That CV 28mm f1.9 looks mighy nice

Flyfisher Tom said:
Nice shots, Roland and Carl.

Amazing how much this lens picks up in detail while rendering a smooth signature.
Click to expand...
Thanks Tom. Exactly my impression of this lens. Holds a lot of fine detail without being razor edged sharp.
 
Flyfisher Tom said:
Nice shots, Roland and Carl.

Amazing how much this lens picks up in detail while rendering a smooth signature.
Click to expand...


Yep. That's one of the things I like about this lens. It's probably my "most used" lens on the RD-1s for B&W (the rendering is very nice, as you can see on the - strange... 🙄 - photo attached).

The only less positives of this lens are:

1) paint flakes very easily (my 28's focusing ring shows more brassing than I would expect for a 8 month old lens)

2) flare could be an issue (that is, compared with top performers in this respect)

3) sometimes, OOF areas near the corners look like they're "moving" and that could be annoying with some patterns (in fact, OOF zones may show some doubling, a faint "ghost image"). In focus areas are just beutiful. As I am the only one complaining about it, maybe my sample has some issue. I'll try to find and post a photo to show the problem.

Anyway, it has a different character from my other CV lenses, at least on the RD-1s: less contrast and color saturation. You can even see it on the histograms. But for harsher light, that's a bonus.

Now that I'm mentioning it, it occurred to me that the Ultron 28/1.9 (at least my sample) is a bit of a paradox: it's a fast lens but low contrast and strange bokeh wide open make me prefer it outdoors. Low contrast is of help there and stopped down image quality is superb (no OOF areas... 😀 ). I bought the 28/3.5 Skopar (lighter and smaller) but the Ultron stopped down is better for my taste. So the Skopar went back. Moreover, the Skopar vignettes a lot on the RD-1s, even stopped down.

BTW, I'm amazed with the image quality of CV lenses, especially the Nokton 50/1.5. I must have been very lucky with my sample, but image quality wide open is very, very good - see color photo, focused on the backward branches, f1.5.

My Nokton 50/1.5 is such a good performer in low light situations, that I am very tempted to get the 35/1.2 Nokton, if low light performance is on par with the 50/1.5...
 

Attachments

  • EPSN0806.jpg
    EPSN0806.jpg
    415.3 KB · Views: 0
  • EPSN2486.jpg
    EPSN2486.jpg
    759.7 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
scho said:
Thanks Tom. Exactly my impression of this lens. Holds a lot of fine detail without being razor edged sharp.
Click to expand...

Here goes another B&W from the Ultron. And no, these "moving" OOF areas are not the ones I talked about in my other post... 🙂
 

Attachments

  • EPSN0784.jpg
    EPSN0784.jpg
    426.1 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
scho said:
Thanks Tom. Exactly my impression of this lens. Holds a lot of fine detail without being razor edged sharp.
Click to expand...

Last one, promise.

Low light, high contrast. The Ultron is perfect for this kind of thing. It's just when there is low light and low contrast that I could have something else... A 28/2 Summicron? 🙂

RD1s, 1600 ASA, RAW+Capture One
 

Attachments

  • EPSN1026.jpg
    EPSN1026.jpg
    203.9 KB · Views: 0
I purchased Flyfisher Toms and absolutely love it. I had three different version Leitz 28's and never like them. I bought Toms and found the ideal 28 for me. Smooth and sharp is they word. Tones are creamy but still very sharp. I shot with a friends summicron 28 and found the Ultron performed very good from f2- f4 and from 4 down about the same as the summicron. The difference at wide apertures beat my old elmarits. I now love the 28 focal length and use it regularly. Here are 3 examples all shot around f4. It was totally overcast that day and shot on delta 100.
 
Thanks Tom! Why did you ever part with this lens? It doesn't show in the jpg on the internet but in the first picture the stitching is easily visable in the mans high bibs. Extremely sharp detail. In the shot with the 41 Dodge the detail in the leaves around an on the truck is fantastic. I was stunned at the crisp detail and the creamy tonality.
 
28mm is my favorite focal length, and the Ultron is simply the best 28mm lens I've ever used. Flare practically does not exist and I never use the hood. The detail and color are superb the images really pop in a way that only seems to happen with rangefinder glass.

Here's a link to an image I shot with my 28 ultron, wide open, in basically no light, at a very slow shutter speed, 4th of a second I believe. I can't recommend this lens enough.


Link
 
Last edited:
hmmmm I wish I hadn't dropped in on this thread..serious GAS happening, i was thinking about some new glass but I think it's now settled...damn you RFF and all who lurk in her..
 
