Skopar Vs Ultron

S

surlysimon

Established
Local time
12:14 PM
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
114
Location
melbourne australia
View My Gallery
hi
i am wieghing up between a 35mm Skopar and the 35 Ultron, the price difference is only AUS$100 (US$75) so it's really a question of which is best.
has anyone had the oportunity to make a direct comparision?
simon
 
Peter owns both and has stated a couple times that the Ultron is the better of two very good lenses. I owned the Ultron and found it excellent.
 
If the difference is $75, by all means, go for the Ultron. (Difference in cost at Cameraquest is $170.)

I've had both - both fine lenses, but I preferred the Ultron and think it is well worth the extra $75.
 
I've got both. Both are very very good lenses. If the Ultron is better, it's only fractionally. I've done some direct comparisons and really, at 8x12 you're hard pressed to pick any difference at all. The big differences are in speed and size. The Ultron is a stop and a half quicker, but it's also (literally) twice the size.
So IMHO the real questions are: Do you need a faster lens than f2.5? or slower than f16? (Ultron = f1.7 - f16; Skopar = f2.5 - f22)
And how important is the bulk of the lens to you? The Ultron adds a *significant* amount to the physical bulk of the camera.....

Bottom line is that you can't really go wrong with either, just choose the one that suits you better.

Some people have reported questionable quality control with the Ultrons, no one seems to be sure whether it's early or late models, or just a lottery. All I can say is that mine is fine.

tim
 
Hi there Simon! 🙂

I have the 35/2.5 Skopar but I read everywhere that the Ulton is terrific. Personally I really like my lens and in part its because its so tiny. It is really good at f2.5 too! 🙂
 
Simon,

I don't own either lens but also consider buying one of them and have done some research. What Tim wrote pretty much sums the information I have gathered so far. I think both are good lenses.

I have read reports by some people complaining that the front element of the Ultron comes off (screws loosening or something like that). I have contacted Stephen from Cameraquest and asked him about it, he replied it's not a common problem from his experience.

One more thing to consider: The closest focusing distance of Color Skopar is 0.7m, Ultron: 0.9m.
 
Simon, if you're looking for a direct comparison of the two, Popular Photography did a review of 4 Voigtlander lenses in their July, 2000 issue. They regarded both as "well above averag," "placing them among the top lenses offered by Leica, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, & Pentax," "delivering outstanding image quality." Of the two, the Ultron had higher marks on Pop Photo's SQF charts. If you're interested in a copy of the report, which also includes reviews of the 50 Nokton & the 75 Heliar, it can be ordered from Pop Photo's website. Erwin Puts has a review of the Ultron on his website & called it a "match" for the Leica pre-ASPH 35 Summicron.
 
ummmmm Simon, I have an Ultron for sale at the moment - the post in the classified is missing so I presume it was one of the ones that got dropped in one of the DB restores........

I'll post it in the classifieds again, but:
Ultron 35/1.7, black, vg cond, some minor chips out of the paint on the front edge of the hood, still got over 12 months of Aus warranty, with M adapter. AUD $400 + shipping

tim
 
Ultron 35/1.7 FS as mentioned above...

Ultron 35/1.7 FS as mentioned above...

OK, it's taken me 3 days to find the interface cable for the digicam... 🙁 i could have done film in that time, and got a better result (I'm really bad with gear photos).
Anyway, crap pictures, but here it is. As I mentioned above, very good cond, only problem is a couple of chips of paint off the edge of the hood. Aus warranty runs till May 06.
Simon gets right of first refusal......

tim
 
Lens Test

Lens Test

Gene Anderson reveiwed the Color-Skopar 35mm, Ultron 35mm, and Nokton 35mm in the January edition of Black and White Photography, the British magazine. It is quite good and rates all them all very good. He even compares them to a L***a lens. Weight is a factor on the Nokton, but if you don't need speed then you have to compare the price. Good review! 😀
 
Hello. A newbie here.
I'm bumping this thread to ask a relevant question.
I'm thinking of purchasing either the skopar 35/2 or the ultron 35/1.7 lens. While the compactness is not so important to me, I am looking for high contrast and saturation in the lens. I will often shoot in low light, so I'm very drawn to the ultron, but I hear that it's a little low contrast. Is that true?

Thanks,

jc
 
Don't know about the Ultron (plenty of Ultron owners here) but I can tell you that the f2.5 Color-Skopar is a high contrast lens. You do not need a yellow filter with that lens. 🙂

 
I only have the Ultron so can't compare. Coming from the SLR world, it doesn't seem that big or heavy to me and I like the 1.7 aperture. Again, can't compare the two lenses on contrast, but mine seems plenty contrasty. I've been pleased with it.

Gene
 
I don't own the Color-Skopar, but the Ultron, wide open at f/1.7, has a nice blend of "modern" look and "creaminess" that is often found in older lenses. I guess it depends on what you're looking for.

The Color-Skopar is more compact, the Ultron is about 2 inches long, and its closest minimum focus is 0.9 meters
 
I own the Ultron and it's my favourite lens. I'll switch to another lens only if I can't take the shot with the 35mm focal lenght. I don't find it big but I'm used to Canon L zooms.

I haven't tried a Skopar but from what I've seen in the RFF galleries, I found its contrast to be way too strong for my taste. Peter's gallery is excellent to see results from both. It's really easy to guess which lens was used. If it seems like contrast was bumped heavilly in PS, it's the Skopar. If everything's smooth, it's the Ultron. Sharpness is similar.

Check my gallery and website to see plenty of samples from the Ultron, both B&W and color.
 
The skopar really IS a high contrast lens, and here are some pictures to prove it. 🙂 I did a photo project in New England two weeks ago that required two cameras, one for b&w, one for color, so I brought a bessa-r + 35 skopar (with medium yellow filter) and shot tri-x at 400, developed in rodinal 1:50. I put some in this gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5388

Also, I've attached some other snapshots just for further reference.

Aesthetically, I wanted wide swaths of dark, inky tones for this project, and the skopar was more than up to the task. I actually wish that it held more shadow detail rather than pushing everything deeper to black.

Maybe somebody should post some "typical" ultron shots, to help get a good comparison?
 
I used the 35mm skopar for a few months this summer and found it a bit too contrasty for my tastes as well, thought I have never tried the 35mm ultron. Besides that it was a good lens, small and the build quality was good. I prefered the look my low contrast jupiter 3 gives pictures, so I sold the skopar at the end of the summer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Biogons vs Ultron/Color Skopars
Replies
8
Views
2K
Darthfeeble
Darthfeeble
D
A Tale of Two Ultrons
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
boojum
boojum
V
Voigtlander COLOR-SKOPAR 35mm F2.5 - Hazy or Not?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Archiver
A
C
LTM Collapsible 50mm f/2 Summicron vs. 50mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar vs. 50mm f/1.5 Nokton?
Replies
17
Views
2K
shawn
S
drgvond
Ultron 75mm f/1.9
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Doug
Doug
Back
Top Bottom