Ultron 35 1.7 ltm - prone to haze?!

[retinax]

Hi folks,
In the last weeks I've bought two specimens of the Ultron 35 1.7 ltm (a different lens from the M-mount one still manufactured). I had to return both to the sellers because they had haze on several internal surfaces. What is it with this lens? A manufacturing mistake? Wrong grease or lacquer or glass? Should I give up on finding a clean one?
And why doesn't the internet know about this? There are several reports on flare problems with this lens, but none of them traces it back to haze. It's only visible with a flashlight, but then very clearly so.

 

[maggieo]

Mine's clean as a whistle.

 

[jsrockit]

Could be this issue is just starting to show up not that the lenses are gaining some years.

 

[Alex1416]

Could be this issue is just starting to show up not that the lenses are gaining some years.

I was considering one of these for my Canon VT. My only other LTM is a canon 50/1.4 and Summaron 3.5/3.5. I wanted a faster 35mm. I guess i might have to give up on this one and just use the Summaron in bright situations.
I also read that this LTM was built less sturdy than the more modern M mount version. So with time they will deteriorate even more? I.E. aperture and focusing etc...

 

[Erik van Straten]

It is a fine lens. I have mine for many years. It is nicely finished in black paint.

One aspect of the lens I did not like: the word ASPHERICAL on the front ring in red. However, it is easy to remove the red paint and to apply white paint instead.

No haze in mine.

It seems that they are not easy to find.

Erik.

 

[Larry H-L]

No haze or wobble on mine, and it was an early production version, probably more than 20 years old.

Perhaps haze has to do with how and where it was stored.

 

[retinax]

Mine's clean as a whistle.

Great to know. Have you checked with flashlight?

I was considering one of these for my Canon VT. My only other LTM is a canon 50/1.4 and Summaron 3.5/3.5. I wanted a faster 35mm. I guess i might have to give up on this one and just use the Summaron in bright situations.
I also read that this LTM was built less sturdy than the more modern M mount version. So with time they will deteriorate even more? I.E. aperture and focusing etc...

There were reports about wobble, but it's an easy fix. The two I held felt great mechanically, silky and precise.

It is a fine lens. I have mine for many years. It is nicely finished in black paint.

One aspect of the lens I did not like: the word ASPHERICAL on the front ring in red. However, it is easy to remove the red paint and to apply white paint instead.

No haze in mine.

It seems that they are not easy to find.

Erik.

Your verdict about this lens encouraged me to look for one, Erik. The look doesn't bother me too much, but I understand the desire for more classy look on a vintage camera.
Have you checked yours with a flashlight?

 

[rogue_designer]

Have you checked to see if your flashlight is prone to haze? :/ I've never seen a hazy 35/1.7 Ultron LTM or M.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Your verdict about this lens encouraged me to look for one, Erik.

Thank you!

Leica III, Voigtländer Ultron 35mm f/1.7 LTM, Leica III, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

 

[retinax]

Have you checked to see if your flashlight is prone to haze? :/ I've never seen a hazy 35/1.7 Ultron LTM or M.

That's encouraging. Sounds like you've seen a few? It's not super obvious haze, but such that the light beam of the flashlight is clearly visible on several surfaces, most of which have a very finely dispersed mist, but one seems coarser in the last lens. As the lens isn't very old, I think it may get worse. I mean I can make out some surfaces in other lenses because there's more or less dust on them, but this is different.

 

[Mjd-djm]

I have owned two of these and they were both clear with no haze.... and I always check thoroughly with a flashlight.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The Ultron 35mm f/1.7 is in my opinion a better choice than the Nokton 35mm f/1.4 for two reasons: 1. the lens can also be used on LTM cameras and 2. the lens is practically free from distortion.

Erik.

 

[retinax]

The Ultron 35mm f/1.7 is in my opinion a better choice than the Nokton 35mm f/1.4 for two reasons: 1. the lens can also be used on LTM cameras and 2. the lens is practically free from distortion.

Erik.

Yes, these points both are important to me.

I have owned two of these and they were both clear with no haze.... and I always check thoroughly with a flashlight.

Maybe I was just unlucky then. But what are the odds to get two bad ones!?! Maybe, as jsrockit said, this issue is just starting to show in some or many of these lenses.

 

[rogue_designer]

That's encouraging. Sounds like you've seen a few?

Aye, I've owned two of the LTM version (one early production, one late) and have borrowed two of the VM versions to see if I wanted to grab one or not.

Great lenses.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Leica M2, Voigtländer Ultron 35mm f/1.7 full aperture, Tmax400.

Erik.

 

[oltimer]

Retinax, like you I asked Erik about his, and purchased a used mint one for my IIIF and IIIG 3 years ago. Absolutely clear, and a very capable lens. Luv it! I also purchased the M adapter, and also use it on my XE3 and XPro 2 with there adapter.

 

[CameraQuest]

Hi folks,
In the last weeks I've bought two specimens of the Ultron 35 1.7 ltm (a different lens from the M-mount one still manufactured). I had to return both to the sellers because they had haze on several internal surfaces. What is it with this lens? A manufacturing mistake? Wrong grease or lacquer or glass? Should I give up on finding a clean one?
And why doesn't the internet know about this? There are several reports on flare problems with this lens, but none of them traces it back to haze. It's only visible with a flashlight, but then very clearly so.

two lenses does not make much proof.
I've had about six sent in for loose lens barrels which needed screws tightened.

never had one sent in for haze that needed element cleaning.

Stephen

 

[retinax]

two lenses does not make much proof.
I've had about six sent in for loose lens barrels which needed screws tightened.

never had one sent in for haze that needed element cleaning.

Stephen

Of course not. In fact I'm not trying to prove anything. I hope that these two were the exceptions, because I'd like a clean one, but there likely are others. The question is how many, will it get worse, and if it's going to happen to those that are clean now.

 

[retinax]

Here's what the worse one looked like. Any ideas as to what may have caused the lines?
The haze in the other one is more subtle, harder to photograph.

 

[retinax]

There's the remote possibility that the travel in the cold delivery van could have caused this. But both lenses were well packaged and I let them warm up inside the plastic bag. Anyway I've never experienced or heard of water vapor condensation inside a prime lens. Or does anyone here think that's it?