Jeff, I noticed you took the shot next to Night Talk in your gallery, that's your avatar, with a Zeiss Biogon 28. How do they compare in your opinion?
 
The Zeiss Biogon f2.8 28 was an excellent lens, I sold it only because at one point I sold all my rangefinder gear to get a digital camera.

This next part is a digital digression:
That camera happened to be the “Sony DSC R1,” which is, in my humble opinion, the best digital camera on the market for your buck, and it sadly seems to be no longer manufactured. One can talk about noise, or Megapixels or sensor size, but it’s that subjective quality of the image processor that really counts, and the Sony really performs. The DSCR R1 gives the closest to film JPEGS straight out of the camera I’ve ever seen.

I’ve used the Canon 5d with expensive glass, and it takes great photos, but every image I ever shot needed to be tweaked in raw, the exposure, ESPEICALLY the color, even with the custom white balance: I couldn’t stand the flat color and white skin tones that came out of canon dslrs. Any boost in saturation always felt unnatural to me. But with the Sony I got what I really wanted out of a digital camera, the ability to shoot Jpegs, saturated, properly exposed, straight out of the camera and not have to tweak the sharpness, contrast etc of each image to infinity. I basically never use Raw anymore unless the shot is something I’m unsure of how to expose properly.

Anyway, I could go on forever about that camera, but I’ll cut to the chase, the lens on the Sony R1 is a beautiful fixed zoom Zeiss. It’s fast at f2.8 from 24-28mm, but from the 35mm-115mm zoom range, it was a slow f3.5-f4.8. The need for speed is what led me back to rangefinders.

End of Digression

So I had the 28mm Zeiss Biogon F2.8, which I sold, and then I bought the 28mm CV Ultron f1.9 with the expectation that I’d be loosing some quality, possibly sharpness, but
saving some money and gaining some speed. Holy **** was I wrong about quality loss.
Not only is the Ultron sharp wide open, but it really has a three dimensional draw that bests most of the lenses I’ve used, more so than even the Zeiss Biogon.

My reasoning is subjective of course, but I believe it has to do with the creamy quality of the lens, which is apparent in most any photo taken with it. I didn’t think I’d like it at first, but after using the lens a lot, I can say the effect is MUCH more subtle than it looks from photos on the net. The OOF regions of the film are very creamy, but the in focus regions snap to such a point that it adds just an extra pop. The Zeiss by contrast was sharper and more crisp across the entire film plain including OOF regions, at the cost of being, if only slightly, more contrasty of a lens. I’m someone who likes to shoot very saturated color negative film, so any help I can get reducing contrast is a plus.

The Ultron I found, is a lens that is easier to retain shadow detail with, which is probably why it’s being praised on digital bodies, and retaining shadow detail is ultimately a quality I look for in lenses to begin with.

So they are different lenses, contrastiness vs creaminess. I wasn’t crazy about the added F-stop clicks in the Zeiss, but it’s nothing that would prevent me from buying another Zeiss M lens. I also haven’t experienced any paint lose with the Ultron yet, and I have a black one.

The Zeiss Biogon, I definitely tested more rigorously for flare, without a hood, and I simply could NOT get that lens to flare in any situation, including shooting at the sun. I also don’t use a hood on the Ultron, and it is also incredibly flare resistant. The color rendition of the both lenses was exceptional, with something about the Zeiss maybe having a slight edge regarding accuracy and richness in the black, while the Ultron’s draw is perhaps a little flatter, (the perfect draw for saturated color film) but gives just beautiful color results.

So what else is there? Distortion is non-existent on both lenses. Both lenses perform wide open with sharpness. Should I add again that the Ultron performs wide open at f1.9 sharply?🙂 No complaints about size or handling on either lens. I don’t use hoods on my lenses if I can avoid it. The Ultron IS bigger, but on a ZI-M body it still doesn’t make an appearance in frameline area of the viewfinder. 😱 Amazing.

And lastly, for the price, the Ultron is a steal, especially in comparison to a certain 28mm Leica lens that has a similarly wide aperture. 😀

I hope that was useful.
 
Last edited:
JeffM said:
The Zeiss Biogon f2.8 28 was an excellent lens, I sold it only because at one point I sold all my rangefinder gear to get a digital camera.

This next part is a digital digression:
That camera happened to be the “Sony DSC R1,” which is, in my humble opinion, the best digital camera on the market for your buck, and it sadly seems to be no longer manufactured. One can talk about noise, or Megapixels or sensor size, but it’s that subjective quality of the image processor that really counts, and the Sony really performs. The DSCR R1 gives the closest to film JPEGS straight out of the camera I’ve ever seen.

