago. I, and all of you, have a choice and there is certainly no lack of quality offerings. All we have to do is decide a/what do we need and b/how much are we willing to pay for it.
Rather than question Sean or anyone else who tries a product out and gives his opinion on it - decide what you want to try for yourself and make up your mind.

If you tacked the Leica brand on the original Ultron 1.9 it would have passed muster hands down. The Summicron and the Ultron 1.9 each take different routes to image quality. The Ultron has better control of vignetting but gives up just a bit of contrast at full aperture. (Based on my own lenses. I still say Sean Reids Ultron is full of pet dander or something to be that flat). My Ultron controls veiling glare better than my Summicron also.

In my experience there have been some real gems in the CV line, along with a few turds (color skopar 50). For the prices they charge you can try them all and toss the plinkers into your fish tank for less than one Summilux 24!

By the way, if you stared at some of the older Leica lenses like the original Summilux 35 and the Summicron R 50's as hard as we are pinning down these new lenses you would not like the results.

 

[Tom A]

the original Summilux 35 and the Summicron R 50's as hard as we are pinning down these new lenses you would not like the results.

Dont forget the Summicron 50. In the late 50's it was "cutting edge" but today it is rather "mundane. Lenses like the Hexanon 50f2, the Planar 50f2 and the Nokton 50f1.5 runs circles around it. I was somewhat dissappointed by the fact that there was no new designed Summicron 50 at Photokina. This was offset by the thrill of seeing and playing with the 21f1.4 though.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

As for the Leica rep claiming the 28f2.0 Summicron's superiority over the Ultron 28f2.0 - what would you expect him to say? I strongly suspect that if you asked a Voigtlander salesman the same question, he would extol the virtues of the Ultro 28!!!!!

:angel:
Tom,
Glad you mentioned it!
This is exactly my point.
Now, you received a - most probably blueprinted - copy of the Ultron straight from Mr K.'s hand with the intention to try it out and write about it. So, what can we expect?
Actually, your and Carl's pictures were the reason why I ordered the Ultron. And it appears that my two copies were not quite blueprinted.
Your copy shows what the Ultron - if assembled properly within tight tolerances - is able to achieve. However, it appears that the copies from the assembly line are manufactured to looser tolerances, so their quality varies.

What is exiting at this juncture is the fact that as rangefinder shooters (digital/analog) we have choices that we could not have dreamed of a decade ago. I, and all of you, have a choice and there is certainly no lack of quality offerings. All we have to do is decide a/what do we need and b/how much are we willing to pay for it.
Rather than question Sean or anyone else who tries a product out and gives his opinion on it - decide what you want to try for yourself and make up your mind.

That's what I love about rangefinder shooting - the choice of lenses - not only new, but also old, pre-war lenses, Russian glass, etc. Which other system allows me to shoot such a wide variety of lenses? And that's why I got the M8 in order to shoot theses lenses digitally.

Actually, I love reading the lens trials and tests by you, Sean, and others - in order to make up my mind whether a lens would suit me before actually ordering a copy to try it out myself.

Cheers,
Uwe

 

[Harry Lime]

I couldn't care less about what Garry W. or others did or thought.
Cheers,
Uwe

The point is that if people spent as much time thinking about how to make better pictures, as they do hyperventilating about edge sharpness, we would all be shooting masterpieces.

As far as Winogrand goes, obviously you should be your own person and live your own life according to your own decisions, but there are other people out there that can be learned from. It helps expand your horizon.

 

[terrycioni]

I have a bag full of CV lenses. I didn't by them because they were better than or equal to the vaunted Leica brand. I bought them because they provide superior bang for the buck as opposed to the Leica brand.

I bought the 28mm Ultron F2 long before Sean Reid reviewed it, I do have the 28mm F1.9 but prefer the F2 because of size. I use a 35mm Biogon as opposed to the 35mm Summicron, is the Biogon better, worse, or equal to the Summicron - like most I have no idea, but good enough for my purposes.

For me this is all about choices and if you can afford the Leica 28 Summicron buy it and enjoy it. I can not justify or afford the Summicron - CV gives me a choice that I can afford and enjoy.

Tom A. is a gentlemen who encourages rangefinder shooters who might not be able to afford the Leica brand by often generously loaning them his CV, Zeiss, and other lenses. I am sure some of them have gone on to buy the Leica brand, used and new. The list of choices for rangefinder shooters is something we can all celebrate.

A user M2 with a 28mm F2 CV lens and life is good.

Happy happy to all.

 

[Donovan]

In my experience there have been some real gems in the CV line, along with a few turds (color skopar 50).

Interesting statement considering you didn't post your thoughts in the recent "Color Skopar 50" thread (just a handful below this one). Could you please post your analysis of the CS 50/2.5 in that thread? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

 

[Sparrow]

Interesting statement considering you didn't post your thoughts in the recent "Color Skopar 50" thread (just a handful below this one). Could you please post your analysis of the CS 50/2.5 in that thread? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

He means this sort of thing.......just not up to the job is it

 

[Dan States]

Interesting statement considering you didn't post your thoughts in the recent "Color Skopar 50" thread (just a handful below this one). Could you please post your analysis of the CS 50/2.5 in that thread? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

I owned two Color Skopars. The first could not cast a sharp image on the left half of the frame. The second was even across the frame, but could not equal the resolution of my 60 year old Summitar. While I'm not totally into "sharpness" as the end all, in 6 months of use I could not get an image with tonality or impact that I liked. It also had a propensity to flare and notable distortion.

In the end I just could not find a reason to like the lens. I don't say that about many lenses, and other CV lenses I've owned have been far better in every way. Sorry if my experiences offend those who like their lens! If you are getting good results GOOD ON YOU!

Best wishes
Dan

 

[sreidvt]

What I dont understand here is that there has been no complains about focus shifts with the older, non asph lenses from Konica,Leica and Zeiss/CV.
If this theory about asph is correct, your 35f2 III and IV would be useless on the M8!

Hi Tom,

Actually in a post on another thread you mentioned that the (pre-ASPH) CV 35/1.4 was prone to focus shift. There's a big difference between a lens that shifts focus as it is stopped down and one that is "useless" on the M8. It's just a property some of us want to be aware of so that we can work around it when and if we need to.

Again, there are various non-ASPH lenses that show little focus shift. It just seems hard to accomplish that in a very fast lens.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[sreidvt]

Hi Tom,

1) The relevant spherical aberrations become more difficult to control with increasing speed.

2) Aspherical element use is not a 'theory' about focus shift - designers definitely include them to reduce spherical aberrations in camera lenses.


Marty

1) Exactly

2) Exactly again <G>

Cheers,

Sean