fernandez_diez
Member
I have to buy one of them. Any advice? I have not experience with each one. I for a Zeiss ZM,
regards. friends
regards. friends
Do you have any 28 or 35mm lenses currently?
Avotius
Some guy
These are two different animals in my opinion. Some people like 28's some like 35's. There are too many factors. Can you give us a little more information about your needs?
froyd
Veteran
"Have to" ?? 
froyd said:"Have to" ??
Good point, I have both.
fernandez_diez
Member
At this moment I,ve just bought a ZM and a 50mm Color Skopar, but I would like to buy a wide lens. I,ve seen thats both lens in second hand and realy I don,t know what is the best choice
The angle is different, obviusly,but is better one over the other.?
I feel more usual 35mm . I will shoot B/N
I learned very good opinions about Ultron 35 mm at this forum, but I don,t know a comparation with 28 mm.
.... I know... The best, both
The angle is different, obviusly,but is better one over the other.?
I feel more usual 35mm . I will shoot B/N
I learned very good opinions about Ultron 35 mm at this forum, but I don,t know a comparation with 28 mm.
.... I know... The best, both
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
I've heard the 35mm lens described as a "real" normal lens, and the 50mm lens as a "mini telephoto" and I think that's close to being true.
I feel very comfortable with a 35, but I do use wider lenses as well, if sporadically. I think you might use the 35 more than the 28, but in the long run, you'll only know if you try out both focal lengths.
We can only guess what your preferences are, or tell you ours. So, if it were me, I'd go 35.
I feel very comfortable with a 35, but I do use wider lenses as well, if sporadically. I think you might use the 35 more than the 28, but in the long run, you'll only know if you try out both focal lengths.
We can only guess what your preferences are, or tell you ours. So, if it were me, I'd go 35.
fernandez_diez
Member
Avotius said:
Why they are two different animals?
I always thought they were as a bad an little dog, 28 mm, and a good and bigger dog, 35 mm.
The 28 mm view are more agresive perhaps, distorsion, not good for all things.
I was very customed to use wide lens for landscapes with long format but a lovely RF is different.....
Really what I want to know is if mechanic is good in both lens or different one of the other
Best regards
The 35 is like a normal lens for sure. On the wide side, and normal if you shoot a lot inside or in tight quarters. I find 28 to definitely be a wide angle. I personally like the use of a 28mm lens if you are in a situation where you are perhaps a step or so closer than you are comfortable being. I think this up close wide look shows a very intimate view of your subject, different than a landscape or environmental portrait use of the lens.
The 35 Ultron is a sharp well balanced lens. Larger than other 35mm RF lenses, but I count that as a benefit as I personally find the smaller lenses difficult to use. By no means is it a large lens though. It produces an image with smooth tones and slightly low contrast compared to other 35s. This is an older style image to my eye that I like quite a bit. The only draw back that I run into is that the minimum focus distance is .9 meters, when indoors I often find myself bumping up against that limit and feel a few extra inches will make a difference.
The 28 Ultron has a .7 meter minimum focusing distance. It is a crisp sharp lens with good contrast and to my eye produces a modern image. I have seen it said that it produces lower contrast than other 28mm lenses, and I guess it does compared the 28mm Skopar which I also have. That said though, I would say the contrast from this lens is clearly seen and compliments the image it produces very well. It is a large lens by most standards. I also like this as I think it offers good handling and a confident user interface, but it is big.
I think you would be happy with either of these lenses. The image attributes from each is different, but I think more important is your decision if you want a 28 or 35 as I think that is a big difference.
The 35 Ultron is a sharp well balanced lens. Larger than other 35mm RF lenses, but I count that as a benefit as I personally find the smaller lenses difficult to use. By no means is it a large lens though. It produces an image with smooth tones and slightly low contrast compared to other 35s. This is an older style image to my eye that I like quite a bit. The only draw back that I run into is that the minimum focus distance is .9 meters, when indoors I often find myself bumping up against that limit and feel a few extra inches will make a difference.