I’ve used the Canon 5d with expensive glass, and it takes great photos, but every image I ever shot needed to be tweaked in raw, the exposure, ESPEICALLY the color, even with the custom white balance: I couldn’t stand the flat color and white skin tones that came out of canon dslrs. Any boost in saturation always felt unnatural to me. But with the Sony I got what I really wanted out of a digital camera, the ability to shoot Jpegs, saturated, properly exposed, straight out of the camera and not have to tweak the sharpness, contrast etc of each image to infinity. I basically never use Raw anymore unless the shot is something I’m unsure of how to expose properly.

Anyway, I could go on forever about that camera, but I’ll cut to the chase, the lens on the Sony R1 is a beautiful fixed zoom Zeiss. It’s fast at f2.8 from 24-28mm, but from the 35mm-115mm zoom range, it was a slow f3.5-f4.8. The need for speed is what led me back to rangefinders.

End of Digression

So I had the 28mm Zeiss Biogon F2.8, which I sold, and then I bought the 28mm CV Ultron f1.9 with the expectation that I’d be loosing some quality, possibly sharpness, but
saving some money and gaining some speed. Holy **** was I wrong about quality loss.
Not only is the Ultron sharp wide open, but it really has a three dimensional draw that bests most of the lenses I’ve used, more so than even the Zeiss Biogon.

My reasoning is subjective of course, but I believe it has to do with the creamy quality of the lens, which is apparent in most any photo taken with it. I didn’t think I’d like it at first, but after using the lens a lot, I can say the effect is MUCH more subtle than it looks from photos on the net. The OOF regions of the film are very creamy, but the in focus regions snap to such a point that it adds just an extra pop. The Zeiss by contrast was sharper and more crisp across the entire film plain including OOF regions, at the cost of being, if only slightly, more contrasty of a lens. I’m someone who likes to shoot very saturated color negative film, so any help I can get reducing contrast is a plus.

The Ultron I found, is a lens that is easier to retain shadow detail with, which is probably why it’s being praised on digital bodies, and retaining shadow detail is ultimately a quality I look for in lenses to begin with.

So they are different lenses, contrastiness vs creaminess. I wasn’t crazy about the added F-stop clicks in the Zeiss, but it’s nothing that would prevent me from buying another Zeiss M lens. I also haven’t experienced any paint lose with the Ultron yet, and I have a black one.

The Zeiss Biogon, I definitely tested more rigorously for flare, without a hood, and I simply could NOT get that lens to flare in any situation, including shooting at the sun. I also don’t use a hood on the Ultron, and it is also incredibly flare resistant. The color rendition of the both lenses was exceptional, with something about the Zeiss maybe having a slight edge regarding accuracy and richness in the black, while the Ultron’s draw is perhaps a little flatter, (the perfect draw for saturated color film) but gives just beautiful color results.

So what else is there? Distortion is non-existent on both lenses. Both lenses perform wide open with sharpness. Should I add again that the Ultron performs wide open at f1.9 sharply?🙂 No complaints about size or handling on either lens. I don’t use hoods on my lenses if I can avoid it. The Ultron IS bigger, but on a ZI-M body it still doesn’t make an appearance in the viewfinder. 😱 Amazing.

And lastly, for the price, the Ultron is a steal, especially in comparison to a certain 28mm Leica lens that has a similarly wide aperture. 😀

I hope that was useful.
Click to expand...

Great post. I also have a Sony R1, I feel the same. I use it about 20% of the time and my Bessa R3M the rest. Just can't beat the immediacy of a rangefinder.
 
Jeff, that was more useful than expected; I've been looking for a user review like this. I've been most indecisive about selecting a ZM 21, a ZM 25, or a 28mm lens. At 28mm, an Ultron or a ZM? Yours is a very persuasive perspective on the Ultron, yet you’ve also pointed out the strengths of the ZM 28. The Leica lenses in these focal lengths are out of my reach. You've clearly pointed out the differences, which hasn’t entirely eased my indecision, but when it comes time to exchange money for a lens, I’ll be more informed thanks to your review.
Thanks very much for writing up these lenses.

Guy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
1958 Yashica 35 - The Time Machine
Replies
4
Views
304
ChrisPlatt
ChrisPlatt
T
Canon 45mm 1.9 compared to 50mm 1.8
Replies
2
Views
301
former member
F
P
Nippon Kogaku W-Nikkor·C 28mm F/3.5
Replies
11
Views
930
piero2025
P
L
Leica CL film and Voigtländer 21mm F4.0 Color Skopar P-Type VM
Replies
7
Views
570
LeicaCLfilm
L
CandidChronicles
Alternative to Voigtländer 35mm 2.5?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
filmtwit
filmtwit
Back
Top Bottom