kennylovrin
Well-known
Hey
Is here anyone that is using the Voigtländer Ultron 28mm f/2 specifically with their R-D1? I've been reading quite mixed reviews about this lens, but I'm suspecting that it varies a bit with which camera body it's used with. I'm getting the general feeling that with Leicas you get weird color casts with uncoded lenses, a problem that you don't necessarily have with other camera bodies?
I've had my R-D1 for service at Epson japan for close to 6 weeks, and it's starting to eat me up from the inside, and I've been spending the time researching lenses that are a bit wider than the 35mm I have already. Hence my question about the Ultron, which is fairly cheap. I want to stick to what the frame lines support, and I'm not sure I really want to spend the extra money for the Zeiss..
Thanks guys!
Is here anyone that is using the Voigtländer Ultron 28mm f/2 specifically with their R-D1? I've been reading quite mixed reviews about this lens, but I'm suspecting that it varies a bit with which camera body it's used with. I'm getting the general feeling that with Leicas you get weird color casts with uncoded lenses, a problem that you don't necessarily have with other camera bodies?
I've had my R-D1 for service at Epson japan for close to 6 weeks, and it's starting to eat me up from the inside, and I've been spending the time researching lenses that are a bit wider than the 35mm I have already. Hence my question about the Ultron, which is fairly cheap. I want to stick to what the frame lines support, and I'm not sure I really want to spend the extra money for the Zeiss..
Thanks guys!
Austerby
Well-known
Can't answer specifically on the lens on the R-D1 but I'm a very satisfied user of the 28mm f2 Voigtlander on my M8 and on film. It is a lens which seems to be quite controversial but I personally have not experienced the colour casts or weird effects you refer to. It's a very good lens, IMHO, particularly at its price.
sleepyhead
Well-known
A few years ago, I used the 28mm f/1.9 Ultron on an R-D1, and then sold it for the newer f/2 Ultron when that one came out (it's a bit smaller). Then I sold the R-D1 eventually and now have none of them.
They were both good lenses on the Epson. The field of view was great as a one lens kit for all general purposes (for me anyway). The extra speed being f/2 was appreciated as the R-D1 wasn't so great above ISO 800.
In terms of rendering, I preferred the f/1.9 version. It was plenty sharp, but the results seems a bit more like "vintage" glass (which I prefer in general over hyper-sharp clinical ASPH lenses). There was something about the shots from the f/2 version that seemed a bit "transparent" and bland to me.
Sorry for the vague descriptions of the image quality - these things are very nuanced, some are surely also just "in my mind". They are both good lenses, at a price that cannot be beat.
They were both good lenses on the Epson. The field of view was great as a one lens kit for all general purposes (for me anyway). The extra speed being f/2 was appreciated as the R-D1 wasn't so great above ISO 800.
In terms of rendering, I preferred the f/1.9 version. It was plenty sharp, but the results seems a bit more like "vintage" glass (which I prefer in general over hyper-sharp clinical ASPH lenses). There was something about the shots from the f/2 version that seemed a bit "transparent" and bland to me.
Sorry for the vague descriptions of the image quality - these things are very nuanced, some are surely also just "in my mind". They are both good lenses, at a price that cannot be beat.
ped
Small brown dog
I use the 1.9 on my R-D1 all the time. I think it's the prefect lens for the camera. If you look at my Flickr 'Epson R-D1' set, every picture there was taken with the Ultron.
Cheers
Cheers
kennylovrin
Well-known
I appreciate all your answers. I think it will be troublesome for me to find an 1.9, so I'll probably go for the f/2 instead which is more readily available here in Sweden.
Has anyone compared it to the 35 1.4? Is the distortion bad etc? To be honest, I'm really new to RF, basically got my R-D1 and then decided to send it off for adjustment almost immediately after I got it. I've read somewhere that RF lenses normally perform better than equivalent SLR lenses when shot wide open (sharpness etc) and also that they normally has less distortion, but it seems to me that 35 f/1.4 that I have does indeed show a bit of distortion. And focus shift, how apparent is that with the Ultron?
Really, thanks for all the input, I really appreciate it!
Has anyone compared it to the 35 1.4? Is the distortion bad etc? To be honest, I'm really new to RF, basically got my R-D1 and then decided to send it off for adjustment almost immediately after I got it. I've read somewhere that RF lenses normally perform better than equivalent SLR lenses when shot wide open (sharpness etc) and also that they normally has less distortion, but it seems to me that 35 f/1.4 that I have does indeed show a bit of distortion. And focus shift, how apparent is that with the Ultron?
Really, thanks for all the input, I really appreciate it!
sleepyhead
Well-known
One more thought: with both Leica lenses and with CV lenses I have experienced quite a bit of sample-to-sample variation for the same lens model. When I was younger and less experienced I would sometimes buy a lens out of curiousity ('cause I read good things about it), try it for a while, be disappointed, and sell it on thinking that the lens was "hyped-up".
This is an unfortunate situation, because sometimes one has to buy 2-3 examples of the same lens to find the really good one. I'm sure that some of the not-so-good-ones could be brought up to spec by a competent repair person, but that also takes time, money, and is a bit of a gamble.
My point is that I suspect that the mixed reviews one reads about the 28mm Ultrons has to do with a greater than usual sample-to-sample variation.
At the risk of creating a fuss, I would say that CV and Zeiss ZM lenses are a bit more prone to these variations than Leica lenses, especially older leica lenses (1970s and older), which were REALLY built in a way one doesn't see anymore.
This is an unfortunate situation, because sometimes one has to buy 2-3 examples of the same lens to find the really good one. I'm sure that some of the not-so-good-ones could be brought up to spec by a competent repair person, but that also takes time, money, and is a bit of a gamble.
My point is that I suspect that the mixed reviews one reads about the 28mm Ultrons has to do with a greater than usual sample-to-sample variation.
At the risk of creating a fuss, I would say that CV and Zeiss ZM lenses are a bit more prone to these variations than Leica lenses, especially older leica lenses (1970s and older), which were REALLY built in a way one doesn't see anymore.
kennylovrin
Well-known
Sample variations can be a bit of a problem, I can understand that. One issue I see with Voigtländer in my case (because I'm in Sweden) seems to be that it's close to impossible to find anyone that can service the lens, especially M-mount. That is the main reason I am leaning towards the Zeiss, because it seems slightly easier to get serviced if I need to.
I'd love a Leica lens, but unfortunately it's not really feeling it at this stage. Financially I could handle it, but ethically I can't put that amount of money into a lens, while at the same time being so new to RF, and using a 6mp camera. I'm not a megapixel freak in that sense, but I just have this feeling that somewhat higher resolution is needed to make the best use of the very best lenses. I might be wrong in that aspect though.
On the other hand, I've had a soft spot for some Zeiss lenses for quite a while, based only on shots I see online. I never owned one though, so I can't say for sure, but I find there really is that 3d-pop to some zeiss lenses that people talk about, that I don't see anywhere else really. But, there is a lot of psychology involved in this stuff as well I think, you see what you want to see I guess.
I'd love a Leica lens, but unfortunately it's not really feeling it at this stage. Financially I could handle it, but ethically I can't put that amount of money into a lens, while at the same time being so new to RF, and using a 6mp camera. I'm not a megapixel freak in that sense, but I just have this feeling that somewhat higher resolution is needed to make the best use of the very best lenses. I might be wrong in that aspect though.
On the other hand, I've had a soft spot for some Zeiss lenses for quite a while, based only on shots I see online. I never owned one though, so I can't say for sure, but I find there really is that 3d-pop to some zeiss lenses that people talk about, that I don't see anywhere else really. But, there is a lot of psychology involved in this stuff as well I think, you see what you want to see I guess.
sleepyhead
Well-known
I should think that the 28mm ZM Biogon would be VERY nice on an R-D1.
Lss
Well-known
I have both the 28/1.9 and the 35/1.4. The 35 Nokton is in SLR (zoom) lens territory in terms of distortion, while the 28 Ultron only has fairly mild barrel distortion. The difference between these two lenses is significant. The 35 Nokton exhibits focus shift, and the Ultron is free of any focus shift for any practical purposes. The difference is again significant. The 35 is tiny and handles great, the 28 is considerably larger and is nowhere near as nice to handle (just my experience, of course). This difference is also significant, although entirely subjective. They are both very good lenses, and the 28/2 should be a great buy as well.
kennylovrin
Well-known
I'm not sure about this, but does both the C version and the non-C come in M-mount? And if so, are there any actual differences? (Or I am confusing things now?
)kennylovrin
Well-known
kennylovrin
Well-known
ah, I see now that the C-Biogon is the 35mm - just me confusing the focal lengths here. So I guess that makes it easier then as it's only once choice for the 28mm then in the current lineup.
kuvvy
Well-known
I used the Ultron f2 for quite a while on my RD1 and it was my standard lens. I really liked it and had not trouble with whatsoever. If I remember rightly I bought it from Cameraquest. Unfortunately I sold it to fund a 35mm Konica UC Hexanon which while a superb performer I simply couldn't get along with. This was more due to a framing problem which probably occurred due to me being a spectacle wearer. I kept missing parts of my subjects.
So this was sold on and I dug out a mint and barely used CV 28 3.5 and I'm much more comfortable again. Still regret selling the Ultron though.
So this was sold on and I dug out a mint and barely used CV 28 3.5 and I'm much more comfortable again. Still regret selling the Ultron though.
kennylovrin
Well-known
So just out of interest, those of you who own or have owned the Ultron, did you ever consider changing it for the Zeiss Biogon? Maybe it's a ridiculous question, but I suspect it would have crossed peoples minds maybe. In sweden the price difference is more or less double the price of the Voigtländer for the Zeiss, and I'm not sure it's actually worth it, especially seeing that the Ultron is one stop faster, which I personally like.
JayM
Well-known
Never. More money for a slower lens that to me has no advantage other than maybe being slightly smaller, but not much.
kennylovrin
Well-known
And you don't see any other differences like micro contrast, sharpness, bokeh and all those nice subjective things that might be worth the extra cost for the Zeiss? (on the R-D1 that is)
kuvvy
Well-known
Did try a Zeiss lens on my RD1 once but it was a 50mm. Nicely made but too sharp for me. Here's a shot from the Ultron f2, has been cropped though.
Lss
Well-known
No. The Biogon was one of the options when buying a 28 (considered also 24/25mm lenses), but I much preferred the extra stop of the Ultron. Another thing about the Zeiss lens is that it has third-stop clicks instead of the half-stop clicks my other lenses have. Not necessarily a big deal.
I still think I would trade in my Ultron for the Summicron if I ever found a good deal. The handling of the Summicron is just so much better in my opinion. The current price difference is crazy, but there's not much you can do about that.
kennylovrin
Well-known
Thanks guys!
Yeah I think I'll eventually go for the Ultron, looks plenty sharp for my use looking at kuvvys shot there.
One thing actually that I have been thinking about that I forgot to ask first is about that little hood that comes with it (as I understand). How much difference does it make? Is it like a night and day difference? I prefer to go without hood to be honest as I like it a little bit more compact, then again this hood is quite small it seems.
Also, does the Ultron show in the finder on the R-D1?
Thanks!
Yeah I think I'll eventually go for the Ultron, looks plenty sharp for my use looking at kuvvys shot there.
One thing actually that I have been thinking about that I forgot to ask first is about that little hood that comes with it (as I understand). How much difference does it make? Is it like a night and day difference? I prefer to go without hood to be honest as I like it a little bit more compact, then again this hood is quite small it seems.
Also, does the Ultron show in the finder on the R-D1?
Thanks!
Lss
Well-known
Yes, also without the hood. With the hood, the blockade is strong. The frame line area blockage on R-D1 is however very minor without the hood, a little worse with the hood on. There is probably not much difference between the two Ultron versions, although they don't look the same nor have the dimensions. I haven't yet done any controlled testing to see whether the hood is really necessary. Most of the time, I use the hood.