The 28 Ultron has a .7 meter minimum focusing distance. It is a crisp sharp lens with good contrast and to my eye produces a modern image. I have seen it said that it produces lower contrast than other 28mm lenses, and I guess it does compared the 28mm Skopar which I also have. That said though, I would say the contrast from this lens is clearly seen and compliments the image it produces very well. It is a large lens by most standards. I also like this as I think it offers good handling and a confident user interface, but it is big.
I think you would be happy with either of these lenses. The image attributes from each is different, but I think more important is your decision if you want a 28 or 35 as I think that is a big difference.
lawrence
Veteran
I have both and they are mechanically about equal. I agree with the other commentators here that 35mm is more useful on a daily basis and 28mm is useful occasionally. My recommendation would be to go for the 35mm -- if you don't already have one, it could end up being your most used focal length.
lewis44
Well-known
I Second that. I use a 35 mostly on my ZI and the 50 on my M3. I had a 28, but hardly ever used it. What I would do is take the camera out and look for shots you would normally take and change the frame lines from 35 to 28 and see which you prefer. I find the 35 gives the coverage I need and I can see the full frame plus a little border and am able to compose the shot better using the ZI and the 35 Biogon.
I have owned both lenses you are asking about and you should be happy with either one. If I had to give the edge to one, image quality wise, I'd say the 28, but too little to really notice.
However, that being said, it comes down to a personal choice.
Last edited:
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
I think this was very well put, Rover. We share an appreciation of larger lenses and apparently we both find smaller lenses difficult to use - I just picked up the Ultron here at the classifieds, and even with marks on the coating, it is wonderfully sharp even wide open.
Ultron set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/januaryman/sets/72157603876457545/
I like the Skopar classic as well, but it's too small for my fingers to allow for a comfortable shoot. The quality, however, is also outstanding:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/januaryman/sets/72157603815278996/
I do not own a 28 for any of my rangefinders. I have SLRs for the really wide lenses. So no examples to offer.
Ultron set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/januaryman/sets/72157603876457545/
I like the Skopar classic as well, but it's too small for my fingers to allow for a comfortable shoot. The quality, however, is also outstanding:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/januaryman/sets/72157603815278996/
I do not own a 28 for any of my rangefinders. I have SLRs for the really wide lenses. So no examples to offer.
rover said:
fernandez_diez
Member
It was more that I expected. You are very Kind with your advices. Really , Rover told heavy mechanically reasons. Both lens are similar and good.
Probably 35mm is better to begin to know the "game" of the frames.
Tonight I will buy this lens.
Your experience helped me very much.
Probably 35mm is better to begin to know the "game" of the frames.
Tonight I will buy this lens.
Your experience helped me very much.
Glad to hear we have been a help.
bigdog
Established
I agree, the 35mm is more practical focal length for my use. I don't have the 28mm, I have the 35mm Ultron, I imagine the 28mm is going to be bigger, heavier and block a bit more of your viewfinder and you would have to use the outer perimeter of the viewfinder rather than using the frame lines.
The 28mm will give you slightly more depth of field at a given aperture, but probably not that significant an amount. You will also have to be closer to your subject to fill the frame with the 28mm but as someone mentioned, that can make for a nice near to far perspective. You can still probably get away with doing a waist up portrait with the 35mm but the 28mm will not work as well in this situation.
The 35mm just feels right when it comes to composition whether I'm shooting fast on the street or slow in a landscape. I found that on my slr, I was using my 24-105mm zoom lens at 24,35,50,75 and 105mm but mostly at 35mm and 50mm so my most recent purchase is a Canon 50mm 1.4 LTM, so I will at least have a 35mm and a 50mm in my kit. I will worry about other focal lengths when I can raise the funds!
I love the way the 35mm Ultron handles, I don't care for really small lenses. The lens is sharp, I agree it is slightly lower contrast but I usually bump up the contrast when scanning and you can also use higher contrast films. Lower contrast is not always a negative since it can help with exposing more shadow detail.
I think you will be happy with this lens!
The 28mm will give you slightly more depth of field at a given aperture, but probably not that significant an amount. You will also have to be closer to your subject to fill the frame with the 28mm but as someone mentioned, that can make for a nice near to far perspective. You can still probably get away with doing a waist up portrait with the 35mm but the 28mm will not work as well in this situation.
The 35mm just feels right when it comes to composition whether I'm shooting fast on the street or slow in a landscape. I found that on my slr, I was using my 24-105mm zoom lens at 24,35,50,75 and 105mm but mostly at 35mm and 50mm so my most recent purchase is a Canon 50mm 1.4 LTM, so I will at least have a 35mm and a 50mm in my kit. I will worry about other focal lengths when I can raise the funds!
I love the way the 35mm Ultron handles, I don't care for really small lenses. The lens is sharp, I agree it is slightly lower contrast but I usually bump up the contrast when scanning and you can also use higher contrast films. Lower contrast is not always a negative since it can help with exposing more shadow detail.
I think you will be happy with this lens!
rogerchristian
Established
The 35/1.7 lives on my Bessar R.
But, I think the 28/1.9 is one sexy looking lens, it is gorgeous, IMHO.
I don't own a 28.
But, I think the 28/1.9 is one sexy looking lens, it is gorgeous, IMHO.
I don't own a 28.
fernandez_diez
Member
Last question for the 35 mm 1.7 owners. ¿ may this lens mount a vented hood. ?
I think it is a good protector against whatever impact but I don,t know if can fits this kind of hood.
What is its diameter?
Regards
I think it is a good protector against whatever impact but I don,t know if can fits this kind of hood.
What is its diameter?
Regards
jsuominen
Well-known
I have both. Some photos here as slideshow.
CV Ultron 28/1.9:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/tags/ultron28mm19/show/
CV Ultron 35/1.7:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/tags/ultron35mm17/show/
I shoot more with my 40mm and 50mm lenses. Both of those wide angle Ultrons are OK, but maybe my own shooting style uses a bit longer lenses.
Edit:
---
Ultron 35/1.7 has 39mm filter size. It has a small (short) build-in hood, but it's not vented. Hood has maybe slightly bigger diameter than 39mm. I just shot some photos in bad weather - raining wet snow in heavy wind. My Rollei-Sonnar 40/2.8 has a CV 50mm/35mm square/rectangular hood (LH-2) mounted on lens and it gives good protection. I haven't tried it on Ultron 35/1.7.
CV Ultron 28/1.9:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/tags/ultron28mm19/show/
CV Ultron 35/1.7:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/tags/ultron35mm17/show/
I shoot more with my 40mm and 50mm lenses. Both of those wide angle Ultrons are OK, but maybe my own shooting style uses a bit longer lenses.
Edit:
---
fernandez_diez said:
Ultron 35/1.7 has 39mm filter size. It has a small (short) build-in hood, but it's not vented. Hood has maybe slightly bigger diameter than 39mm. I just shot some photos in bad weather - raining wet snow in heavy wind. My Rollei-Sonnar 40/2.8 has a CV 50mm/35mm square/rectangular hood (LH-2) mounted on lens and it gives good protection. I haven't tried it on Ultron 35/1.7.
Last edited:
migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
Imagestreet
Member
Got both.
Just put the 35mm up on eBay. I prefer the tonality of the 28mm and I need to raise cash to pay off my D3 (murmur of disapproval from RFF).
Sure you won't be disappointed with the 35mm
Just put the 35mm up on eBay. I prefer the tonality of the 28mm and I need to raise cash to pay off my D3 (murmur of disapproval from RFF).
Sure you won't be disappointed with the 35mm