What's the word on the Voightlander 35 1.7 Ultron?

Bosk

Bosk

Make photos, not war.
Local time
8:58 PM
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
202
Hi guys,

I'm currently using a Voightlander 35 2.5 Color-Skopar pancake lens, and while It's certainly not a bad little lens I'm not quite happy with the handling using the focusing tab, and would prefer to upgrade to something faster.

So how good is the 35 1.7 Ultron compared with the Color-Skopar I have now? Would I be able to shoot it wide-open at 1.7 and get acceptable sharpness & contrast?

My other concern would be the difference in size and weight. Would the 35 Ultron be roughly the same as my 4th version 50 Summicron, or even larger & heavier?

I also considered the 35 1.2 Nokton, then I saw the price and stopped considering. :D


Thanks very much for any opinons you can offer me. :)
 
Hrm...it's been a long time since I've had my hands on one. If I play my cards right I'll have my hands on one again soon, but this time it'll be one I can keep. :)

I can't say much for the size because I can't completely remember, but I DO remember the way images looked. I never posted any because most of them were just family stuff, but I love this lens. To bits.
 
It's a good lens. it is quite a bit bigger than the 35/2.5 but can still fit in a large coat pocket when fitted to a Bessa R. I like the focusing tab on the 35/2.5 but the Ultron is wide enough that a normal focusing ring works well.

There are quite a few archived threads on this lens that you can search for on RFF.
 
I've just sold my C/V 1.7/35mm for a 2.5/35 pancake-I. I wasn't ever happy with the size of the 1.7/35mm, handling, contrast, color rendition and (worse) backlight flare. It's quite sufficient for B&W wide open streetshooting work, but nothing else, IMHO....
 
I used the 35/1.7 a little longer than one year almost exclusively. Handling was ok. Build quality was ok, as long as you don't mind the black paint coming off fairly soon (was not a problem for me). While I found the 35/1.7 to be a good performer in "normal" light situations, in low light and wide open the lens has a quite unpleasent tendency to vignet in the corners (exemplified in links below). The Carl Zeiss Biogon 35 ZM is a quantum leap better in this respect - that's why the Biogon is now my standard lens. Cheers.

Examples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gerold/134001605/in/set-72057594124901014/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gerold/134104536/in/set-72057594124901014/
 
Gerold Marti said:
Build quality was ok, as long as you don't mind the black paint coming off fairly soon (was not a problem for me).
Click to expand...

I had the silver 1.7/35mm and the paint holds excellent. I had another silver C/V and some black C/V. Silver isn't as nice when new but keeps better than black. (Probably the same with the new ZI lenses)

Probably you are right with the 2/35 Biogon. This is the right upgrade path for the (already excellent) 2.5/35mm Skopar, and much better as a universal lens than the 1.7/35. More expensive as well...
 
Gerold Marti said:
I used the 35/1.7 a little longer than one year almost exclusively. Handling was ok. Build quality was ok, as long as you don't mind the black paint coming off fairly soon (was not a problem for me). While I found the 35/1.7 to be a good performer in "normal" light situations, in low light and wide open the lens has a quite unpleasent tendency to vignet in the corners (exemplified in links below). The Carl Zeiss Biogon 35 ZM is a quantum leap better in this respect - that's why the Biogon is now my standard lens. Cheers.

Examples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gerold/134001605/in/set-72057594124901014/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gerold/134104536/in/set-72057594124901014/
Click to expand...

We had quite a lot of discussion about vignetting a while ago - it did not seem to be a function of the lens, more about light direction, subject etc. I'll try to find the thread.
 
I've used the Ultron and I like it. It's very compact (not as compact as 35mm cron, though), and has good sharpness and bokeh.

A recent example on photo.net
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IAcu&tag=


The only downside is the focus throw is quite short (less than 90 degree). Some people like short focus throw but not me, but for the price of the lens you can't complain too much.
 
I'm fiddling with an Ultron at the moment. It's not light, but neither is it monstrously heavy, it's certainly light enough to carry without any great problem. It's compact enough too. Can't tell you what it's like optically yet. Build and ergonomics seem fine to me, especially given the price.

Ian
 
The word on it is "Ultron". And "Voigtlander". I think "Made in Japan" on the barrel. Lots of good words on it.

It's a good lens ;)
 
gabrielma said:
The word on it is "Ultron". And "Voigtlander". I think "Made in Japan" on the barrel. Lots of good words on it.

It's a good lens ;)
Click to expand...

sorry to correct you: it is "Voigtländer"

;)

sebastian
 
Would the 35 Ultron be roughly the same as my 4th version 50 Summicron, or even larger & heavier?
Click to expand...

Very similar in size actually, maybe just a bit broader at the base.

I also have the Ultron and find it a very good lens. No problems with mine. Ergonomically I like the large size compared to the shorter stumpier 35mm lenses I have had.
 
I have both. I prefer the results from the Ultron, but the size of the Skopar; although, the size of the Ultron is very manageable. I do not cosider it a large lens at all. I find the Skopar to be almost too constrasty with some b&w films. I think it's great for color. IMO, the Ultron is the better lens. I have seen it vignette, but this was not in a wide-open situation. It was in brightly lit conditions (beach setting).


:)
 
Last edited:
sebastel said:
sorry to correct you: it is "Voigtländer"

;)

sebastian
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I'm using a neutered US keyboard. And if I dare use codes, then this forum takes me to pages that I never inteded to navigate. ( It's a "feature" :mad: )

I could have said "Voigtlaender" and still have been grammatically correct ;)
 
gabrielma said:
The word on it is "Ultron". And "Voigtlander". I think "Made in Japan" on the barrel. Lots of good words on it.

It's a good lens ;)
Click to expand...

You forgot "aspheric" :)

I quite liked mine preferring its contrast to the Skopar, here's a couple of medium aperture shots for comparison.

ULTRON

SKOPAR Pii

Mark
 
If you've got a 4th gen summicron, I'm just curious why you'd even want another lens unless you were going to get a summilux.

From what I understand, owning one myself and reading about the CV's, the Summicron is a better lens in almost all respects (with the almost being cost) than the CV 2.5 and probably better in almost everything except the extra bit of speed than the CV 1.7. Seems like the only 35 you'd need short of a Summilux if you want that extra speed or the ASPH verision if you want the extra sharpness.
 
I love my little 35mm/2.5 Pancake, so much so when I upgrade to the monster 35mm/1.2 I'm not selling it. Even if I'm going to miss the free shipping period.

The only time I've had contrast problems with my Pancake and black and white film (Printing at grade 1) was when I was putting the faith into the meter on my Bessa R's, now with my M2's I hand meter and/or play Ansel Adams and haven't had problem since.

Stu :)
 
oh, i see, ALT+0228 won't work, and preparing it in a extra editor is just too time consuming.
sorry if i bugged someone. ;-)

btw: capitalizing me won't work. the day i left school i decided to only use minuscules (except for rendering the stressing of words).

cheers
sebastian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom