back alley
IMAGES
lawrence
Veteran
Well I'm certain that anyone reading your opinion on this will accept it as fact, immediately and without question
ferider
Veteran
And this is where I feel you are fundamentally wrong. In this market, and with lens value being very subjective, price and "value" are almost unrelated, IMO.
I can give you many examples. But I am sure they are not new to you.
For example:
.) M-Hexanon 28/2.8 vs. Elmarit v4 (price factor 2?)
.) Color Skopar 35/2.5 vs. 35/2.5 Summarit (price factor 4?)
.) Nokton 50/1.5 vs. pre-asph 50 Summilux (price factor 4?)
.) Nokton 35/1.4 vs. pre-asph 50 Summilux (price factor 3?)
Etc.
You feel the Ultron on Stephen's web-site is correctly priced. This is why Stephen can price it like that. A price like this reflects that there is at least one customer out there who agrees. It does NOT mean all customers or the average customer agree, or that one lens is objectively better than the other. Because objectively, the Nokton is at least better at f1.4.
Cheers,
Roland.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Brian, thanks for posting examples under soft and harsh light!
The lens looks very nice for midday sun...
Cheers,
Juan
The lens looks very nice for midday sun...
Cheers,
Juan
I have the 35/2.8 Summaron with eyes. It's a fine lens. Of 30 or so Leica lenses, it is my only 35mm Fl lens. I'm just "not big" on 35mm lenses. I also have the Canon 35/2, 35/2.8, Nikkor 3.5cm/2.5 and 3.5cm f1.8(S-Mount).
and, Thankyou Juan.
Last edited:
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Well I'm certain that anyone reading your opinion on this will accept it as fact, immediately and without question
Yes, this is my opinion - every post is someones opinion, no? After 18 yrs shooting 80-90% with 35s some may say educated opinion.
I know Erik to be a great photographer and a smart guy. This is why Im asking; otherwise I wouldn't waste my time.
I used the Ultron for awhile and was diasappointed. Just didnt have the umph. Went to the Cron IV which was a litte better, but not much. Eventually went for the 35 Summilux, which I found the best 35.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I have the first version of the Summicron 35mm f/2, the fourth version of the Summicron 35mm f/2, the Summilux 35mm f1.4 pre asph I and II, the Summaron 35mm f/2.8, the Summaron 35mm f/3.5, the Nikkor 35mm f/2.5 S-mount and the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 S-mount, but the Ultron 35mm f/1.7 is better than all those lenses, optically speaking.
Erik.
"Umph" is probably more subjective than "Bokeh". That boils down to personal taste, not resolution and contrast.
The Ultron is lower contrast than most modern lenses, and is probably why I like it so much. I'm tired of every lens producing "Picture Postcard Colors". Probably why I use a collapsible Summicron more than any of my other Leica lenses.
The Ultron is lower contrast than most modern lenses, and is probably why I like it so much. I'm tired of every lens producing "Picture Postcard Colors". Probably why I use a collapsible Summicron more than any of my other Leica lenses.
Now, my opinion is clearly as wrong as yours, but I sold my 4th version Summicron 35 to re-buy the Ultron because I liked it better. I decided that selling my original Ultron to buy the Summicron was the wrong decision for me.
That is just me though.
Just to add- wonder if that Ultron sold yet? I'll stick with my Chrome finish lens.
Last edited:
lawrence
Veteran
Thank you for clarifying this. When I read that "The Ultron doesnt shake a stick at the Summicron for instance (any version)." I assumed you meant it doesn't come close, however now I understand you meant that "the Cron IV...was a little better" than the Ultron, which in my opinion is closer to reality.
Krosya
Konicaze
And this is where I feel you are fundamentally wrong. In this market, and with lens value being very subjective, price and "value" are almost unrelated, IMO.
I can give you many examples. But I am sure they are not new to you.
For example:
.) M-Hexanon 28/2.8 vs. Elmarit v4 (price factor 2?)
.) Color Skopar 35/2.5 vs. 35/2.5 Summarit (price factor 4?)
.) Nokton 50/1.5 vs. pre-asph 50 Summilux (price factor 4?)
.) Nokton 35/1.4 vs. pre-asph 50 Summilux (price factor 3?)
Etc.
You feel the Ultron on Stephen's web-site is correctly priced. This is why Stephen can price it like that. A price like this reflects that there is at least one customer out there who agrees. It does NOT mean all customers or the average customer agree, or that one lens is objectively better than the other. Because objectively, the Nokton is at least better at f1.4.
Cheers,
Roland.
I agree - there are many examples where better lenses sell for less. But its not logical - thats all. However with some others - rule - more it costs , better it is - does work. And example I found with Ultron vs Nokton on CQ site seemed to add to that rule. You dont have to agree with that, but it was just my observation.
back alley
IMAGES
threads like this are why i need to start meditating.
oom...omm...oom
oom...omm...oom
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
threads like this are why i need to start meditating.
oom...omm...oom
LOL. LOL.
Hey, guys, I respect your opinion I really do. Most interesting.
Thanks - Paul
Krosya
Konicaze
So, why would CQ, the number one Voigtlander dealer in US, price them so differently? This sort of was my implied original question, as all previous data I have seen would be similar to you last post.
ferider
Veteran
Sorry I decided to delete my last post and leave the argument.
crusius
Established
My experience:
I have used the 1.7 exclusively for two years and took excellent pictures with it. Recently I bought a 35/2.5 PII and there is no contest: the 2.5 is better (from 2.5 on, of course). The main problem of the Ultron is the very strong tendency to flare. At 1.7 the flare is so strong that to get a sharp picture with mildly tricky light a lot of planets need to align.
I tested both side by side. At 2.5 the PII is (much) better than the Ultron at 2.5, both on center and corners. At 5.6 the Ultron basically catches up and flare is not that bad anymore. But wide open it is a finicky lens.
From what I read the 1.4 Nokton is not that different image-wise: while it wins in some respects it loses on others (focus shift, for example). Not worth the swap except for the size.
Nowadays I use the 2.5 mostly, and I am leaning towards using my 50/1.5 for low light because it just beats the Ultron wide open into submission.
Edit: I also tested my 1.7 a while ago against a friend's old Leica summi-something, and the Ultron "won" at large apertures. I didn't test for flare, though, but his copy was very soft... Another friend of mine has the 1.4 but I haven't gotten around to test it against the 1.7, mostly because I don't think there would be much going for it either. I resigned myself to have the 1.7 until something obviously better that doesn't cost $1000 comes around.
I have used the 1.7 exclusively for two years and took excellent pictures with it. Recently I bought a 35/2.5 PII and there is no contest: the 2.5 is better (from 2.5 on, of course). The main problem of the Ultron is the very strong tendency to flare. At 1.7 the flare is so strong that to get a sharp picture with mildly tricky light a lot of planets need to align.
I tested both side by side. At 2.5 the PII is (much) better than the Ultron at 2.5, both on center and corners. At 5.6 the Ultron basically catches up and flare is not that bad anymore. But wide open it is a finicky lens.
From what I read the 1.4 Nokton is not that different image-wise: while it wins in some respects it loses on others (focus shift, for example). Not worth the swap except for the size.
Nowadays I use the 2.5 mostly, and I am leaning towards using my 50/1.5 for low light because it just beats the Ultron wide open into submission.
Edit: I also tested my 1.7 a while ago against a friend's old Leica summi-something, and the Ultron "won" at large apertures. I didn't test for flare, though, but his copy was very soft... Another friend of mine has the 1.4 but I haven't gotten around to test it against the 1.7, mostly because I don't think there would be much going for it either. I resigned myself to have the 1.7 until something obviously better that doesn't cost $1000 comes around.
Last edited:
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
This is probably muddying the waters, but I think technique matters here. I read somewhere that Mr. Kobiashi's design philosophy on the C/V lenses has been to design the very best lens that they could and then pull back on engineering or particular materials to get the cost of production down, and stopping with that process just before the difference in qualities and/or methods would be noticeable in image quality. Hence you have black paint on lenses that doesn't wear as well as the anodized coatings on Leica lenses, or decentering issues or sample-to-sample variation, lens-wobble etc. that just would not be acceptable at Leica. I don't have a problem with that -- his methods have produced some stunning results (15/4.5, 35/1.2, 35/1.7, 50/1.5 are the ones that I own that come to mind). These are value-priced products. To make up some numbers: let's call it 90% of the image quality at 1/4 the price. OK? Made-up numbers but I think there is probably general agreement about the concept.
What I mean about technique and the lower quality that I think I have perceived in the manufacturing of these lenses is that you probably need pretty good chops to identify the last 10% of "goodness" in the image quality of these lenses. Hand-holding your camera? You might not see a difference in resolution between the 35 Ultron a Summicron v. IV. Not rigorous in your developing technique from roll to roll? Ditto. Shoot all your images at f:8 or smaller? Ditto.
In these days of computer aided lens design, I don't really know what it means for one prime lens to mop up the floor with another. I must own 50 photographic lenses -- all primes, no zooms, too many 50's -- and there are very few dogs among them. There are differences between a Pentax 50/1.4 screw-mount ($40) and a 50/1.4 Summilux Asph? Oh, yes. But it would be relatively easy to mask those differences with sloppy technique.
Ben Marks
What I mean about technique and the lower quality that I think I have perceived in the manufacturing of these lenses is that you probably need pretty good chops to identify the last 10% of "goodness" in the image quality of these lenses. Hand-holding your camera? You might not see a difference in resolution between the 35 Ultron a Summicron v. IV. Not rigorous in your developing technique from roll to roll? Ditto. Shoot all your images at f:8 or smaller? Ditto.
In these days of computer aided lens design, I don't really know what it means for one prime lens to mop up the floor with another. I must own 50 photographic lenses -- all primes, no zooms, too many 50's -- and there are very few dogs among them. There are differences between a Pentax 50/1.4 screw-mount ($40) and a 50/1.4 Summilux Asph? Oh, yes. But it would be relatively easy to mask those differences with sloppy technique.
Ben Marks
The price for the lens at CQ is for a Black Finish lens, which is not as common as the Chrome finish. It also includes the M Adapter. I just do not see the price being out of line for a Mint lens. My chrome lens is a great user, EX condition, and was about 1/2 that price. That is inline with prices at KEH and others for mint vs EX. Some people place a premium on black finish lenses, I tend to be the reverse. I prefer my Chrome finish Nikkor lenses over the Black finish ones. Increased weight and all.
I've been on this forum long enough to realize there is sample-to-sample variation and problems with individual lenses from all manufacturers. You do not have to go back very far to run into Problem Leica lenses and cameras. Every manufacturer, including Leica, has individual "Dogs". Just look at some of the teething problems with the M8.
I used my Ultron enough to know my copy is a first rate lens. Most of my Leitz lenses (all but three) were made during the "golden age" of rangefinders, and have done well. Some have been cherry-picked. I will say this, the new Leica lenses can't shake a stick at the older ones for build quality. Take a Type 1 Rigid Summicron apart sometime, and you will understand. And I did get it all back together.
I've been on this forum long enough to realize there is sample-to-sample variation and problems with individual lenses from all manufacturers. You do not have to go back very far to run into Problem Leica lenses and cameras. Every manufacturer, including Leica, has individual "Dogs". Just look at some of the teething problems with the M8.
I used my Ultron enough to know my copy is a first rate lens. Most of my Leitz lenses (all but three) were made during the "golden age" of rangefinders, and have done well. Some have been cherry-picked. I will say this, the new Leica lenses can't shake a stick at the older ones for build quality. Take a Type 1 Rigid Summicron apart sometime, and you will understand. And I did get it all back together.
Last edited:
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Well, I did muddy the waters, I guess. My main point was that we spend a lot of time navel gazing (or iris gazing) about the subject of maximum quality, when it is possible that our own practices in many circumstances would keep us from perceiving the differences between well-performing lenses and their more mediocre brethren.
I agree with you, Brian on chrome finish. Of course, I have some of each.
Ben Marks
I agree with you, Brian on chrome finish. Of course, I have some of each.
Ben Marks