LTM 35/1.7 Ultron

[Guest d.sge]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello, 

 

I didn't see a screw mount or third party lens section here, so...

 

I'm curious about three metrics of the original 35/1.7 Ultron, between f/1.7 and f/2.8, in particular.

 

1.) Coma

2.) Field curvature

3.) Flare (ghosting, especially, but also the veiling kind of flare most noticeable in the shadows (T* coatings, I'm sure it has not)).

 

Any personal insight or reference links would be greatly appreciated.

 

Regards,

Daniel

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Dan Bachmann]

I've had this lens for about 5 years after reading about it on Reid Reviews. For awhile, it was my favourite lens when I was in 35mm mode (sometimes I swing into 50mm). Many others have complianed about the flaring, which I have never had a problem with until shooting in bright mid-day sun earlier this year while in Japan. When the flare did happen, I kind of liked it (I usually hate flare and it was the reason I returned a new 50mm Summicron towards the used 50mm Summilux which is my favourite one lens set up).

 

Here's examples of the flare:

Kyoto, Japan

 

Naples, Italy

 

It is an aspherical lens, but not pronounced enough so it will work well with both modern and classic lenses. The contrast is great and I can't really fault it.

 

More examples of my experience with this lens can be found here:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/ultron/pool/94884421@N00

 

The Voigtlander 75mm f/2.5 LTM is also an amazing lens and matches the 35mm Ultron very well. From what I can see, these are Voigtlander's finest lenses and they have lost their way since then making faster glass but at the cost of having focus shift and being much larger.

[Guest d.sge]

If the flare was a recent development, might there be some moisture or something affecting the elements?

[Dan Bachmann]

If the flare was a recent development, might there be some moisture or something affecting the elements?

 

I usually don't have any flare because I'm in cloudy London. I only saw it shooting directly into the sun a few times in Japan and once in Italy. The lens hood is tiny - if replaced with a larger one, the flare would be reduced further. From my experience, the flare is much more controlled than in the 50mm Summicron (which I returned mainly for that reason).

[scsambrook]

I never had flare problems with mine, although I used a deeper hood than the silly thing provided with it. Nor could I complain about how it performed at wide apertures on my M2 or my M8 - although with the latter camera you  never see the "real edges and corners" of the image. Stopped down, it never got as sharp as my 35/2.8 Summaron but the difference was really not enough to bother anyone except a pixel-peeping obsessive. It did have a rangefinder coupling problem at close ranges which wasn't a problem with the M2 but which did show on the M8 (whose rangefinder accuracy I had checked back at the factory).

 

I would say that if you want to go out and take photographs with your Leica then it's a very nice lens to have - and far, far less costly than any 35mm Summicron.

[Guest d.sge]

I don't really subscribe to the "for the price it's..." "It's" what I need. Considering the size at which I print, I need even performance across the frame in a lens faster than my 2.8/35 C-Biogon. I thought the Ultron may serve as a stop gap until reports from the likes of Erwin Puts are out on the new 2.0/35 Summicron, but I suspect that it won't do the trick from what little I've found.

 

Regarding my original points 1, and 2, perhaps a better question is this... What is the (edit: smallest) flattest field f/2.0 or faster M or screw mount 35mm lens?