Skopar Vs Ultron

[Doug]

And told we are, ManGo, by the samples posted at the supplied link... 😉

 

[edwardoneill]

I don't get it.

I don't get it.

I have the Ultron ASPH 35/1.7 in the LTM version. I've shot a couple of rolls with it. I just don't see it.

It's fairly sharp in strong light at f/16. What isn't?

The 1.7 is convenient for low light.

But this thing is nowhere near as sharp as the Planar on my Contax G1 or various M42 SuperTakumar's (different lens mounts, I know).

I'm thinking of selling mine. I just can't take a *great* picture with it.

Am I the only one?

Or one you've paid hundreds of dollars for a piece of equipment is it then impossible to say 'it's so-so'?

--E. R. O'Neill

 

[iml]

Am I the only one?

Mine was plenty sharp. Only sold it because I don't use 35mm lenses now I no longer have an R-D1s. There's lots of b&w examples here, the whole gallery was shot using it:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=6398

A colour example:

Maybe yours is faulty? My experience was that it was a very good lens indeed.

Ian

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Old good thread 🙂

I was never impressed by bw darkroom prints from Skopar (LTM and M). And sometimes it was just not my cap of tea.
Switched to old LTM Ultron and prints I'm getting from it are very nice in rendering, sharp at 8x12 paper size and contrast amount this lens gives for analog prints is just right comparing to over-contrast from Skopar. IMO.

 

[lawrence]

Old good thread 🙂

I was never impressed by bw darkroom prints from Skopar (LTM and M). And sometimes it was just not my cap of tea.
Switched to old LTM Ultron and prints I'm getting from it are very nice in rendering, sharp at 8x12 paper size and contrast amount this lens gives for analog prints is just right comparing to over-contrast from Skopar. IMO.

I have owned both and agree that the Ultron is nicer. In fact it's a really excellent lens on every level. Of the early CV lenses, the 35mm Skopar is not as nicely built as the 28mm & 50mm. I sold the 35 many years ago but still have the 28 & 50.

 

[jamin-b]

Ha ha...when i saw this thread i thought it was going to be about a Voigtlander Vitessa....

 

[fer_fdi]

now that this thread is resurrected...

To any of you that used the ltm Ultron and the Skopar and have shot with the new M Ultron:
is the new Ultron more close to the Skopar? I mean, less smooth or more contrasty?
Which are the differences in render with the old ltm Ultron?

 

[Erik van Straten]

To any of you that used the ltm Ultron and the Skopar and have shot with the new M Ultron:
is the new Ultron more close to the Skopar? I mean, less smooth or more contrasty?
Which are the differences in render with the old ltm Ultron?

I have both. The new Ultron is @ full aperture sharper than the old one, but both are terrific. I did not see it myself, but it is said that the new one has a lesser prophensity to flare. I never saw either of them flare.

Erik.

 

[Dez]

I have the Ultron ASPH 35/1.7 in the LTM version. I've shot a couple of rolls with it. I just don't see it. Am I the only one?

Possibly.
I have had a LTM Ultron for a few years and have been extremely happy with it. Maybe you have a bad example, or possibly there is a focusing problem on the body with which you use it. I recall people moaning about the fact that the Ultron was too modern, i.e. sharp and contrasty, and I decided that I could live with such impairments.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[fer_fdi]

thank you Erik