Voigtlander 35mm Ultron f2 vs f1.7

N

nickthetasmaniac

Veteran
Local time
6:34 AM
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
2,572
G'day all,

I was wondering if anyone has had the opportunity to shoot the two 35mm Ultrons side-by-side on film? Other than the obvious size and ergonomic differences, how to they compare?

I've been eyeing the f1.7 for a few years for my M2, but the f2 looks like it ticks a lot of boxes... The challenge of choices!

Thanks, Nick

*NOTE* Fwiw the f2 is about $200 cheaper than the f1.7 in Australia. I thought this was the case everywhere but I just saw that in the US they're the same price.
 
I have been shooting the f1.7 now for a couple of years on mainly my digital M262 but am starting to shoot film again too and, completed some rolls last week with the lens on both an M6 and M4.

The 35/1.7 Ultron VM is top drawer. I personally think it’s better than any 35mm offering from Leica. Recently sold my 35/1.4 FLE, still have the Summicron and Summarit. I should just sell the Summicron ASPH and keep the Summarit for its superior against the light ability vs the f2 ASPH, but the Ultron betters them both.

The new 35mm f2 looks like a winner optically. Notice how it’s $100 more expensive than the also new version 2 of the 35mm f1.4? I do wish the f2 had the focus tab instead of that little protrusion of a focus knob. Of course, many don’t care for the styling of the 35/1.7 either, but I do.

If I were buying today....I’d probably still pick the f1.7 Ultron.
 
My 35 2.0 Ultron arrived a few days ago and have used it for a very short time. The focusing rod is similar to the 21 LTM Color Skopar, a lens I enjoyed using but was sold to fund a different project. The focus throw is smooth throughout the entire arc, the warning being this lens is really designed for a mirrorless body, minimum focus is .5 meter sending it well past the .7 of most rangefinder couplings. You have to be careful if the habit is to rack the focus all the way to the left for minimum focus, pay attention to the rangefinder. The f-stop ring has two tabs making selections easy. The tabs are very useful if you have the LH-12 hood attached. The stops have solid clicks for both half and full. It packs a lot in for it’s size and I’m looking forward to using it regularly.
 
What are the differences?
I read somewhere that the ƒ2 is essentially a reworking of the Leica Summicron 8-element adding correction using aspherical surfaces, low-dispersion glass and modern coatings. I've used neither and am curious what those who have can tell what differentiates them. My 35s are a Summaron ƒ2.8 and ZF Biogon C.
These two Ultrons appear the best choices out there for a faster 35.
 
I had 35 1.7 on film. LTM. VM is even better but less handy.
I was set on 35 1.4 II, but by the time I will have money for it... they might have Chineese copy of ELC Lux...
 
james.liam said:
I read somewhere that the ƒ2 is essentially a reworking of the Leica Summicron 8-element adding correction using aspherical surfaces, low-dispersion glass and modern coatings.
Click to expand...

Looking at the optical diagrams for the two lenses, that seems like a bit of a stretch. They both have 8 elements and are a double-Gauss design, other than that there's a fair bit of difference.
 
nickthetasmaniac said:
Looking at the optical diagrams for the two lenses, that seems like a bit of a stretch. They both have 8 elements and are a double-Gauss design, other than that there's a fair bit of difference.
Click to expand...

The Planar-based 35cron v1 is highly symmetrical. The original Ultron design is less-so to begin with, not to mention the retrofocus tweak and all the modern witchcraft that has been put into the 35/2 Ultron.
 
I've been using the f2 Ultron version for the past couple months and it's excellent. It's VERY sharp, the coatings are excellent and it's so small and light. Personally I don't think the 1.7 is worth the extra size for a 1/3rd stop.
 
I would get the 35/1.7 Ultron if I really needed another 35mm lens. I have a 50/2 Ultron and I wonder what is special about the design of Ultron lenses.
 
raid said:
I would get the 35/1.7! Ultron if I really needed another 35mm lens. I gave a 50/2 Ultron and I wonder what is special about the design of Ultron lenses.
Click to expand...

The modern Voigtländer lenses named "Ultron" don't have anything special in common optical design wise. And these are wide angles have nothing in common with the old 50mm Ultron. It's just a label.
 
Five years ago, I picked up the LTM Ultron and loved the rendering, although it wouldn't focus properly on my M9 so I returned it. A month or so ago, I got another copy which focuses perfectly. Apparently, the recent M version is a completely different lens design, so I'd have to shoot it side by side with the LTM version to see how much of a difference there is.


I'd love to get my hands on the new f2 Ultron. It's even smaller than the 35mm f1.4 Nokton but appears to have better image quality.
 
I wonder which manual profile of the Leica M 240 would fit best. Probably the 35-2.0 Summicron-IV because both lenses have less distortion than the newer aspherical 35's ?
 
Sonnar2, I have the idea that the digital M lens profiles do not correct distortion at all, but fix colour cast and maybe vignetting. Lightroom though will correct lens distortions automatically, I think, if you have that feature selected when you import.
I have M9s and I used to have an M240 and that's way the profiles behaved on mine, which is why sometimes a profile belonging to another focal length can work better than the seemingly closest Leica lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom