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

I love this lens so much. One of the true bargain lenses out there that you can use with a Leica.
 
I guess it's not popular because it lacks the appeal of a Leica lens' quality and price (oddly, a high price is sometimes a good selling tactic), and misses out on having a signature character, such as my own favorite, the Canon 35/2.0 has.

I have one, but don't like it much. The 35mm Ultron may just be the Toyota Camry of the 35mm lens world - utilitarian, generally reliable, affordable, but meh.
 
... misses out on having a signature character ...

Eh? I LOVE the character (bokey, contrast rendering, wide-open nebulosity, etc.) the Ultron posesses. I have a bunch of Nikkors, Zuikos and Sekors, and the little Ultron does things none of them do. It certainly has it's own signature! And I like it's look!
 
It's a very fine lens optically. It does not take hard use well however - a bit fragile.

David, that's not my experience, I've had this lens for four years now, in and out of my Domke with hood on, getting snagged here and there is not uncommon. It also has the most airline mileage of all my other lenses :)

Left it in the car in the summer once or twice, also shooting in dry and chilly winter.

It looks and feels like the day I got it. Used.

4821879486_32e9e8e323_z.jpg


If it were closer to the size of Summilux pre-ASPH 35/1.4, I would declare that I am done :D
 
I wanted to get one, was slightly put off by the reports of poor build quality, but thought I'd take a chance. But they aren't plentiful out there. Some posters on this thread talk about getting the Ultron for $200 or 300. When I was looking over several months this year, they were going for well over $400 and I couldn't quite swallow that. I was outbid twice on E-Bay. I ended getting a 2.5 classic black instead, virtually new for $200. I like the way the 2.5 handles, but still wouldn't mind getting a faster lens.
 
Back
Top Bottom