Voigtlander Ultron 35mm F2 Aspherical Images

Leica M4, Voigtlander 35 2.0 Ultron ASPH, 022 filter, Kodak XX 5222, HC-110B:



Pioneer Square, Downton Portland


Hydrangeas, Northwest Portland
 
Shot with French Digital Leica M rangefinder Pixii

Shot with French Digital Leica M rangefinder Pixii

ISO 320 Voigtlander 35mm f/2 mostly f/2.8 to f/5.6


P0000376-2-1600.jpg


P0000384-2-1600.jpg


P0000377-2-1600.jpg


P0000372-2-1600.jpg


P0000384-2-1600.jpg


P0000351-2-1600.jpg
 
How would you guys describe the rendering on the Ultron? To me, it has some "similar characterisitcs" as my Voigtlander Color-Skopar, but probably more elements, but it's hard to characterize.

To me, Leica lenses look just a hair sharper than Voigtlander or Zeiss, assuming you nail the focus, but it could just be me.

I'm not really sure how to characterize Zeiss (Say, 50mm Planar F2) images as looking at them, it's hard to tell the difference between them and the Voigtlander.
 
Forest_rain said:
How would you guys describe the rendering on the Ultron? To me, it has some "similar characterisitcs" as my Voigtlander Color-Skopar, but probably more elements, but it's hard to characterize.

To me, Leica lenses look just a hair sharper than Voigtlander or Zeiss, assuming you nail the focus, but it could just be me.

I'm not really sure how to characterize Zeiss (Say, 50mm Planar F2) images as looking at them, it's hard to tell the difference between them and the Voigtlander.
Click to expand...

I compared the Ultron with the Summicron ASPH V1 on film in the thread below. I would say the Ultron is just as sharp, if not sharper than the Leica. I've owned/used multiple copies of the Skopar 35/2.5 in the past and the Ultron is definitely a step up in performance IMO.

Ultron 35mm f2 Aspherical vs Summicron 35mm f2 ASPH
 
Forest_rain said:
How would you guys describe the rendering on the Ultron? To me, it has some "similar characterisitcs" as my Voigtlander Color-Skopar, but probably more elements, but it's hard to characterize.

To me, Leica lenses look just a hair sharper than Voigtlander or Zeiss, assuming you nail the focus, but it could just be me.

I'm not really sure how to characterize Zeiss (Say, 50mm Planar F2) images as looking at them, it's hard to tell the difference between them and the Voigtlander.
Click to expand...

Jons comparison with the 35 ASPH above gives a pretty good idea of the technical performance of the lens compared to the 35mm gold standard.

The rendering is thoroughly technically proficient, but not clinical or sterile. At f2 bright highlights can be 'creamy' and have a little bit of softness or glow to them. My copy is better close up than at infinity. The bokeh has a little bit of swirl to it which gives the otherwise super smooth rendering a bit of character. It vignettes up till about f8. Around f4 and close up (half body portrait distance) I think it's probably the sharpest lens I've ever used.

Here's an example of the bokeh character at f2 -

50164793371_8eb5856972_c.jpg
 
For many years my main lens was a 35 Summicron ASPH V5. I loved that lens and in many ways thought it was just about the perfect rangefinder lens. It was sold with a lot of other gear to finance a much needed home improvement project. Last year I found a very nice early run M4, just about the same time the Voigtlander 2.0 Ultron ASPH was released. I bought one that had been sent out for review and saved even more money from its' bargain price. After using the Ultron for a year, it has quirks but it always produces great results. It will never be a Summicron but it sure is close enough and it leaves enough cash for another lens or two.

Northwest 23rd Ave, Portland
 
Forest_rain said:
How would you guys describe the rendering on the Ultron? To me, it has some "similar characterisitcs" as my Voigtlander Color-Skopar, but probably more elements, but it's hard to characterize.

To me, Leica lenses look just a hair sharper than Voigtlander or Zeiss, assuming you nail the focus, but it could just be me.

I'm not really sure how to characterize Zeiss (Say, 50mm Planar F2) images as looking at them, it's hard to tell the difference between them and the Voigtlander.
Click to expand...

I've never quite understood terms like 'clinical' and 'character' and 'classic' when it comes to a lens' rendering. They seem to have different meanings to different people, much of which is based on a lenses reputation rather than experience or samples.

With that said... In my experience (almost all on film), the 35/f2 Ultron is sharp across the frame at all apertures. I don't know how sharp (I don't shoot controlled tests), but sharp enough that I don't need to think about maximising sharpness when choosing an aperture.

I like the bokeh. As mentioned above, it swirls a bit in some situations (particularly if the subject is at the middle of the focus range, say 1.5-2m, and the background has busy highlights). OOF highlights will produce 'cat's eye' bokeh balls away from centre.

It vignettes a bit at large apertures. Stopped down it doesn't.

It's contrasty and has great colour. I haven't noticed flare, although I've shot mostly with the dedicated Voigtlander hood.

It produces great sunstars (as you would expect from a lens with 10 ruler-straight aperture blades).
 
I always enjoy when Erik post images of brick buildings.It shows the ability of the lens to render straight lines or clearly show distortion.This was taken shortly after sunrise on a Sunday morning and the street drops quite steeply:




Thinker Toys, Multnomah Village, Oregon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom