migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
Damn Good on available light! (wide open all of them- 1.7)
Need to test against the W-Nikkor 35 and Industar J12 but so far, I'm very happy.
Bessa R2 - CV Ultron 35 1.7 + BW400
Need to test against the W-Nikkor 35 and Industar J12 but so far, I'm very happy.
Bessa R2 - CV Ultron 35 1.7 + BW400
Attachments
Last edited:
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
I've been carrying my Classic 35 2.5 riding on my Bessa R for days, waiting for inspiration! These have been flat days for me. Wish Autumn were back. I need shadows!
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
As the samples above indicate (thanks all for sharing your pics), this lens excel
in available light, close-range, people photography.
I think I am one step closer to being done
in available light, close-range, people photography.
I think I am one step closer to being done
Last edited:
froyd
Veteran
Disenchanted
Disenchanted
I'm also among the minority who's not wowed by this lens. I've had it fro six months and none of the images I've taken with it have much "personality".
Part of the probem is that I'm struggling with the focal length, but even after forcing myself to use exclusively the 35 for 6 weeks I was uninpressed by the combiantion of my own use of it and the lense's performance.
I'm keeping it because it's the fastest lens I can afford, but I'm far more pleased with the results I get from my humble Industar 61 LD. I'd like to find an affordable 35 mm with as much character as that lens. Recommendations?
Disenchanted
I'm also among the minority who's not wowed by this lens. I've had it fro six months and none of the images I've taken with it have much "personality".
Part of the probem is that I'm struggling with the focal length, but even after forcing myself to use exclusively the 35 for 6 weeks I was uninpressed by the combiantion of my own use of it and the lense's performance.
I'm keeping it because it's the fastest lens I can afford, but I'm far more pleased with the results I get from my humble Industar 61 LD. I'd like to find an affordable 35 mm with as much character as that lens. Recommendations?
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Maybe you're looking for a more "classic" feel? The black (more recently made) Jupiter 12 will fit the Canon P, I've been told, but will NOT fit the Bessa, as that lens protrudes too much towards the curtains/meter of the Bessa. This is info I obtained when asking about it here and there. You might want to try the Canon 35/2 - I understand that lens has a pretty good reputation. All word of mouth info I just gave you. Anyone want to share real world info?
As for MY new lens -- I just did 8 shots on an test run with my Ultron that has minute marks on the outside surface near the rim, and it seems perfectly good anyway, based on the prints I just got back from the CVS 1 hour lab. I need to scan them, however, to make sure. I need to be looking for more detail than is availble with these smallish prints. Quality seems equal/better than my CV Classic. Indoor, wide open looks fine with nice creamy bokeh. Also, since I shot in color - which I don't usually use - it's harder to compare. I'll know more tonight.
As for MY new lens -- I just did 8 shots on an test run with my Ultron that has minute marks on the outside surface near the rim, and it seems perfectly good anyway, based on the prints I just got back from the CVS 1 hour lab. I need to scan them, however, to make sure. I need to be looking for more detail than is availble with these smallish prints. Quality seems equal/better than my CV Classic. Indoor, wide open looks fine with nice creamy bokeh. Also, since I shot in color - which I don't usually use - it's harder to compare. I'll know more tonight.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
froyd, it will help us to help you more if you can post two shots,
one shot from your Ultron and another from your Industar side-by-side.
That way we can see what kind of "character" you're missing on the Ultron and found in the Industar.
Let's see some pictures...
one shot from your Ultron and another from your Industar side-by-side.
That way we can see what kind of "character" you're missing on the Ultron and found in the Industar.
Let's see some pictures...
froyd
Veteran
shadowfox said:
Gladly... Unfortunately I'm sneaking a quick peek at RFF from work and don't have access to my pictures, but I will post something tonight.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
I know what you mean about the I 61 L/D - I have one and love it. BUT: it's not 35mm, and it's not a particularly fast lens at 2.8 --
Here's what I think you mean by its character- and I love it, myself.
Here's what I think you mean by its character- and I love it, myself.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
januaryman said:I know what you mean about the I 61 L/D - I have one and love it. BUT: it's not 35mm, and it's not a particularly fast lens at 2.8 --
Here's what I think you mean by its character- and I love it, myself.
Hmmm, that shot looks like the ones that my Industar 50-2 (or Olympus 35 RC) typically produce. Sharp, biting (contrasty) sharpness, and non-distracting bokeh, but not creamy. Is this lens based on the Tessar design?
The Ultron, spec.-wise is a more complex lens. It doesn't have the level of sharpness at wide-open, but it produces more sense of "depth" (to avoid the other term that caused consternation for some people not too long ago
).This picture with the lens open wide, for example (posted before, but big version):
) looks like it's right in front of you. And you can see the receding focus clearly as the distance grows. That, is what I meant by "depth".I see similar "characters" in highly-corrected lenses like the H.Zuiko or the Zeiss Distagons.
froyd
Veteran
Finally online...
Finally online...
Here are the images I promised.
First off, two with the Ultron:
0923 breakfast (2).jpg
probably f8 1/125 @ infinity
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=79369
either f4 or 5.6
Though the scans are not telling, the quality of the lens is good in both (good colors, sharp, not overly contrasty) however, I feel as if the lens lacks soul.
By comparison, here are a few shots where I see the "character" I miss in the Ultron. These are from a very good version of the Industar 61 LD lens --my only other frame of reference in the RF world. (However, I feel equally enthusiastic about my lowly Nikon AF 50mm 1.8).
0915 GTB Mini.jpg
I love the glow, the rendering of the OoF areas, the Kodachrome feel. BTW, this shot is actually pretty sharp in real life. Shot wide open (2.8) at 1/30.
0930 Matt Allison wedding NH (7).jpg
This was no more than 1/8 wide open. I'm attracted by the classic look of this lens can achieve --as is the case here. The 61 can be both sharp and contrasty, but never looks surgical or what I define as "modern".
Hope these images come through OK. I cannot figure out how to embed images in the message. These are all in my gallery, if they don't show up here.
Finally online...
Here are the images I promised.
First off, two with the Ultron:
probably f8 1/125 @ infinity
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=79369
either f4 or 5.6
Though the scans are not telling, the quality of the lens is good in both (good colors, sharp, not overly contrasty) however, I feel as if the lens lacks soul.
By comparison, here are a few shots where I see the "character" I miss in the Ultron. These are from a very good version of the Industar 61 LD lens --my only other frame of reference in the RF world. (However, I feel equally enthusiastic about my lowly Nikon AF 50mm 1.8).
0915 GTB Mini.jpg
This was no more than 1/8 wide open. I'm attracted by the classic look of this lens can achieve --as is the case here. The 61 can be both sharp and contrasty, but never looks surgical or what I define as "modern".
Hope these images come through OK. I cannot figure out how to embed images in the message. These are all in my gallery, if they don't show up here.
Attachments
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
froyd, thanks for following up with the pictures.
I hope you don't mind me pointing this out.
You were comparing f8 and f4/f5.6 on the Ultron vs wide open on the Industar. Not surprising that you'll get different "look"
I'd suggest to use the Ultron in f2.8 and/or wider, under similar lighting as the pictures from the Industar, and then if you still like the Industar results, do post it here for our education. I'm curious to find out.
I hope you don't mind me pointing this out.
You were comparing f8 and f4/f5.6 on the Ultron vs wide open on the Industar. Not surprising that you'll get different "look"
I'd suggest to use the Ultron in f2.8 and/or wider, under similar lighting as the pictures from the Industar, and then if you still like the Industar results, do post it here for our education. I'm curious to find out.
froyd
Veteran
shadowfox said:I hope you don't mind me pointing this out.
You were comparing f8 and f4/f5.6 on the Ultron vs wide open on the Industar. Not surprising that you'll get different "look"
I don't mind at all, and the point is well taken. Certainly the depth of field plays a part in the attached examples. However, my feelings toward the Ultron are based on several months, and many rolls, of "slugging it" with a focal lens that's not suiting me well --and maybe my discomfort with the focal lens influences my feelings toward the Ultron specifically.
In any case, I should have picked examples that would have been more apples to apples, but it's hard to find them because I generally use the two lenses for different types of shots.
Here is a few Ultron shots at the opened end --apologies in advance for the low resolution:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=79562&ppuser=6408
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=79561&ppuser=6408
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=79560&ppuser=6408
While the shots above exhibit good technical attributes (might be hard to see that from the scans), they seem almost to "clean" and aseptic, aside from the subject matter, which, as it should be evident, is highly personal.
My other beef with the Ultron is the minimum focusing distance. I'd hate to give up the f1.7 when my 50 is slow, but the Skopar might be a better for for me. Or maybe I should give up on the 35s in general and pick up a 21. After all, my most used focal lenght on the slr.
Jacob
Established
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Rover, nice ones, I like look of the second one in particular. It has depth
Bingley
Veteran
Bumping the thread
Bumping the thread
I went for a walk along the Sacramento River yesterday with my new (to me) Ultron 35, and thought I'd share some results. I think I'm going to like this lens...
All taken with a Canon 7, Fuji Superia.
Bumping the thread
I went for a walk along the Sacramento River yesterday with my new (to me) Ultron 35, and thought I'd share some results. I think I'm going to like this lens...
All taken with a Canon 7, Fuji Superia.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Steve, I like all the shots, the 2nd being my least favorite, but even that is good. In answer to your Q. about the I61L/D, it is based on the Tessar, you are right. I like the bokeh it produces quite a lot, but the Helios 103 on my Kiev blows all my other lenses out of the water, to me.
Helios example
Helios example
Bingley
Veteran
Thanks, Jim. And you're right about the bokeh from your helios -- that's a lovely shot. (It was Will's Q about the I 61, not mine, but thanks for the info!). I'm enjoying the photos over on your flickr site, btw.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Steve, nice set of pictures, I love the guy on the bike, the wood texture on the boardwalk shows how sharp the lens could be.