Ultron 35mm

[NathanJD]

I have found a 35mm CV Ultron 1.7 local to me and I was wondering what people's advice and opinions are on the lens?

P.S. Sorry to anyone i may have Ticked off by posting this in the Optics and Lenses section - I now know better :angel:

 

[payasam]

The latest photo in my gallery shows what the lens can do at close to full aperture. I must say that I am happy with my copy.

 

[Bessa-ist-das]

get it ;-)

i love mine, both for b/w and colour. you'll also find some pictures on my flickr stream. you might be able to get them for a very good discount as they have run out of production a while ago. I got 30% off the original price and the difference of less than one f stop in aperture doesn't bother me at all.

also i have not found the ultron to have much distortion either, in contrast to some comments about it's successor, the nokton 35/1.4.

it is a coated lens therefore it should be more comparable to the 35mc than the sc version in terms of contrast.

 

[Ronald_H]

It's a very good lens and remains very sharp wide open.

But I'd never thought I would say this, it cannot stand up to a Summicron... nor should you expect it to for the price of course.

In any case, very good value for money but a bit too sensitive to flare. A large hood is recommended.

If this sounds like a typical case of 'damning by faint praise', it isn't. I unreservedly recommend this lens!

 

[laptoprob]

The Ultron 35 is one of the lower contrast lenses, that's why I kept mine. I sold the Skopar 35/2,5 earlier.
I use the Summicron clamp-on hood on it, instead of the original screw one.

 

[NathanJD]

Cool, thank you for the advice so far! my budget won't really stretch to a Summicron yet but intend on going down that road once the financial situation improves 😉

 

[Assaf]

I had a copy of this lens and sold it. My copy wasn't very sarp wide open, and had quite low contrast. I didn't have flare problems because I always used a hood. I don't remember this lens had any specific "character" that distinguished it among other lenses, neither a "high end" character that Leica and Zeiss lenses have, nor "low phi" that old character that Russian lenses have.

My copy was black paint which was really thin and wore off easily after moderate use.
Another thing about this lens is that it's an LTM lens, it needs an adapter and the minimal focus distance is 90cm and not 70cm as in M lenses (if that's an issue for you).

I guess you understand by now that based on my personal experience, I don't recommend this lens. There are many alternatives - Nokton 35/1.4 or Zeiss Biogon 35/2 (650USD used) if you have more cash. You can get a Leica Summicron 40/2, if you don't care for the 5mm's, for about 400 USD. Or cheaper lenses such as Skopar 35/2.5 or even a cheap Jupiter 12. To me, all of them are a better deal than the Ulton 35/1.7 (and buy them used and save youself a lot of money)

 

[Roger Hicks]

Optically it's a better lens than a pre-aspheric Summilux but it's 1/2 stop slower and I prefer the ergonomics of the old Summilux -- which is why, after a few years using both, I decided I no longer really needed the Ultron. I second the point about the black paint but to me it looks nicely 'worn in' after rather more than just moderate use.

Unless you're a much better photographer than I, you'll find the same I did: it can take better pictures than you can. I appreciate the M39 filter fitting too.

Tashi delek,

R.

 

[NathanJD]

I'm very much looking forward to getting and using it now 😀 time to advertise my Bessa R2A me thinks

 

[varjag]

I found this lens wide open fine when focused to large distances and pretty mediocre when shooting up close.