Steve Huff Review 35mm f/2 Ultron

[CameraQuest]

https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2019/05/04/the-voigtlander-35-f-2-ultron-review-vintage-perfection/

 

[Ko.Fe.]

He reads "retro" and assumes it is retro in rendering. Retro ASPH lens.
What a tool.

https://lens-db.com/cosina-voigtlander-ultron-35mm-f2-aspherical-vm-2018/

 

[aizan]

He says its sharpness is not comparable to the 35mm Summicron ASPH, even though Jon Manjiro and others' tests demonstrate that it is, and he shows nothing to back it up. Err...ok.

 

[Scottboarding]

He reads "retro" and assumes it is retro in rendering. Retro ASPH lens.
What a tool.

https://lens-db.com/cosina-voigtlander-ultron-35mm-f2-aspherical-vm-2018/

Exactly. Did he read into the lens in the slightest? That's the main headline of the lens description on every site I've seen it on.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Steve Huff: "First things first! This lens will not compete with uber modern day sharp as a tac “perfection” lenses. It will not compete in sharpness with a modern day Leica Summicron ASPH."

The "vintage" in appearance only Ultron does indeed compete with the Leica Summicron ASPH directly, and more than holds its own. I'd say its actually the sharper lens... sacrilege for a lens that's a quarter of the price of the Summicron 🙄

 

[Freakscene]

Maybe his copy was possessed. http://huffparanormal.com

Marty

 

[bayernfan]

it's a close race between him and phoblographer for the worst gear reviews on the web.

 

[kinch123]

Paranormal stuff aside, nobody could accuse the man of having peddled only camera porn online.

 

[Teemō1]

Maybe his copy was possessed. http://huffparanormal.com

Marty

Wow, I had no idea lol. What a lunatic and a fraud. :angel: 😛

 

[Gregm61]

OK.....I'm now off Steve Huff, even for just entertainment value......

 

[Keith]

Suddenly Ken Rockwell's looking pretty good! lol 😛

 

[leicapixie]

I read Steve Huff's review.
It is positive, his images certainly give cause for ownership.
Neither KR or Steve Huff are "corporate Lackeys".
Mean, nasty comments are not what forums ought to be about.

 

[maddoc]

Paranormal stuff aside, nobody could accuse the man of having peddled only camera porn online.

That brought back memories of some threads here and at LUF....

 

[Out to Lunch]

...When the Going Gets Weird...

 

[raid]

I wouldn't worry about any of the "Lens Evaluation Gurus Report". There is plenty of good material published on any lens you could buy these days. Best way is to get the lens and use it. Then decide whether to keep it or not.

 

[Huss]

This thread took a turn.

How about discussing the lens? Personally I don't like the 'thrown together from whatever was lying around the shop' design, but I'm sure the glass is great.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Best way to discuss the lens is to look at the pictures. In review pictures I did not find anything retro or lomo. As for sharpness, it is hard to judge for it by pictures at high iso and handheld. According to Huff, Canon R doesn't handle this lens well, but Panasonic S1 does.
This is new trend in reviews, which I don't like, but lens official sellers do 🙂. M mount lens on non Leica camera. I don't think it is the same, I don't take reviews like this as something I would see on my RF Leica.

 

[ptpdprinter]

How about discussing the lens?

If you have never used the lens, you can't discuss it, which should limit the number of posts. I would, however, say I am skeptical of Steve Huff's conclusions. You would expect a modern designed lens with aspheric elements and ED glass to be on the sharp end of the scale, irrespective of retro mount cosmetics.

 

[Takkun]

Best way to discuss the lens is to look at the pictures. In review pictures I did not find anything retro or lomo. As for sharpness, it is hard to judge for it by pictures at high iso and handheld. According to Huff, Canon R doesn't handle this lens well, but Panasonic S1 does.
This is new trend in reviews, which I don't like, but lens official sellers do 🙂. M mount lens on non Leica camera. I don't think it is the same, I don't take reviews like this as something I would see on my RF Leica.

I’m in agreement—stronger on the first point, less so on the second.

I’m not seeing anything in these photos that can really give me a conclusion on this lens. Can’t really tell sharpness or much of the bokeh, and only can spot a little bit of coma. Nice real-world pictures but nothing conclusive on what exactly makes this vintage. I’m just not seeing it.

At least whatever “character” doesn’t seem as pronounced as the Nokton, a lens I want to like more than I do. Is this supposed to replace the LTM Ultron ASPH?

As for M lenses on mirrorless cameras, I suppose that’s valuable info to many, but is completely irrelevant for me. I don’t know the mechanism why some lenses work better on some bodies than others, but I’d rather know how it handles on *my* camera. To each their own. (As an aside: are mirrorless shooters really using M mount lenses more than native mounts? A discussion for another thread)


Either way. I have enough 35s. Maybe I’m unique in this regard but I actually do like the ergonomic styling; looks a little like the old Nikkor S-mounts.

EDIT: I read the CameraQuest sales page on it, and saw Ko.Fe’s earlier post. I too assumed “vintage” meant image and not physical aesthetic, and the aspherical element threw me for a loop. Still, I’m not sure what this lens’ specific purpose is, between the 1.7 Ultron and the Nokton. Sometimes I have a really hard time keeping track of all of CV’s different offerings over the years.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I read the CameraQuest sales page on it, and saw Ko.Fe’s earlier post. I too assumed “vintage” meant image and not physical aesthetic, and the aspherical element threw me for a loop.

The vintage only applies to the mount cosmetics.