Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 6 months later...
  • 4 months later...
On 8/10/2019 at 1:39 PM, Urushi said:

I have a Zeiss 35mm F2 Biogon and the more I use my M 240 the more I find myself reaching for smaller lenses. I don't want to lose any speed so I was thinking of the Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f2 ASPH. Are there other lenses I should consider? I would like to not spend more than $2,000 and I am okay with used lenses.

I was just wondering if you decided which lens ...  

If you are comfortable with a minimum aperture of 2.8, the Zeiss is incredible, almost perfect. I'm in a kind of situation in another thread (of mine), where looking for a fast 35 lens to add to my Biogon for the very low light conditions. If you are not shooting in dark situation, the Zeiss can be your choice. Super small and light.

Let us know

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

A couple more words could be useful here though. The CV pic looks slightly cropped and distorted due to the M 35/2 asph profile i suspect. This profile corrects for pincushion correction the CV 35/2 doesn't suffer from in my experience. Result is the CV pics look a bit distorted and cropped on the CL with this profile. Could be worse but to get better results, i'd rather use no lens profile at all with the CV 35/2 (as i do) or try another lens profile correcting for barrel distortion (M 35/2 pre-asph) or with no distortion correction and no cropping instead (M 35/1.4 pre-asph). FWIW.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This thread has been on for a while. I am considering Zeiss vs Voigtländer. Also the Summaron 35mm/2.8 seems very good, but for +1200$...

 

what do you think about Zeiss ZM Biogon 35mm/2.8 vs Voigtländer Ultron VM 35mm/2.0?

 

Is the Ultron as good as the Biogon?

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2019 at 2:38 PM, Urushi said:

Okay. the C Biogon is out.

I have read that the 40mm 1.4 Nokton is better (less distortion) than the 35mm...does anyone know if that is true? I know that no 40mm frame lines are a drawback.

YES for sure!  I have shot the Voigtlander 40mm 1.4 MC for many years and just purchased the NEW 35mm 1.4 version II.   The 40mm has less distortion BUT I love the funky distortion of the 35mm when desired.    But the 40mm has a more normal look with the same same GORGEOUS shallow depth of field.   The 40mm 1.2 is even more beautiful but by a slight margin. The bokeh is creamier/smoother.  But I keep going back to the 40mm 1.4 cause it's so light and tiny and really delivers!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rokkor said:

[...] what do you think about Zeiss ZM Biogon 35mm/2.8 vs Voigtländer Ultron VM 35mm/2.0?

Is the Ultron as good as the Biogon? [...]

Both sharp and contrasty lenses. The Ultron has more CA and less vignetting. The Biogon has less flare and a smoother bokeh. Not to say that the Ultron has much flare and harsh bokeh though. Differences are not huge anyway. If i did not need f/2 i would prefer the Biogon but among 35/2 lenses the Ultron is no slouch compared to the Summicron 35/2 asph and has more acutance than the Summicron 35/2 v4. Otherwise you may love or hate the focus aids of both lenses and the glossy finish of the Ultron render its DoF markings unreadable in bright sunlight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 10 Stunden schrieb lct:

Both sharp and contrasty lenses. The Ultron has more CA and less vignetting. The Biogon has less flare and a smoother bokeh. Not to say that the Ultron has much flare and harsh bokeh though. Differences are not huge anyway. If i did not need f/2 i would prefer the Biogon but among 35/2 lenses the Ultron is no slouch compared to the Summicron 35/2 asph and has more acutance than the Summicron 35/2 v4. Otherwise you may love or hate the focus aids of both lenses and the glossy finish of the Ultron render its DoF markings unreadable in bright sunlight. 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. With its size and 2.0 the Ultron seems unique as a Summicron alternative. I guess both are good options. I have read the Ultron has a more vintage look in the photos (“cinematographic“) and the Biogon 2.8 more modern and clean.still there is a big fan community behind this lens and Ken Rockwell reviewed it very positively.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rokkor said:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. With its size and 2.0 the Ultron seems unique as a Summicron alternative. I guess both are good options. I have read the Ultron has a more vintage look in the photos (“cinematographic“) and the Biogon 2.8 more modern and clean.still there is a big fan community behind this lens and Ken Rockwell reviewed it very positively.

Not sure where you read that it has a vintage look but i can assure you that the Ultron 35/2 asph has a modern IQ, with similar acutance as that of the Summicron 35/2 asph. Here at f/2: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-2SXxzQP/0/e8bb862e/X4/i-2SXxzQP-X4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 52 Minuten schrieb lct:

Not sure where you read that it has a vintage look but i can assure you that the Ultron 35/2 asph has a modern IQ, with similar acutance as that of the Summicron 35/2 asph. Here at f/2: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-2SXxzQP/0/e8bb862e/X4/i-2SXxzQP-X4.jpg

Thanks. This image does look modern indeed.

Two examples talking about the vintage character:

”This lens is going to be put on your camera when you want a small lens that packs some vintage character, and by vintage I do not mean soft, mushy or with bad color. I mean there is something about this lens that reminds me of shooting film, probably because the rendering takes me back to that time when film was hot, and these were the kind of lenses many of us shot.” Steve Huff Photo https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2019/05/04/the-voigtlander-35-f-2-ultron-review-vintage-perfection/

 

If the occasional spherical “vintage” bokeh effect and minor ergonomic issues aren’t an issue, this lens is a great addition to any Leica camera. It’ll make your hiking, travel and every day carrying experience a lot leaner.”

https://www.nickbedford.com/blog/2019/10/the-voigtlander-35mm-f2-ultron

 

Edited by Rokkor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but i don't know what "spherical vintage bokeh" can mean and the lens doesn't take me back to film days as none of the 35mm lenses i used to use then could reach such an acutance level but i don't read reviews of lenses i own generally. In my humble vocabulary i would say that the Ultron 35/2 asph is a compact clone to the Summicron 35/2 asph, IQ wise, with a focus stick instead of a focus tab. :cool:

Edited by lct
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 55 Minuten schrieb lct:

Sorry but i don't know what "spherical vintage bokeh" can mean and the lens doesn't take me back to film days as none of the 35mm lenses i used to use then could reach such an acutance level but i don't read reviews of lenses i own generally. In my humble vocabulary i would say that the Ultron 35/2 asph is a compact clone to the Summicron 35/2 asph, IQ wise, with a focus stick instead of a focus tab. :cool:

Haha. I get your point. 😎 And from what you have sent me the Voigtländer Ultron 2.0 does look modern and sharp indeed.

Do you also use a Summicron? You sound very convinced. I probably need to look for more examples on Flickr to get an idea of the style out of this lens.

Edited by Rokkor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Matter of tastes of course but among my 35/2 lenses, i prefer the Summicron 35/2 v4 for portrait and people, the Summicron 35/2 asph v1 for the rest on FF and the Ultron 35/2 asph as a substitute to the latter on the digital CL. FWIW.

Edited by lct
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...