Sparrow
Veteran
i jest...sorry
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I had a 4th-gen Summicron. At least to me, all reports of its greatness have been wildly exaggerated. "Wide open" it is stopped down by about half a stop compared to the first version, and there is very very slight evidence of this in DOF shots.
I stuck to my Ultron. I'm hoping to get lucky one day and get a first generation 35 'cron without the goggles for $900 or less some day. The first gen 'cron is worth it, imho. Unless, of course, you like the "modern look". The 35 Skopar gives you that. I've considered it for its size, but the Ultron is just fine and dandy (and fast).
I stuck to my Ultron. I'm hoping to get lucky one day and get a first generation 35 'cron without the goggles for $900 or less some day. The first gen 'cron is worth it, imho. Unless, of course, you like the "modern look". The 35 Skopar gives you that. I've considered it for its size, but the Ultron is just fine and dandy (and fast).
gelmir
Established
Gerold Marti said:
Gerold, how would you compare the biogon to the ultron, size wise ? I'm considering to get the biogon but I have yet to try it first as I'm not sure I will like its size. The Ultron was ok for me as I find the smaller lenses too akward to use.
Last edited:
I had an Ultron, 50 Summicron and some ZM lenses all together at one point (not owned, just looking) and they were all about the same size. This included the ZM 35 and 50, 50 Summi and Ultron.
tom_f77
Tom Fenwick
gabrielma said:I had a 4th-gen Summicron. At least to me, all reports of its greatness have been wildly exaggerated. "Wide open" it is stopped down by about half a stop compared to the first version, and there is very very slight evidence of this in DOF shots.
I stuck to my Ultron. I'm hoping to get lucky one day and get a first generation 35 'cron without the goggles for $900 or less some day. The first gen 'cron is worth it, imho. Unless, of course, you like the "modern look". The 35 Skopar gives you that. I've considered it for its size, but the Ultron is just fine and dandy (and fast).
I had an Ultron for a good while, then I got all gassy and ended up with that Summicron. Have also tried a 3.5cm Elmar, Summaron and now just have a P2, but I really wish I still had the Ultron...
Tom
Dougg
Seasoned Member
Thanks Gabriel for mentioning the 1st gen 'cron... been a while since I've seen anyone refer to it, complimentary or other! Interesting about your half-stop-faster comment. I've had mine since 1967, and was my only RF 35 until recently with the Planar-G. It's also extremely compact compared to a 35 'cron ASPH or Biogon ZM. I think the old Summicron gives quite a pleasant look.gabrielma said:
Attachments
Gerold
Mittagspausenkünstler
gelmir said:
Without having checked the relevant spec sheets, in my recollection the Ultron is a tad shorter and a little lighter than the Biogon. The Ultron certainly looks a little smaller, because of the form factor and the (seemingly?) smaller front lens. But you better let the specs answer your question. Cosina.co.jp has 'em all. Oh, lens form. After some time, you get used to virtually anything. I didn't get to grips with the 35 Pancake at first. Now, it is one of my favourites. And on a R2A it makes for a truly pocketable and perhaps one of the smallest M-mount outfits on the planet. And that's good in a world of ever tighter air travel security regimes.
You can't really go wrong with the Biogon. Resolution, contrast, color, out-of-focus area - - impressive optical results which ended my search. But the Ultron is a very capable lens under the very best part of light conditions, too, and even under critical conditions delivers acceptable results. And the 35 Pancake II is a truly unique piece - very well corrected optics in a tiny package. Enjoy the dilemma
!
Bosk
Make photos, not war.
Many thanks for all those replies and especially the example shots which are really helpful.
I'm still undecided which 35 I'm going to upgrade to, but the 1.7 Ultron is definately on the 'short list'.
It's actually a surprise to me how highly regarded Voightlander lenses are (universally it seems) considering I'd never heard of them before I became interested in rangefinders. Seems a pity they don't make Nikon/Canon SLR lenses if only to increase awareness of how good they are.
I'm still undecided which 35 I'm going to upgrade to, but the 1.7 Ultron is definately on the 'short list'.
It's actually a surprise to me how highly regarded Voightlander lenses are (universally it seems) considering I'd never heard of them before I became interested in rangefinders. Seems a pity they don't make Nikon/Canon SLR lenses if only to increase awareness of how good they are.
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
They actually do make F-mount Nikon lenses...but they're manual focus and some of them have been discontinued. Those are VERY good, though.
grainhound
Well-known
Question by the tech challenged: how is the 4th gen Summicron f2, wide open, stopped down by a half stop compared to the 1st gen Summicron, also f2?
Last edited:
dostacos
Dan
I love my 35/2.5C but wanted more low light capability... so I went with the 28/1.9 just a touch wider. love itBosk said:Many thanks for all those replies and especially the example shots which are really helpful.
I'm still undecided which 35 I'm going to upgrade to, but the 1.7 Ultron is definately on the 'short list'.
It's actually a surprise to me how highly regarded Voightlander lenses are (universally it seems) considering I'd never heard of them before I became interested in rangefinders. Seems a pity they don't make Nikon/Canon SLR lenses if only to increase awareness of how good they are.