Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > 35mm Film Range Finders > Cosina Voigtlander Bessa

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Ultron 28mm f1.9 verses f2
Old 06-08-2011   #1
kram
Registered User
 
kram's Avatar
 
kram is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Wales, UK
Posts: 343
Ultron 28mm f1.9 verses f2

I have made my mind up and just purchased a second-hand Ultron f2. It's in great condition and I hopefully i will finish a film by the end of the weekend, and see the results soon.
However, some threads, and internet chat say that the f1.9 Ultron is better Has any one compared the two, what's the problem with the f2 over the f1.9 (if any). I have an old test report from the AP (UK mag) on the f1.9, but no caparison between the too. Your comments please.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1701'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2011   #2
kram
Registered User
 
kram's Avatar
 
kram is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Wales, UK
Posts: 343
I have now found this thread.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=72505

I shoot film, so comments from film shoots please (I hope that does not limit the resposes too much
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1701'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2011   #3
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 10,168
The verdict is still out on this one - for film. Try the f2. If you like it, keep it.
__________________
My Smugmug
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-09-2011   #4
kram
Registered User
 
kram's Avatar
 
kram is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Wales, UK
Posts: 343
Hi ferider, I plan to keep the f2 (if it's any good), and I don't plan to get the f1.9. I just wondered why some threads don't rate the f2?
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1701'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2011   #5
seakayaker1
Registered User
 
seakayaker1's Avatar
 
seakayaker1 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,473
Comments from Sean Reid review of fast 28mm:

28/1.9 if you prefer lower lens contrast
28/2 if you prefer higher lens contrast

28/1.9 should come off you list if you prefer a lens with good flare resistence
28/2 should come off your list if you prefer lens that do not focus shift


With regards to the Summicron 28/2 he did state the primary weekness was the price.

He also concludes his review with a statement that these are all good lenses with different strengths and weaknesses.

There are several pages of technical review comparing the three lenses on the Sean Reid review web site. I would recommend subscribing to his website for detail information regarding rangefinder lens. Information found here:
http://www.reidreviews.com/
__________________
______________________

Life is Grand! ~~~ Dan
~ M9, M6 TTL & MP ~ Mamiya 7 II ~ GF1 ~ K5IIs
~ Rolleiflex f3.5 with Carl Zeiss 75mm Planar (type 4) ~
The hardest part of starting a new project is starting it ~ Keith Carter
Flickr Sets: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26672618@N03/sets/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2011   #6
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 71
Posts: 5,671
I have both the f1.9 and the f2 version of the Ultron 28. I also used to have the 28f2 Summicron - did not think that one was worth the cost and converted it to something else.
The 28f2 is a/smaller than the f1.9 and b/better close-up performance than the 1.9 (and the Summicron 28f2.
The f1.9 is maybe marginally sharper at f2, compared to the 28f2 Ultron - but not significantly so. The 28f2 Ultron is very good with flare control, the 1.9 has a bit of "asph" flare to it, but again, nothing significant.
As for the focus shift with film and the 28f2 Ultron, never had a problem with it.
The Ultron 28f2 has slightly "weaker" corners at f2 and 2.8, compared to the Summicron 28, but better center sharpness. From f4 you can't really tell them apart.
All three lenses are very good, some subtle differences in tonal rendition (again, this is with film - and in my case, black/white film) and either one will do a very good job.
The choice is more related to size and price in my opinion. The Summicron 28 would end up costing what a new Nokton 28f2 and a used, mintish M6 TTL 0.58 would be - and there would still be money left over for a lot of film!!!!
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2011   #7
kram
Registered User
 
kram's Avatar
 
kram is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Wales, UK
Posts: 343
Thanks for the posts guys. I would love the Summicron, but even second hand they are serious money. I have a Sonnar 50mm f1.5, and so far the focus shift has not bothered me. Hopefully it want bother me with the f2 either. The Ultron has better centre sharpness than the Summicron at wider apertures -interesting. Hopefully all will be well.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1701'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2011   #8
Bruin
Noktonian
 
Bruin is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 323
kram, on film the f2's focus shift is all but invisible. I hope you get a good sample; both Ultrons can be stunning performers.
__________________
~Kevin

Zeiss Ikon, Nokton 35/1.2 v1, Nokton 50/1.5
Neopan 400, Acros 100, 160S

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2011   #9
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,254
I have only been shooting rangefinders for a couple of years. All the time I have been looking for a lens in the 24-to-28 range to give me a 35/40 on the digitals. There are some interesting options, but all are compromises in some respect. Too slow, too expensive, too big, not available when you would be buying. I was close to buying the Ultron 2, really wanted the Summicron, but I have now finally joined the Ultron 1.9 crowd. The lens is beautiful, I hope I can match it with my photography.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2011   #10
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,323
I have just bought a CV 28mm f2 and have to say that it looks pretty impressive in terms of its ability to turn in good images. The only comparison I did was before buying it, in the store when I compared it with a 35mm f2 summicron V4 to check how much extra image it gave me (not much but I still bought it anyway.) At f2 the Summicron may have been a tiny tiny bit sharper (at the image centre and at a distance of maybe 4 metres) but it was so close I found it hard to judge. I have to say I was impressed. I hope to test it further soon in real life.
__________________
Peter M

Flickr me: http://www.flickr.com/photos/80702381@N00/[SIGPIC]

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery " : Winston S Churchill

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." : George Washington
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2011   #11
mfogiel
Registered User
 
mfogiel's Avatar
 
mfogiel is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Monaco
Posts: 3,766
I've tried several 28mm lenses, including both the Ultrons, Summicron, Elmarit V3, Elmarit ASPH and Biogon. In the end, I kept the Ultron 1.9 and the Summicron. The Summicron is simply the best wide open, and in particular it is unbeatable in night shots, as it does not exhibit the coma. Ultron 1.9 has the most pleasing rendition in B&W. However, in my opinion any one of these lenses could be considered excellent.
__________________
http://mondoinbiancoenero.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2011   #12
Pikapig
Loving Analog
 
Pikapig is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfogiel View Post
I've tried several 28mm lenses, including both the Ultrons, Summicron, Elmarit V3, Elmarit ASPH and Biogon. In the end, I kept the Ultron 1.9 and the Summicron. The Summicron is simply the best wide open, and in particular it is unbeatable in night shots, as it does not exhibit the coma. Ultron 1.9 has the most pleasing rendition in B&W. However, in my opinion any one of these lenses could be considered excellent.
what about nikkor s mount lens? the nikkor W 2.8 f3.5 seems quite a value for money lens.

Just tat it might not work as well on a LTM mount camera..

By the way, if the camera doesnt support a 28mm frameline, do you guys uses an external VF for it?
__________________
Check out Camera and I
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2011   #13
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pikapig View Post
By the way, if the camera doesnt support a 28mm frameline, do you guys uses an external VF for it?
I do. In my case it is the 28mm viewfinder for CV 21/4 on M8. Also, now that I actually have a 28, I can use the same viewfinder on my Bessa R2A.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2011   #14
kram
Registered User
 
kram's Avatar
 
kram is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Wales, UK
Posts: 343
Can't comment on the 28mm. But with my 50mm on my Mamiya 7, some people used the normal viewfinder, but I did not get on with this, so used the appropriate finder. Note, the 50mm is ~25mm in 35mm terms and the camera has a frame for the 65mm lens (~32mm in 35mm terms). Comparing the 50mm finder with the view outside the 65mm frame-lines (i.e the maximum view you can see in the camera viewfinder, there is a difference.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1701'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-30-2011   #15
Pikapig
Loving Analog
 
Pikapig is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 236
Guys, can i hear from you guys if i input in the cv 28mm f3.5 as well as the canon 28mm f3.5

I was looking a the pics on flickr..thou the ultron 1.9 seems heavier, the control of distortion seems a little better compared to the f2...
__________________
Check out Camera and I
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2011   #16
tah
Registered User
 
tah is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 101
The Ultron 1.9 is great. Fast, sharp and not too contrasty. Perfect for B/W.


110622 006 copy by Mr.Mansen, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-12-2011   #17
agricola
Registered User
 
agricola is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 191
This photo by TAH and his set on Flickr have just about got me hitting the button on an Ultron 1.9!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-12-2011   #18
tah
Registered User
 
tah is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by agricola View Post
This photo by TAH and his set on Flickr have just about got me hitting the button on an Ultron 1.9!

Thanks agricola! Glad to hear that.

tah
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2011   #19
paulcurtis
Registered User
 
paulcurtis is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by agricola View Post
This photo by TAH and his set on Flickr have just about got me hitting the button on an Ultron 1.9!
I'd second that, great photography.

I'm warming to my CV 28 1.9, it's low contrast but that's pretty easy to alter in aperture, so you get the best of both worlds - B&W and punchy colour.

I'm on a 1.5 crop sensor though, so it's not as wide as the shots by TAH

I'm really missing FF!

cheers
paul
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2011   #20
Austerby
Registered User
 
Austerby's Avatar
 
Austerby is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Fircombe
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by kram View Post
...some threads, and internet chat say that the f1.9 Ultron is better Has any one compared the two, what's the problem with the f2 over the f1.9 (if any).
This request from the OP has not yet been answered with examples: can anyone provide this comparison rather than showing favourites taken with one of these lenses only?

I have the f2 version and have had some great results with it & it's a good lens on the M8. I don't see a problem with it but I don't know how the f1.9 would have compared.

To those that can, please illustrate.
__________________
Austerby
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2011   #21
paulcurtis
Registered User
 
paulcurtis is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 41
I doubt any of us have both lenses but there was a reference to the sean reid review where he does compare both of them and his conclusions were listed there.

In general the 1.9 is lower contrast but flares more (in fact those are probably the same thing). Sean Reids review shows the 1.9 being a bit sharper too but he also points out sample variation issues, so your own milage may vary.

cheers
paul
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 23:39.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.