Jump to content

Voigtländer Ultron 35/2 and Color-Skopar 21mm f/3.5


feelssadman

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Juristium said:

I just received my copy and i must say the amount of grease is pretty excessive nevertheless anyone have the same experience where the focus tab seems to have a resistance at between 1.5m down to 0.7m?

Amount of grease looks pretty normal for a manual lens but the feeling is not the same as with focus by wire obviously. Bit of resistance below 1m on both my CV 21/3.5 & 35/2 as well but i use my thumb to push the focus stick there so i doesn't bother me that much. I still miss the smoothness and the focus tab of my CV 21/4 though i must say. New lenses will soften with use hopefully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2019 at 7:34 PM, low325 said:

anyone have insight between the 35mm ultron f1.7 vs the new f2 ultron?

I own both lenses; however, I haven't done any major comparative testing yet (and may not the right guy to do this), but I like what I'm seeing from the f/2 version.

For the record: I'm new to this forum - and it seems that I can't post images of any reasonable resolution yet, so I'll stick to verbage for now. I'll find a way to link to files, I guess ...

I own half a dozen 35mm lenses for M mount; I'll list them here in order of arrival in my collection because I think it gives you some insight in why I got so many at all:

Voigtländer Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4 M.C.
Carl Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f/2.8
Voigtländer Ultron 35mm f/1.7
7Artisans 35mm f/2
Carl Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4
Voigtländer Ultron 35mm f/2

I'll not talk much about the Nokton and 7Artisans in this post - they're not in the same league as the other lenses, in spite of their own merits (both render interesting images, that much is certain). But the C Biogon and Distagon serve very similar purposes as the f/2 and f/1.7 Ultron, respectively, so I'll mention them as well - a lot, probably.

So, here's a summary of my comparison of the two Ultrons, with a sprinkle of Zeiss goodness to round it off.

The f/2 lens is of course much smaller and lighter than its stablemate - without being particularily light for its size (it's just a smidgen lighter than the C Biogon). What's surprising to me is how much better it handles than the f/1.7 version - much like a lens with more traditional focus tab (the 7Artisans is gorgeous that way!); in fact, the stick is no worse in real use than any other solution I've come across. One caveat here is that I own the even more heavy chrome plated version of the f/1.7 lens. Not that the f/1.7 Ultron handles particularily badly - but it's a bit awkward at times, mostly due to its narrow, knurled focus ring.

But now, for the more decisive stuff: Optically, the f/2 Ultron is actually closer to the C Biogon than to its bigger brother; it's very sharp wide open across most of the frame, with a quite punchy, contrasty look to the images; while nothing I've ever used really reaches the C Biogon in this regard, the f/2 Ultron comes really close.

Surprisingly, the f/1.7 version distorts a bit more than the f/2 version - which in turn isn't really any worse than the fantastic C Biogon. It's not a big deal with the f/1.7 Ultron - but it's visible.

What's noticeably different is vignetting - it's pretty heavy on the f/2 version wide open, while it's a lot less prominent on the f/1.7 Ultron; so, it's that specific property that seems to be the compromise made to keep the size down. It only clears up once you go past f/5.6. In my experience, the similarily sized C Biogon hardly vignettes at all, but that's an f/2.8 lens, however, the f/1.7 Ultron is not a lot worse than the C Biogon wide open, in spite of its speed, whereas even the mighty Distagon vignettes noticeably at maximum aperture - but it clears up by f/2.8.

In terms of colour and contrast, the f/2 Ultron delivers a more vibrant image wide open - the f/1.7 model has medium contrast and very pleasant, even colours, but it's a touch subdued at times. The f/2 version is clearly punchier, though not quite as crisp as the C Biogon - however, images from that lens can look a bit overcooked at times (still, it's certainly desirable to have all that contrast and detail to work with).

So far, I haven't come across any obnoxious CA with either of the Ultrons - but I'll have to dive deeper into my results to check for that properly. I think that the f/2 Ultron is a little more prone to it because of its higher contrast (I've seen some transient outlining in LiveView with the M10 when focusing), but I'm not sure yet.

I've seen some lens flare (veiling flare, mostly - and not obnoxiously so) from the f/2 Ultron; it has yet to happen with the f/1.7 version, but that may be coincidence.

Unfortunately, bokeh from the f/2 Ultron is often rather busy at medium subject distances - edges in out-of-focus areas remain pretty clearly defined and can become distracting. The good news is that its close-up bokeh is a lot nicer, and swirl is minimal. So, if you're into buttery-smooth bokeh, you'll have to choose the f/1.7 version. The f/2 lens still offers decent subject isolation because transitions are well defined and sharp edges are crisp, and when used within its limitations, bokeh isn't too bad (a far cry from the truely funky performance of the Nokton, at any rate, but less convincing than both the 7Artisans and, surprisingly, the C Biogon, due to its better micro-contrast). The f/1.7 lens clearly is the more elegant performer in this regard, with much smoother transitions and backgrounds that melt away; the slightly reduced contrast helps with that, too. All this makes the f/1.7 Ultron the better portrait lens - it even beats the very impressive Distagon for that purpose.

To sum up, for a lens this small, the Voigtländer 35mm f/2 Ultron performs impressively well. It's (slightly) sharper and clearly contrastier than its bigger f/1.7 sibling, even though the latter wins on overall image quality due to its lack of vignetting and nicer bokeh; both lenses are very good performers for their price range. The f/2 lens has to be stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 to produce fully evenly lit images, but that's it for major concerns; it's not a real issue for me personally. By f/8, it's almost as sharp and well behaved as the C Biogon, too - with comparably minimal distortion. As a small all-purpose lens (as in, travel companion, for instance), the f/2 Ultron would certainly be a good choice (maybe even better than the C Biogon - because that's not a people lens in my book; it's simply too crisp, verging on harsh). Anyhow, keeping the f/1.7 lens around will be (even) harder to justify for me now - the Distagon beats it for speed and sharpness, the f/2 Ultron for portability and contrast as well as, again, sharpness. Though while that may be true for direct comparisons, keep in mind that all differences mentioned are small - even as an all-purpose lens, the f/1.7 Ultron is perfectly fine, and actually quite a bargain.

Still, from my point of view, if you're a portrait and event shooter, the f/1.7 Ultron is the better bet; for everything else, I'd go for the new f/2 version.

Things get slightly more complicated when you factor in the Zeiss lenses. I'd say that the C Biogon and Distagon are both better than their Voigtländer counterparts, but not by a huge margin. However, the f/2 Ultron holds its own as a reasonably fast, very compact lens with very nice IQ - so I'll probably pick it over the C Biogon as a travel companion (though I'll continue to use the little Zeiss lens as my daily driver on the M10). Of the two big boys, the Distagon is the clear winner - but it lacks the effortless elegance of the f/1.7 Ultron, and while that specific characteristic is not something I need very often, others might love it.

M.

Edited by MoonMind
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MoonMind said:

I own both lenses; however, I haven't done any major comparative testing yet (and may not the right guy to do this), but I like what I'm seeing from the f/2 version.

For the record: I'm new to this forum - and it seems that I can't post images of any reasonable resolution yet, so I'll stick to verbage for now. I'll find a way to link to files, I guess ...

I own half a dozen 35mm lenses for M mount; I'll list them here in order of arrival in my collection because I think it gives you some insight in why I got so many at all:

Voigtländer Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4 M.C.
Carl Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f/2.8
Voigtländer Ultron 35mm f/1.7
7Artisans 35mm f/2
Carl Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4
Voigtländer Ultron 35mm f/2

I'll not talk much about the Nokton and 7Artisans in this post - they're not in the same league as the other lenses, in spite of their own merits (both render interesting images, that much is certain). But the C Biogon and Distagon serve very similar purposes as the f/2 and f/1.7 Ultron, respectively, so I'll mention them as well - a lot, probably.

So, here's a summary of my comparison of the two Ultrons, with a sprinkle of Zeiss goodness to round it off.

The f/2 lens is of course much smaller and lighter than its stablemate - without being particularily light for its size (it's just a smidgen lighter than the C Biogon). What's surprising to me is how much better it handles than the f/1.7 version - much like a lens with more traditional focus tab (the 7Artisans is gorgeous that way!); in fact, the stick is no worse in real use than any other solution I've come across. One caveat here is that I own the even more heavy chrome plated version of the f/1.7 lens. Not that the f/1.7 Ultron handles particularily badly - but it's a bit awkward at times, mostly due to its narrow, knurled focus ring.

But now, for the more decisive stuff: Optically, the f/2 Ultron is actually closer to the C Biogon than to its bigger brother; it's very sharp wide open across most of the frame, with a quite punchy, contrasty look to the images; while nothing I've ever used really reaches the C Biogon in this regard, the f/2 Ultron comes really close.

Surprisingly, the f/1.7 version distorts a bit more than the f/2 version - which in turn isn't really any worse than the fantastic C Biogon. It's not a big deal with the f/1.7 Ultron - but it's visible.

What's noticeably different is vignetting - it's pretty heavy on the f/2 version wide open, while it's a lot less prominent on the f/1.7 Ultron; so, it's that specific property that seems to be the compromise made to keep the size down. It only clears up once you go past f/5.6. In my experience, the similarily sized C Biogon hardly vignettes at all, but that's an f/2.8 lens, however, the f/1.7 Ultron is not a lot worse than the C Biogon wide open, in spite of its speed, whereas even the mighty Distagon vignettes noticeably at maximum aperture - but it clears up by f/2.8.

In terms of colour and contrast, the f/2 Ultron delivers a more vibrant image wide open - the f/1.7 model has medium contrast and very pleasant, even colours, but it's a touch subdued at times. The f/2 version is clearly punchier, though not quite as crisp as the C Biogon - however, images from that lens can look a bit overcooked at times (still, it's certainly desirable to have all that contrast and detail to work with).

So far, I haven't come across any obnoxious CA with either of the Ultrons - but I'll have to dive deeper into my results to check for that properly. I think that the f/2 Ultron is a little more prone to it because of its higher contrast (I've seen some transient outlining in LiveView with the M10 when focusing), but I'm not sure yet.

I've seen some lens flare (veiling flare, mostly - and not obnoxiously so) from the f/2 Ultron; it has yet to happen with the f/1.7 version, but that may be coincidence.

Unfortunately, bokeh from the f/2 Ultron is often rather busy at medium subject distances - edges in out-of-focus areas remain pretty clearly defined and can become distracting. The good news is that its close-up bokeh is a lot nicer, and swirl is minimal. So, if you're into buttery-smooth bokeh, you'll have to choose the f/1.7 version. The f/2 lens still offers decent subject isolation because transitions are well defined and sharp edges are crisp, and when used within its limitations, bokeh isn't too bad (a far cry from the truely funky performance of the Nokton, at any rate, but less convincing than both the 7Artisans and, surprisingly, the C Biogon, due to its better micro-contrast). The f/1.7 lens clearly is the more elegant performer in this regard, with much smoother transitions and backgrounds that melt away; the slightly reduced contrast helps with that, too. All this makes the f/1.7 Ultron the better portrait lens - it even beats the very impressive Distagon for that purpose.

To sum up, for a lens this small, the Voigtländer 35mm f/2 Ultron performs impressively well. It's (slightly) sharper and clearly contrastier than its bigger f/1.7 sibling, even though the latter wins on overall image quality due to its lack of vignetting and nicer bokeh; both lenses are very good performers for their price range. The f/2 lens has to be stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 to produce fully evenly lit images, but that's it for major concerns; it's not a real issue for me personally. By f/8, it's almost as sharp and well behaved as the C Biogon, too - with comparably minimal distortion. As a small all-purpose lens (as in, travel companion, for instance), the f/2 Ultron would certainly be a good choice (maybe even better than the C Biogon - because that's not a people lens in my book; it's simply too crisp, verging on harsh). Anyhow, keeping the f/1.7 lens around will be (even) harder to justify for me now - the Distagon beats it for speed and sharpness, the f/2 Ultron for portability and contrast as well as, again, sharpness. Though while that may be true for direct comparisons, keep in mind that all differences mentioned are small - even as an all-purpose lens, the f/1.7 Ultron is perfectly fine, and actually quite a bargain.

Still, from my point of view, if you're a portrait and event shooter, the f/1.7 Ultron is the better bet; for everything else, I'd go for the new f/2 version.

Things get slightly more complicated when you factor in the Zeiss lenses. I'd say that the C Biogon and Distagon are both better than their Voigtländer counterparts, but not by a huge margin. However, the f/2 Ultron holds its own as a reasonably fast, very compact lens with very nice IQ - so I'll probably pick it over the C Biogon as a travel companion (though I'll continue to use the little Zeiss lens as my daily driver on the M10). Of the two big boys, the Distagon is the clear winner - but it lacks the effortless elegance of the f/1.7 Ultron, and while that specific characteristic is not something I need very often, others might love it.

M.

Thank you so much for All this info. This is exactly the type of info I’ve been looking for between these two lenses. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

With the M10 and the 35mm f/2 wide open ...

M.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 4/13/2019 at 12:42 PM, MoonMind said:

With the M10 and the 35mm f/2 wide open ...

M.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Certainly still researching and the f2 ultron looks very good to the amazing ‘cron.  I guess its just a matter of handling at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2019 at 3:51 AM, Juristium said:

I just received my copy and i must say the amount of grease is pretty excessive nevertheless anyone have the same experience where the focus tab seems to have a resistance at between 1.5m down to 0.7m?

I have seen white grease on previous lenses focus helicoinds  from same manufacturers. Uneven focus resistance is also not unusual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 11:42 PM, MoonMind said:

I own half a dozen 35mm lenses for M mount; I'll list them here in order of arrival in my collection because I think it gives you some insight in why I got so many at all:

Voigtländer Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4 M.C.
Carl Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f/2.8
Voigtländer Ultron 35mm f/1.7
7Artisans 35mm f/2
Carl Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4
Voigtländer Ultron 35mm f/2

M.

thank you so much for your informative comparison and thoughts, this is the type of post that makes the whole forum thing worth it :D

 

Edited by colonel
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Other than LCT , and Thankyou LCT I don’t hear anyone discussing this lens, I don’t see any good detail reviews. This is leading me away from a purchase.  Any other experiences to share on the 21?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning, 

i own the 21 SEM and for now 3 months also the 21 Voigtländer 3.5

I can only talk About my copies of the lenses.

My SEM 21 went to Leica 2 times due to decentration, but the last time i got it back, it Looks like it is centered well.

For this reason i wanted to try the voigtländer.

What i can say after 3 months of use (About my copies) :

Sharpness ist the same, i cant see any difference in 200% view. It is the same about all apertures from 3.4(3.5) to f11 even in the Corners. Corners are very good already wide open withboth lenses.

It doesnt matter to the Corners in my copy, if i Code the voigtländer as 21 2.8 asph or tri Elmar 21 f4.

Vignetting is a Little more visible on the voigtländer, but not very much.

There are a little more CAs with the voigtländer but both lenses are corrected very well for that and i youre not Hunting for them you'll hardly find any difference

The SEM shows better Flare resistance when Shooting directly into the sun. There  i never experienced any prolbem with the SEM, but the voigtländer (sometimes) can Flare quite a bit and that can ruin the shot if it isnt intended (but i only had two ocasions where Flare was a Prolbem). And often you can shoot directly into the sun with the voigtländer and all is fine. But it CAN Flare quite a bit

The sunstars are much nicer with the voigtländer and much earlier and easier to produce.

All in all i must say i am very impressed by the voigtländer . The only Problem i could see for someone shooting directly into the sun most of the time. There it may be, that the SEM is the better choice, but for the trade of he sunstars.

Regarding the Price Point, if i would need a 21 for my Leica i wouldnt hesitate a Minute to purchase the voigtländer. 

I use the lenses on an M10.

Regards

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting into the light is one of the biggest reasons for my using the 21mm f3.4 Super Elmar. It’s just flat virtually immune to flaring and I use it and/or the 18mm f3.8 Super Elmar pretty much all the time for my sunrise morning outtings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coding lenses to settings that are not made for them is not my cup of tea if i can avoid it but the CV 21/3.5 has a recessed part in the flange for hand coding purpose like other current CV lenses. I may try to hand code mine this way if someone is interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just tried to hand-code the CV 21/3.5 on my M240 and digital CL.
- On the M240, the lens is not recognized when it is hand-coded as 21/3.4 asph. Remains an "Unknown lens" then. But the lens is recognized as 21/2.8 asph when it is hand-coded as such. Don't ask me what difference it makes IQ wise if any.
- On the digital CL, the lens is not recognized be it hand-coded as 21/3.4 asph or 21/2.8 asph. Remains an "Unknown lens" in both cases on this body.
BTW i used a (now discontinued) Match Technical coding kit for this test and my Leica 21/3.4 asph is normally recognized as such on both cameras.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...