View Full Version : Skopar Vs Ultron
surlysimon
01-30-2005, 12:44
hi
i am wieghing up between a 35mm Skopar and the 35 Ultron, the price difference is only AUS$100 (US$75) so it's really a question of which is best.
has anyone had the oportunity to make a direct comparision?
simon
Peter owns both and has stated a couple times that the Ultron is the better of two very good lenses. I owned the Ultron and found it excellent.
If the difference is $75, by all means, go for the Ultron. (Difference in cost at Cameraquest is $170.)
I've had both - both fine lenses, but I preferred the Ultron and think it is well worth the extra $75.
I've got both. Both are very very good lenses. If the Ultron is better, it's only fractionally. I've done some direct comparisons and really, at 8x12 you're hard pressed to pick any difference at all. The big differences are in speed and size. The Ultron is a stop and a half quicker, but it's also (literally) twice the size.
So IMHO the real questions are: Do you need a faster lens than f2.5? or slower than f16? (Ultron = f1.7 - f16; Skopar = f2.5 - f22)
And how important is the bulk of the lens to you? The Ultron adds a *significant* amount to the physical bulk of the camera.....
Bottom line is that you can't really go wrong with either, just choose the one that suits you better.
Some people have reported questionable quality control with the Ultrons, no one seems to be sure whether it's early or late models, or just a lottery. All I can say is that mine is fine.
tim
Hi there Simon! :)
I have the 35/2.5 Skopar but I read everywhere that the Ulton is terrific. Personally I really like my lens and in part its because its so tiny. It is really good at f2.5 too! :)
Simon,
I don't own either lens but also consider buying one of them and have done some research. What Tim wrote pretty much sums the information I have gathered so far. I think both are good lenses.
I have read reports by some people complaining that the front element of the Ultron comes off (screws loosening or something like that). I have contacted Stephen from Cameraquest and asked him about it, he replied it's not a common problem from his experience.
One more thing to consider: The closest focusing distance of Color Skopar is 0.7m, Ultron: 0.9m.
Huck Finn
01-30-2005, 15:24
Simon, if you're looking for a direct comparison of the two, Popular Photography did a review of 4 Voigtlander lenses in their July, 2000 issue. They regarded both as "well above averag," "placing them among the top lenses offered by Leica, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, & Pentax," "delivering outstanding image quality." Of the two, the Ultron had higher marks on Pop Photo's SQF charts. If you're interested in a copy of the report, which also includes reviews of the 50 Nokton & the 75 Heliar, it can be ordered from Pop Photo's website. Erwin Puts has a review of the Ultron on his website & called it a "match" for the Leica pre-ASPH 35 Summicron.
ummmmm Simon, I have an Ultron for sale at the moment - the post in the classified is missing so I presume it was one of the ones that got dropped in one of the DB restores........
I'll post it in the classifieds again, but:
Ultron 35/1.7, black, vg cond, some minor chips out of the paint on the front edge of the hood, still got over 12 months of Aus warranty, with M adapter. AUD $400 + shipping
tim
surlysimon
01-30-2005, 18:05
tim
i would be interested i am in melbourne. have you got a pic you could post here?
simon
OK, it's taken me 3 days to find the interface cable for the digicam... :( i could have done film in that time, and got a better result (I'm really bad with gear photos).
Anyway, crap pictures, but here it is. As I mentioned above, very good cond, only problem is a couple of chips of paint off the edge of the hood. Aus warranty runs till May 06.
Simon gets right of first refusal......
tim
Richard Black
02-02-2005, 17:24
Gene Anderson reveiwed the Color-Skopar 35mm, Ultron 35mm, and Nokton 35mm in the January edition of Black and White Photography, the British magazine. It is quite good and rates all them all very good. He even compares them to a L***a lens. Weight is a factor on the Nokton, but if you don't need speed then you have to compare the price. Good review! :D
Hello. A newbie here.
I'm bumping this thread to ask a relevant question.
I'm thinking of purchasing either the skopar 35/2 or the ultron 35/1.7 lens. While the compactness is not so important to me, I am looking for high contrast and saturation in the lens. I will often shoot in low light, so I'm very drawn to the ultron, but I hear that it's a little low contrast. Is that true?
Thanks,
jc
back alley
11-01-2005, 16:44
don't know about the ultron but the 35/2.5 is very contrasty.
joe
Don't know about the Ultron (plenty of Ultron owners here) but I can tell you that the f2.5 Color-Skopar is a high contrast lens. You do not need a yellow filter with that lens. :)
I only have the Ultron so can't compare. Coming from the SLR world, it doesn't seem that big or heavy to me and I like the 1.7 aperture. Again, can't compare the two lenses on contrast, but mine seems plenty contrasty. I've been pleased with it.
Gene
Gabriel M.A.
11-01-2005, 18:20
I don't own the Color-Skopar, but the Ultron, wide open at f/1.7, has a nice blend of "modern" look and "creaminess" that is often found in older lenses. I guess it depends on what you're looking for.
The Color-Skopar is more compact, the Ultron is about 2 inches long, and its closest minimum focus is 0.9 meters
Marc Jutras
11-01-2005, 19:50
I own the Ultron and it's my favourite lens. I'll switch to another lens only if I can't take the shot with the 35mm focal lenght. I don't find it big but I'm used to Canon L zooms.
I haven't tried a Skopar but from what I've seen in the RFF galleries, I found its contrast to be way too strong for my taste. Peter's gallery is excellent to see results from both. It's really easy to guess which lens was used. If it seems like contrast was bumped heavilly in PS, it's the Skopar. If everything's smooth, it's the Ultron. Sharpness is similar.
Check my gallery and website to see plenty of samples from the Ultron, both B&W and color.
tetrisattack
11-01-2005, 19:53
The skopar really IS a high contrast lens, and here are some pictures to prove it. :) I did a photo project in New England two weeks ago that required two cameras, one for b&w, one for color, so I brought a bessa-r + 35 skopar (with medium yellow filter) and shot tri-x at 400, developed in rodinal 1:50. I put some in this gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5388
Also, I've attached some other snapshots just for further reference.
Aesthetically, I wanted wide swaths of dark, inky tones for this project, and the skopar was more than up to the task. I actually wish that it held more shadow detail rather than pushing everything deeper to black.
Maybe somebody should post some "typical" ultron shots, to help get a good comparison?
I used the 35mm skopar for a few months this summer and found it a bit too contrasty for my tastes as well, thought I have never tried the 35mm ultron. Besides that it was a good lens, small and the build quality was good. I prefered the look my low contrast jupiter 3 gives pictures, so I sold the skopar at the end of the summer.
back alley
11-01-2005, 20:15
the 35/2.5 is a great well built little lens but it taught me that i much prefer the older sharp but lower contrast lenses.
joe
Thank you, everyone, for your input. Marc and tetrisattack, thanks for sharing your beautifully shot photos. The ultron images look contrasty enough to my eyes. I just agreed to buy a Bessa R body from a forum member (thanks!!) so I will purchase a lens as soon as my funds replenish. More likely I'll go with the ultron, but I'll see what my bank account will tell me. :)
I'll add that I have both. I shot a lot with the 2.5, and almost as much with the 1.7. I can corraborate that the 2.5 is indeed a contrasty, sharp, well made little gem.
I shot a lot in bright, contrasty situations, which seemed to compound the characteristics of the lens, so I found myself switching film, and developers and processing techniques to lower contrast.
I think the 1.7 is a little less contrastier, and overall the better lens. I searched my files for an image shot with each in similar light, similar speed film, and similar developers. I couldn't find the examples with the same developers.
The one with the cowboyin the parking lot is the 35/2.5, with Tri-X, developed in straight D23.
The other is the 35/1.7, with NP400, developed in a split D76 (it may not be a fair comparison for this reason).
I'll keep looking for something closer. Hope this helps, though.
Thanks, RayPA. Seeing the two photos side by side really helped. I had to look really closely to see the subtly darker blacks in the skopar image. I think it's safe to say that I will go with the ultron. I suppose if I want more contrast, I can use more contrasty film.
phototone
11-02-2005, 07:52
I own all the Voigtlander 35mm lenses, Skopar, Ultron, Nokton. They are all very good lenses, and give similar results at the same f/stops. They are definately modern lenses, with good contrast and sharpness, and way better than any SLR zoom lens. My favorite 35mm lens, though is the 35mm Summaron f/3.5, and I use it unless I need a faster lens. I have a Summaron in both LTM mount and in a dedicated "M" mount. So I got it covered for all my Leica models.
petebown
11-02-2005, 14:15
What brilliant timing for this question!!!
Today, I've just bought a s/h R2A with a 35mm f1.7 Ultron. I already own a 35mm f2.5 Skopar. I was going to resell the Ultron along with my Bessa R but have just been comparing the two lenses...
The Skopar is nicer to focus as it has a focussing tab. I don't like the Ultron's focussing ring as its too close to the camera more fiddly to use. A major worry for me, is the fact that the Ultron takes a huge chunk out of the viewfinder! This problem also occurs with the 90mm Lanthar when used with the lens hood, but the problem is much worse with the Ultron. Its bearable on the 90mm but really obtrusive on the Ultron.
However, the most important thing is photographic images not what the lenses look or feel like. I will take some test shots with the two lenses over the weekend and will publish my images and verdict here, so watch this space... One lens is going to get fired! I intend to test both lenses at minimim and maximum apertures as well as f2.8 and f8. I will also be testing the lenses bokeh.
Just being pedantic here, but Tim stated that the Ultron is a stop and a half faster than the Skopar... f1.7 is only one stop faster than f2.5
2.8 -> 2 is one stop, 2 -> 1.5 is another. It is around 1.5 to 2 stops faster than the skopar. Its not just the number, for example, 16 -> 22 is one stop too.
Just clearing that up for you.
:)
I have the 35 Ultron and love it, it is a fair bit larger than the Skopar. No problem with loose elements either. I read somewhere (maybe in this forum) of a case where the 50 lost its' rear element group. This is the exception to the rule.
I guess it really depends upon the type of photography that your into. Here in England we have many cloudy days when it's not raining :D where a highter contrast kens will work better. :)
You guys are making me want my Ultron back.
Where is Denis?
petebown
11-02-2005, 15:53
einolu,
The Ultron is one stop brighter than the Skopar... There are two click stops on the Ultron from f1.7 to f2.5 and it has half click stops.
Half stops go f1, f1.2, f1.4, f1.7, f2, f2.4, f2.8, f3.4, f4, f4.8, f5.6, f6.7 etc
Therefore, the Ultron is marginally over one stop brighter than the Ultron but not 1.5 stops brighter than the Skopar, as officially the half stop is f2.4 rather than f2.5... Although most manufacturers use f2.5 rather than f2.4 as the half stop. The 35mm Nokton f1.2 is two stops brighter than the Skopar. No way is the Ultron 1.5-2 stops brighter than the Skopar.
Just clearing that up.
The way I remember it is you divide an f-stop by 1.4142 to calculate the f-stop that doubles the light. Of course you would multiply by 1.4142 to get the next smaller f-stop. If I'm remembering correctly, that means that an f1.8 lens (f1.7678 to be exact) would be one stop faster than an f2.5 lens. An f1.4434 lens would be one and one half stops faster.
I guess this means that you can call an f1.7 lens either one stop faster or one and one half stops faster than an f2.5 lens but it's really much closer to one stop.
Huck Finn
11-02-2005, 18:16
Just to complicate things further for you guys who are trying to calculate the f/stops. They are labeled f/1.7 and f/2.5, but when tested, Pop Photo measure the Ultron at f/1.8 & the Skopar at f/2.7. Now go crunch the numbers. LOL :D
richard_l
11-02-2005, 18:44
To the nearest tenth there's a 0.2 stop difference between f/1.8 and f/1.7. Just square the f-numbers, divide, and take the base 2 log. There are a bunch of other equally correct ways to do it, all equivalent.
well if you use the 'round down' and then the 'round up' method, both invented by me, the ultron is in fact 4 stops faster!
;)
PS: god, I am clueless!
Gabriel M.A.
11-02-2005, 20:07
To the nearest tenth there's a 0.2 stop difference between f/1.8 and f/1.7. Just square the f-numbers, divide, and take the base 2 log. There are a bunch of other equally correct ways to do it, all equivalent.
Ever heard Tom Lehrer's "New Math"? Just thought of that for some reason...
richard_l
11-02-2005, 20:39
Ever heard Tom Lehrer's "New Math"? Just thought of that for some reason...Great song! :D I used to be a big Tom Lehrer fan.
A major worry for me, is the fact that the Ultron takes a huge chunk out of the viewfinder! This problem also occurs with the 90mm Lanthar when used with the lens hood, but the problem is much worse with the Ultron. Its bearable on the 90mm but really obtrusive on the Ultron.
Do most ultron users (or any other big lens users) find this bearable? I've only been using a digital camera so far, and I rarely used the viewfinder of my Digilux 1 because the filter adapter was blocking some of the view. I can't imagine framing a photo with a chunk of it blocked. :o Is there a workaround to this?
petebown, I look forward to seeing your comparision photos (and also your classified ad). Thanks in advance.
jc
I can't imagine framing a photo with a chunk of it blocked. :o Is there a workaround to this?JC, other than with the smallest lenses without hoods, some viewfinder blockage is a "fact of life" with an RF camera. You just come to ignore it; if you need to know what's in the blocked area, you just move the camera that way a bit and take a peek and remember what you've seen as you recompose. It really becomes a non-issue unless the amount of blockage is pretty significant.
Camera bodies with the viewfinder window closer to the lens axis suffer less parallax error but more lens intrusion into the view, a tradeoff. The new Z-I body looks like a good one for massive lenses like the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton, as its viewfinder window is far to the left.
What Doug said, no big deal really for me. I never thought the Ultron intruded too much, and truth be told, it isn't huge, it is the same size as a 50 Summicron. Is it bigger than some other 35s? Sure, but still a small lens.
petebown
11-05-2005, 10:39
My verdict...
The Ultron has it by a whisker. The bokeh is much better than the Skopar. Colour rendition seems very slightly better and it appears to cope better with contrasty subjects. The bokeh of the Skopar is not as nice as that of the Ultron. Out of focus spots of light appear smoother on the Ultron, the Skopar produces slight doughnuts.
My comparison test shots are at the following URL...
www.empusa.co.uk/gallery/Lens-comparison
If anyone is interested, the location was Holy Rood Church, Ampney Crucis, Gloucestershire, UK. Taken on a very dull afternoon (today) using Fuji 800 print film and a Bessa R2A. Not particularly good photos but at least the high contrast tested the lenses.
My verdict is that the Ultron is the better lens but it is only by a whisker. Both lenses are extremely sharp. I am still a little concerned about the way the Ultron intrudes into the viewfinder... Something that the Skopar doesn't do. However, the Ultron's bokeh and ability to cope with contrast has won me over.
petebown
11-05-2005, 12:23
ManGo,
The images that I uploaded tested both lenses at maximum apertures, f2.5, f8, and minimum apertures.
At minimum apertures, there is nothing between the two lenses. At f8, the colour rendition of the Ultron is slightly better (although I was using colour print film so other factors may have affected the colours). It would appear that the Ultron can cope with contrast fractionally better at this aperture.
Unfortunately, although I did test both lenses at f2.5, the test was at a long focussing distance. At this distance, its too close to call.
Just looking through the prints again, it does appear that the Ultron produces warmer tones than the Skopar. Again, other factors may affect the colours as I did use print film, however, the Ultron images do all appear to be very slightly warmer.
The two shots comparing bokeh could have been tested a little better... My daughter is standing slightly further away in the Skopar shot and (as you say) the apertures are different. However, out of focus objects seem to look much better on the Ultron. The Skopar's doughnut effect is not only noticable in the spots of light coming through the trees, the grave-stones in the background are showing signs of splitting into two... Note the cross and the top of the wall behind it on the extreme left. I've never really studied lens bokeh before, but in comparing these two lenses, I find the Skopar's bokeh is not as nice to look at.
In my opinion, if you are going to use a 35mm lens for long focus shots such as landscapes, there's nothing between these two lenses. The Skopar could just be better for landscapes as it appears to be slightly more contrasty. The Ultron wins if you are looking for a lens that also capable of doing portraiture... It appears to be a 'kinder' lens.
I also carried out a test to see if I could cause either lens to flare at f8 by shooting into the sunlight. The weather wasn't really on my side, however, neither lens showed any signs of flare, although the Ultron may have shown a slight loss of contrast. I didn't publish these images as the weather conditions were changing and it wouldn't have been a fair test.
I will probably carry out another test when the weather is a bit more stable here in the UK... and I'll use transparancy film next time.
It really is too close to call with most aspects of these lenses, but there is a difference in the bokeh so I've decided to keep the Ultron purely on that basis. If this is down to the fact that the Ultron's aperture is wider, so be it... It wins.
Pete
p.s. Comparison shots are here if anyone missed the link...
www.empusa.co.uk/gallery/Lens-comparison
And told we are, ManGo, by the samples posted at the supplied link... ;)
edwardoneill
06-07-2007, 19:40
I have the Ultron ASPH 35/1.7 in the LTM version. I've shot a couple of rolls with it. I just don't see it.
It's fairly sharp in strong light at f/16. What isn't?
The 1.7 is convenient for low light.
But this thing is nowhere near as sharp as the Planar on my Contax G1 or various M42 SuperTakumar's (different lens mounts, I know).
I'm thinking of selling mine. I just can't take a *great* picture with it.
Am I the only one?
Or one you've paid hundreds of dollars for a piece of equipment is it then impossible to say 'it's so-so'?
--E. R. O'Neill
Am I the only one?
Mine was plenty sharp. Only sold it because I don't use 35mm lenses now I no longer have an R-D1s. There's lots of b&w examples here, the whole gallery was shot using it:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=6398
A colour example:
http://www.adweb.co.uk/ian/photography/Hastings3/Images/_EPS2300.jpg
Maybe yours is faulty? My experience was that it was a very good lens indeed.
Ian
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.