The Voigtlander Ultron 28mm f2.0...

Thank you Tom for your comments. I used the later pre-asph Summilux-M 35/1.4 for a long time and only on film, AFTER having had an asph one: a matter of weight and size decided my preference. It flared madly and it was actually a dog at 1.4 sharpness wise compared to the asph. But it had a very nice signature. Given the correct light conditions, it was an incredible performer.
The Nokton has a real focus shift problem on the M8, it has a very noticeable barrel distortion (much much more than the old Summilux) and its flare is surprising in that you cannot seem to ever know when and where it will appear. I -unscientifically- tested only one sample for a week, gently loaned by a friend, so I don't know if these are issues specific to that sample, but I didn't liked it.
It is obviously a matter of personal tastes, and in no way I am implying it is a "bad" lens in any way. But for now in the 35mm focal length, I prefer my IV version Summicrons.
 
P. Lynn Miller said:
But the Ultron 28/2 is a completely different lens which has quickly become one of my most used lenses. It is just that good.
Click to expand...

Thank you, this difference is reassuring. Any signature difference from the Nokton 35/1.4 increases my interest in this lens.

My fear was that the new Nokton 35/1.4 signature was a new "direction" for CV to follow, and that all new lenses would have had that character.
 
gohaj said:
I am actively searching for more Ultron 28/2 photos. Indirectly convincing myself to get one!:)
Click to expand...

If you go to our Flickr site you will find about 120+ photos done with the 28f2. Some where shot in May/June in Japan and some back here in Vancouver. Just tag "Voigtlander Ultron 28mm f2.o" and these and others will show up.
Tom
 
Hi Tom A, would you recommend this cv 28/2 over the leica 28/2,8 ? Why/why not? I have always liked the look of that elmarit for its size. But is it also a higher contrast lens like the summicron?

Thanks in advance.
 
I haven't had that much experience with the 28f2.8 Asph - the few shots I did with one looks fine. A friend had one and I borrowed it. He later got rid of it because he wasen't satisfied with the performance on a film M! Wide open the corners were less than "perfect" (his words).
I think that the Ultron 28f2.0 is a better choice. The corners are softer than a Summicron 28@f2.0, but not so soft to make them unusable. By the the time you hit 2.8-4 they are the same. The Ultron is actually better in the center @f2 than the Summicron @f2 - and if you shoot wide open, corners are usually the least of the problem.
 
2814279229_98a6a7fbba.jpg


Last Saturday's Concours de Elegance in Gastown as usual provides a great test setting for a lens. This is with the ZI body and the Ultron 28f2.0. Film was Acros 100, developed in Beutler (home made) dilution 1part A/1 part B and 10 parts of water for 7 min (10sec agit/60 sec).
Classic Chrysler Airflow from 1935.
 
Last edited:
2814277621_d9c263dab6.jpg


Another car shot from Saturday. Packard Coupe, even has a small hatch behind the drivers door for the golfbag!
Zeiss ZI and Ultron 28f2.0 and again Acros 100 in Beutler.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it was with the Ultron 28f2.0. Gastown here in Vancouver is difficult to shoot in. Either bright sunlight or deep shadows. I think this was at 5,6 or around that.
 
Threads like this aren't helping - I'm trying to resist selling my Ultron f/1.9 for a f/2.0. I'd really like a "native" M-mount 28 with a smaller hood!

The new version's flare resistance is particularly appealing since I like to shoot available darkness in town at night. The f/1.9 is no slouch in this area, and the f/2.0 doesn't seem to give up any of this ability.
 
Ken, if anything, the 28f2.0 is more flare resistant than the 28f1.9. Part of this is the aspherical design which on the f1.9 makes it a bit more flare sensitive (same thing with the Leica Aspherical lenses - deadly sharp but prone to flare). The 28f2 can flare, but you really have to work at it. All lenses can be made to flare,of course - but the key is to know when they do it as with a rangefinder you really dont know that until you pull the film of the developing reels!
I have now had the 28f2.0 for more than three months and I like it more and more. It is one of those lenses that you feel a certain confidence in. If you get the focus and exposure right - the lens delivers what you want every time.
 
Last edited:
I have know had the 28f2.0 for more than three months and I like it more and more
Click to expand...

Hi Tom,

How does it compare with the 28/3.5? I ask because I'm sorely tempted by a fast 28 (I've found myself a few times this year with the 28/3.5 in low light when I really needed an extra stop or so. But, I already have a fast 35 (the 1.4), I love my 28/3.5, and I don't have a lot of money to spend on gear right now, so it's not an easy decision (though not a decision I'll be making for at least a few months).
 
oscroft said:
Hi Tom,

How does it compare with the 28/3.5? I ask because I'm sorely tempted by a fast 28 (I've found myself a few times this year with the 28/3.5 in low light when I really needed an extra stop or so. But, I already have a fast 35 (the 1.4), I love my 28/3.5, and I don't have a lot of money to spend on gear right now, so it's not an easy decision (though not a decision I'll be making for at least a few months).
Click to expand...

The 28f3.5 is still among my favourites. It has a look in black/white that is all its own. I also like it because of its size - nice little lens to stick in a pocket and combine with a M2 and a 50 for a sunny day.
The Ultron and the Skopar are equally flare resistant - i.e very good. The added f-stops are handy with the f2 and can make a difference in interior or night shooting (unless you stay of coffee for a looong time - you have problem with the 28f3.5). I think that the two lenses complement each other rather than compete!
 
The 28f3.5 is still among my favourites. It has a look in black/white that is all its own. I also like it because of its size - nice little lens to stick in a pocket and combine with a M2 and a 50 for a sunny day.
The Ultron and the Skopar are equally flare resistant - i.e very good. The added f-stops are handy with the f2 and can make a difference in interior or night shooting (unless you stay of coffee for a looong time - you have problem with the 28f3.5). I think that the two lenses complement each other rather than compete!
Click to expand...

Thanks - that's really the kind of thing I was hoping to hear. I'll probably give some serious consideration to a 28/2 in the New Year, but if there had been a chance it would make the f/3.5 redundant I doubt I'd be able to do it.
 
oscroft said:
Thanks - that's really the kind of thing I was hoping to hear. I'll probably give some serious consideration to a 28/2 in the New Year, but if there had been a chance it would make the f/3.5 redundant I doubt I'd be able to do it.
Click to expand...

Alan, take it from me. No lens is ever reduntant - they just become "alternatives" and can occasionally be used to hold down papers on the desk! This might explain my "lens" drawers - chockful of older (and newer) lenses. I make it a routine to cycle through all of them over time - sometimes just to confirm why I liked or disliked them!
 
Alan, take it from me. No lens is ever reduntant - they just become "alternatives" and can occasionally be used to hold down papers on the desk! This might explain my "lens" drawers - chockful of older (and newer) lenses. I make it a routine to cycle through all of them over time - sometimes just to confirm why I liked or disliked them!
Click to expand...
Hehe, yes, good point. For months I've been thinking I should get rid of a couple of my OM zooms (they all overlap, and I haven't used any for ages anyway), then last weekend I thought I'd take them out to shoot and decide which ones to keep - and you've probably guessed, I'm keeping all of them :D
 
Has anyone compared the CV 28/2 with the ZM 28/2.8? I am trying to decide between these two lenses and would be interested to know how they compare in edge performance when stopped down to f/4 and beyond, as well as how out of focus rendering compares at f/2.8. Also, is there much barrel distortion to speak of with either lens?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom