Ultron 35/1.7 and its minimum focusing distance

K

Karefin

Member
Local time
9:35 AM
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
14
Do you find the 90 cm (3 feet?) minimum focusing distance on Ultron 35/1.7 too long? I was thinking of buying that lens, but that point makes me think several times again... Because I thought the 90 cm on Nokton 50 was long! I guess you can't have everything - 39mm filter thread must have its limitations.
 
Last edited:
35/1.7 Ultron min. distance : feel myselt at home

35/1.7 Ultron min. distance : feel myselt at home

I had the same concern. My conclusion is that there is no problem (for me : given my very ordinary way of using this lens).

Added : this is a GOOD f/2.8 lens, with additional fast aperture for emergency case.
 
Last edited:
sojournerphoto said:
Occasionally, when shooting my children and they get too close:)
Click to expand...

What he said, but..... I don't think there is a shot in my gallery taken at the close limit. So I think it is too long, but it really hasn't effected me, or at least not that often.
 
I had never thought about it until I noticed the 35/1.4 Nokton and 28/2 Ultron had 0,7m minimum focusing distance... So it didn't really bother me at all. Most often I shoot street or such, so distances are longer than 1 m. I even thought 1m or so was the minimum for rangefinders! :)

And frontal bokeh looks good often anyway ;-).
 
I owned that lovely lens before. Sometimes the minimum focusing distance do bother me a little but i just step back a few steps. i have quite a few samples here if you wish to have a look(not all were taken so closely though).

I also find that shooting at f1.7 can be quite soft, but then again it might be my problem which includes scanning with a average flatbed scanner.
 
Last edited:
Same answer to the "problem" as Roger.

Does the softness at f/1.7 go away at f/2, Tun? I'm interested because I've just bought this lens from another RFF member, though it'll take a while to reach me.
 
oh yes, at 2.8 and above the sharpness is much better. But anyway since this lens doesn't really produce very nice bokeh and i seldom take "bokeh" shots, so i don't always shoot it near wide open.
This piece of lens yields really good colors! Its quite a pity that i sold it away. Meanwhile, happy waiting!!
i look forward to your new ultron photos.
 
I own this lens since years and in a few occasion I had wished to be able to take some close details. But generally speaking I like that very much and when I feel I'll need details I'll use my FM 2 with a 50mm f1,4. Or I'll crop a little the picture, if not on slide !
robert
 
My samples were just as "sharp" as a Summicron at f2, Mukul.

Here is a wide open shot taken with the Ultron:

121611469_TcyU9-L.jpg


More limited by flare, film and scanning than resolution, IMHO. It's a great lens.


Back to the OP's question: I like .7m (or .6 for the old goggled lenses) in a two lens combo (i.e. 35/90 or 35/75) when 35 has to replace 50.

Best,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
What you say is reassuring, Roland, as is the photo. At last I'm about to realise a dream I've had since the late 1960s: an M2 with just a fast 35 and a 90. But now I shall carry my battered J-3 also, because it's become a fine performer since Kim Coxon set it right.
 
Good points, people. It's a shame that I really prefer 40mm over the 35, maybe even 50, but but... The Ultron's a tempting choice. I'll have to do some more thinking :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom