35mm - This is the way!

[TomKB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you for the responses. 

[TomKB]

Can someone give a comparison between the Lens Light Lab 35mm and the Voigtlander Ultron 35mm 2.0?  They are similar products and I was wondering if someone has first-hand experience with both.  

[Advertisement]

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

[Dennis]

20 minutes ago, TomKB said:

Can someone give a comparison between the Lens Light Lab 35mm and the Voigtlander Ultron 35mm 2.0?  They are similar products and I was wondering if someone has first-hand experience with both.  

I can't compare cause I never use an Ultron ( roughly the v2), but I can comment. I disagree with being similar products. They are two different rendering worlds. The LLL is a replica of 20th-century design, while the Ultrons (both) are modern lenses. If you say Ultron against the Summircon Asph, it makes sense. But the LLL against Ultron, it's not easy to compare.
Horses for courses...
.
I can only say that I recently printed a 12x18" in rag paper, a picture taken with the LLL with my M10, and it looks terrific and delightful to my eyes. 
For me, the LLL is definitely a storytelling lens...

[TomKB]

On 10/7/2022 at 4:06 PM, TomKB said:

Can someone give a comparison between the Lens Light Lab 35mm and the Voigtlander Ultron 35mm 2.0?  They are similar products and I was wondering if someone has first-hand experience with both.  

I'll try to answer my own question.  I was curious so I ordered the Ultron 2.0.  I have the LLL and for fun I also compared it to the Ultron 1.7.  In brief, this is how I summarize the three lenses:

Ultron 1.7 

+ The best all around performer of the three lenses 

+ Easiest to get critical focus with excellent focusing ergonomics 

+ Closest minimum focus distance 

+ Fastest 

+ Smooth bokeh, albeit perhaps bland, but suitable for a 35mm 

+ Sharpest corners at F8 among the three lenses 

+ Accurate colors 

+ Amazing construction 

+ 1.7 aperture can create a film feel to some shots. 

- The worst size and weight. This lens poses an issue for all day shooting. Note, that I have the brass version. 

 

Ultron 2.0 

+ To my surprise, it's sharper than the 1.7. 

+ More of a vintage bokeh, compared to the 1.7, which I personally like. 

+ I have seen some photos (not mine) that give a vintage quality but this could be editing. 

+ Good corner performance at f8, if that is your thing. 

- Huge negative: the build quality is not up to Voigtlander standards. See below. 

- The color seems to skew to green.  I'd need to have the lens longer to form a certain opinion. 

- Vignetting at 2.0 reaches into the midframe. 

 

Light Lens Lab

+ Among the three lenses, it more often has the best black and white images.  I'd want to compare it to my other single coated lenses before I proclaim it very good. 

+ Good construction and mostly good ergonomics.  

+ I like the bokeh

- I expected better warm colors. The colors are good, better than the Ultron 2.0, but I was hoping for something akin to my vintage Leica Summicron 50mm. 

- Softness and spherical qualities are sometimes a good thing, and not always a bad thing, but be prepared. 

- A lot of distortion 

- The aperture ring has poor ergonomics.  

- Vignetting at 2.0 reaches into the midframe. 

 

Conclusion 

I got the Ultron 2.0 hoping that it would replace my 1.7 Ultron.  I love the 1.7, and it's my go-to lens.  But when I travel, I get tired of its weight and how it makes  my camera tip and feel imbalanced.  It's just too massive for a rangefinder.  I received the Ultron 2.0 yesterday and out of the box it was defective.  The focus ring is so bad that there is no way that this could have passed QC.  The optics seem seaworthy, so I made some test shots to learn about it.  Could it replace the 1.7 Ultron? Will I replace the defective product?  I don't know.  It's very sharp, surprisingly so, but I don't yearn for more sharpness.  I guess I wanted a smaller substitute for the 1.7.   I like having an accurate reporting lens with little distortion.  With the 1.7, I know that I can take it anywhere and shoot everything well.  Still, I'd give up lens speed for size and weight, so I hoped the 2.0 was the iteration that fit my needs.  I suppose in some ways it is.  The quality issue aside, it is might be a competent lens for general use.  I'm concerned about the color skewing.  I might try another one to see if maybe mine was a dud inside and out.  

And the LLL? I bought the LLL to supplement my 1.7.  I wanted a lens with character to supplement my main lens.  Honestly, I had hoped for more character than what I got. At least for color shots, using the 1.7 at F1.7 delivers more character than the LLL.  Still, I've not had the LLL for that long, and like a lot of things, maybe I need to grow into it.  The good news is that I admire the B&W shots that I get from it. Part of me wonders if I would have been better served getting the single coated 35mm 1.4 Voigtlander for much less money.  Still, it's definitely a good lens and I'm happy to have it.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2022 by TomKB

[Jeff S]

46 minutes ago, TomKB said:

I'll try to answer my own question.  I was curious so I ordered the Ultron 2.0.  I have the LLL and for fun I also compared it to the Ultron 1.7.  In brief, this is how I summarize the three lenses:

Ultron 1.7 

+ The best all around performer of the three lenses 

+ Easiest to get critical focus with excellent focusing ergonomics 

+ Closest minimum focus distance 

+ Fastest 

+ Smooth bokeh, albeit perhaps bland, but suitable for a 35mm 

+ Sharpest corners at F8 among the three lenses 

+ Accurate colors 

+ Amazing construction 

+ 1.7 aperture can create a film feel to some shots. 

- The worst size and weight. This lens poses an issue for all day shooting. Note, that I have the brass version. 

 

Ultron 2.0 

+ To my surprise, it's sharper than the 1.7. 

+ More of a vintage bokeh, compared to the 1.7, which I personally like. 

+ I have seen some photos (not mine) that give a vintage quality but this could be editing. 

+ Good corner performance at f8, if that is your thing. 

- Huge negative: the build quality is not up to Voigtlander standards. See below. 

- The color seems to skew to green.  I'd need to have the lens longer to form a certain opinion. 

- Vignetting at 2.0 reaches into the midframe. 

 

Light Lens Lab

+ Among the three lenses, it more often has the best black and white images.  I'd want to compare it to my other single coated lenses before I proclaim it very good. 

+ Good construction and mostly good ergonomics.  

+ I like the bokeh

- I expected better warm colors. The colors are good, better than the Ultron 2.0, but I was hoping for something akin to my vintage Leica Summicron 50mm. 

- Softness and spherical qualities are sometimes a good thing, and not always a bad thing, but be prepared. 

- A lot of distortion 

- The aperture ring has poor ergonomics.  

- Vignetting at 2.0 reaches into the midframe. 

 

Conclusion 

I got the Ultron 2.0 hoping that it would replace my 1.7 Ultron.  I love the 1.7, and it's my go-to lens.  But when I travel, I get tired of it's weight and how it makes  my camera tip and feel imbalanced.  It's just too massive for a rangefinder.  I received the Ultron 2.0 yesterday and out of the box it was defective.  The focus ring is so bad that there is no way that this could have passed QC.  The optics seem seaworthy, so I made some test shots to learn about it.  Could it replace the 1.7 Ultron? Will I replace the defective product?  I don't know.  It's very sharp, surprisingly so, but I don't yearn for more sharpness.  I guess I wanted a smaller substitute for the 1.7.   I like having an accurate reporting lens with little distortion.  With the 1.7, I know that I can take it anywhere and shoot everything well.  Still, I'd give up lens speed for size and weight, so I hoped the 2.0 was the iteration that fit my needs.  I suppose in some ways it is.  The quality issue aside, it is might be a competent lens for general use.  I'm concerned about the color skewing.  I might try another one to see if maybe mine was a dud inside and out.  

And the LLL? I bought the LLL to supplement my 1.7.  I wanted a lens with character to supplement my main lens.  Honestly, I had hoped for more character than what I got. At least for color shots, using the 1.7 at F1.7 delivers more character than the LLL.  Still, I've not had the LLL for that long, and like a lot of things, maybe I need to grow into it.  The good news is that I admire the B&W shots that I get from it. Part of me wonders if I would have been better served getting the single coated 35mm 1.4 Voigtlander for much less money.  Still, it's definitely a good lens and I'm happy to have it.  

 

 

 

 

 

Various discussions by some regarding binding focus issues with the 35 CV Ultron ii f/2…

 

Haven’t read about similar issues with the prior version of the same lens.

Jeff

[TomKB]

5 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Various discussions by some regarding binding focus issues with the 35 CV Ultron ii f/2…

 

Haven’t read about similar issues with the prior version of the same lens.

Jeff

Thanks.  I didn't know that it was a known issue.  That the problem is not isolated makes me concerned.  I own a bunch of Voigtlander lenses, and I think the build ranges from good to amazing (the 1.7 Ultron).    I might not replace the Ultron 2.0.  

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, TomKB said:

Thanks.  I didn't know that it was a known issue.  That the problem is not isolated makes me concerned.  I own a bunch of Voigtlander lenses, and I think the build ranges from good to amazing (the 1.7 Ultron).    I might not replace the Ultron 2.0.  

CameraQuest (Steve Gandy) offers a 30 day return, no questions asked.

Jeff

[oldwino]

Best advice: buy the Ultron f2 new, so you can return it if defective.

The LLL is a replica of the 1st Summicron version, so it shares that lens's attributes. I find all of the Leitz 35mm lenses of that era, the Summicron and the Summarons, to be somewhat "conservative" in vibe. They are good, but don't call attention to themselves. Canon and Nikon made some LTM lenses in the same time period that show a lot of character in comparison to the Leitz products. More showy.

[TomKB]

15 hours ago, Jeff S said:

CameraQuest (Steve Gandy) offers a 30 day return, no questions asked.

Jeff

Agreed.  I always purchase new through them via Amazon.  I will return the lens. They have been good to work with over the years. 

[Jeff S]

3 minutes ago, TomKB said:

Agreed.  I always purchase new through them via Amazon.  I will return the lens. They have been good to work with over the years. 

I ended up not buying the Ultron, but I discussed issues and return/exchange policies directly with Steve as part of my due diligence. I would have bought directly from him if I had decided to purchase. (I’m still happy with my 35 Summicron ASPH v.1) Steve also still sells the Ultron v.1, which has no history of binding focus, but differs in other ergonomics/cosmetics from v.2. 

Jeff

[TomKB]

38 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I ended up not buying the Ultron, but I discussed issues and return/exchange policies directly with Steve as part of my due diligence. I would have bought directly from him if I had decided to purchase. (I’m still happy with my 35 Summicron ASPH v.1) Steve also still sells the Ultron v.1, which has no history of binding focus, but differs in other ergonomics/cosmetics from v.2. 

Jeff

I think that I'll skip this generation of Ultrons and see what comes.  The color rendering is not to my taste. 

[TomKB]

The Voigtlander Nokton Vintage Line 35mm f/1.5 Type II VM looks promising.  We will know in a month or so. 

 

[Dennis]

1 hour ago, TomKB said:

The Voigtlander Nokton Vintage Line 35mm f/1.5 Type II VM looks promising.  We will know in a month or so. 

 

Yes... A 35mm lover (like me) could be very interested... Maybe, to expect a lot of vignette.

But I adore tiny and light lenses. Especially if they render well, and they are 35mm   🙂  

Let's see