Why isn't the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.7 Ultron more popular?

jsrockit

jsrockit

Moderator
Staff member
Local time
9:45 PM
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
22,662
I purchased this lens from a fellow RFF member for $250 and I am wowed by it. Sharp enough wide open (not very sharp though), nice contrast, nice bokeh, no focus shift, etc. Sure its build quality isn't great and it flairs at times ... but the flair gives off that Leica glow that people seem to love in old Leica glass. Just wondering what I am missing?
 
... minimum focus distance maybe? all I've got are screwmount lenses right now and that 1 m thing gets really annoying.
 
Ah yes... true dragunov. It doesn't bother me, but I can see that being annoying for some.
 
jsrockit said:
Hmmm... $250-325 vs. $750-800 used ... I don't get it.
Click to expand...

What's not to get? While the price difference is 2-3 times, $750 is not much for a lens of this caliber, and a 35mm lens that can't focus to 0.7M is unacceptable, IMHO. 50mm you can live with but on a 35mm is not good enough.
 
They say the build quality is not as good as the new CV lenses but I never had any problem with mine. I think it is more the style of build has people moving, I know it was the only reason I moved. I liked focusing with fingers from my right hand the way I did with my 'Cron. Eventually I moved to Nikon RFs which have that wonderful little focusing wheel that works with 50 and winder, but that's another thread.

I think the fact that you do not see any for sale speaks to quality of build and image. A fine lens at a good price (most times).

B2 (;->
 
The 35 Ultron is a great lens, and not any different in build quality than the two 35mm Biogons. Few used copies out there - owners are happy except for the ones wanting to "trade up", seeking the magic bullet that says Leica or Zeiss on the beauty ring :)

It has less distortion than the 35/1.2, BTW. And also, the Ultron's design is surprisingly similar to the M-Hexanon 35/2, not many 35s with concave front element. Almost the same lens diagram, except two Hex elements substituted with one ASPH element.

Not a secret, but I myself prefer the 35/1.4, for several reasons, but the 1.7 certainly has more resolution.

Here is my favorite 35 Ultron shot - reposted:

394252094_eRQPy-L-1.jpg


Enjoy your lens ....

Roland.
 
Last edited:
I loved mine. I only sold it because it was falling apart.
It performed very well at f/2.8
 
Last edited:
i've always thought the Ultron a great lens and definately equal in image quality to a v4 summicron. I've never had issue with the min focus or the build quality. it was my first rf lens and I sold it when I got an asph 'cron. I eventually sold that and got a v4 and a 'lux but ended up getting another Ultron as they are a cheap v4!!! Slightly warmer with colour film than the Leica glass.
 
leicashot said:
What's not to get? While the price difference is 2-3 times, $750 is not much for a lens of this caliber, and a 35mm lens that can't focus to 0.7M is unacceptable, IMHO. 50mm you can live with but on a 35mm is not good enough.
Click to expand...

Ok, you win. My 35mm Ultron is my 50mm.
 
Double Negative said:
Exactly, it's not like the price difference between, say, a Summicron and Summilux. A couple hundred bucks more for the 1,2/35 Nokton is well worth it, IMO. It's a stellar lens, especially wide open - which is what you're mostly paying for.

Plus there's the "convenience" of a true M mount lens; people don't have to worry about an LTM adapter (especially if you plan to code). Doesn't bother me, but I'm just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Well, $400-500 difference in price is significant to many people... including me. Not to mention the size / weight difference. An adapter... jeez, really? They are so hard to screw on. :D

My point was not that the Ultron is the best lens out there (not even sure why the 1.2 was mentioned in this thread). However, for a fast 35mm at $300 that actually works well... it cannot be beat.
 
I think you have answered you own question ;)

It is not that they are unpopular, it is more that the owners (like me) intend to keep them.

Kim

jsrockit said:
Well, $400-500 difference in price is significant to many people... including me. Not to mention the size / weight difference. An adapter... jeez, really? They are so hard to screw on. :D

My point was not that the Ultron is the best lens out there (not even sure why the 1.2 was mentioned in this thread). However, for a fast 35mm at $300 that actually works well... it cannot be beat.
Click to expand...
 
It'd be more popular if the Nokton 35/1.4 didn't exist. Personally, I can't live with the 0.9m min focus, and I like a smaller lens.
 
aperture64 said:
This is my first CV lens. I own a 35mm Summicron. I figured I would give it a try over the 35mm Nokton because of the focus shift and the distortion in the Nokton. I have not gotten my film from the lab yet, so I have not seen any images from it. But, the heft of the lens impressed me. It does not feel cheap. The previous owner included the M adapter and the original boxes. I wish the min focus distance was less, but didn't know other lenses had a closer distance until I read this thread. I bought it because I think the current 35mm Summicron prices are ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Focus shift and distortion in Nokton? Says who?
 
Don't miss mine. Build quality did not bother me and optical performance was certainly good; however, as stated by other above, the 1m minimum focusing distance was too often an issue for me. I also disliked the size (too big) and the lack of "personality".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom