CV 35mm f1.7 Ultron VS Zeiss 35mm f2 ZM

scorpius73 · 10-10-2008

I am on limited funds at the moment. I can afford the Zeiss, but my question is it worth it. I have read good things about the Ultron as well. I pretty much shoot architecture and shots of family and friends. I usually prefer to shoot at f5.6 or f8. So, would I really see a difference in sharpness or contrast? So, come on. What would you do?

Sam N · 10-10-2008

After reading the instructions at the top of the page, I'm not sure if this belongs in this forum. On the other hand, posting in the Bessa forum would likely get you more pro-CV responses and posting in the ZI forum would likely get you more ZM responses.

The ZM lenses have a certain look, especially with color shots, but then so does the Ultron. Both lenses will be extremely sharp by f5.6. I prefer not having to use LTM->M adapters and the ergonomics of the Biogon are much nicer IMO.

I'd personally go for the Biogon, but look at some samples and see which you like best.

varjag · 10-10-2008

The Biogon wins, no contest here. It is more ergonomic, it is flare resistant, and actually sharp wide open (Ultron begins to catch up around f/2.8).

FWIW I have the Ultron and only borrowed a Biogon for a test drive.

scorpius73 · 10-10-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam N

After reading the instructions at the top of the page, I'm not sure if this belongs in this forum. On the other hand, posting in the Bessa forum would likely get you more pro-CV responses and posting in the ZI forum would likely get you more ZM responses.

The ZM lenses have a certain look, especially with color shots, but then so does the Ultron. Both lenses will be extremely sharp by f5.6. I prefer not having to use LTM->M adapters and the ergonomics of the Biogon are much nicer IMO.

I'd personally go for the Biogon, but look at some samples and see which you like best.

uh oh. sorry. i should have read that. i guess i cant cross post without getting yelled at. i will know next time. thanks for your reply though.

kshapero · 10-10-2008

I own a bunch of ZM lenses but not the 35 mm. I used to own the Ultron 35mm and wish I still owned it. It had a great classic character to it. Ergonomics were just fine to me. I sold it for the CV 35/1.4 which I did not like at all, ergonomically speaking. Looking for a black 35/1.7 Ultron.

rover · 10-10-2008

At 5.6 or 8 I can't think you will notice much difference.

I own and really really like the Ultron. I also would love to have the Biogon, if I could afford it easily I would buy it without question. I would keep the Utron too though.

benkelley · 10-10-2008

I really like the ultron... I've used ZM lenses, though not the 35, and though I'm sure the ZM is excellent, I'd save the money and just buy the Ultron as it's really a great lens. Then you can save the extra $$ for another lens down the road!

KoNickon · 10-10-2008

The Ultron is great, and a bargain, really. 1/2 stop faster too, but you're not planning to use it at maximum aperture, I gather (though that would come in handy for indoor candid friends and family shots).

bmicklea · 10-10-2008

I have owned the Ultron for the last 2+ years and run through a ton of film with it. It seems to be one of those lenses that's generally very well liked by people who own it and dismissed by those who don't. It's certainly not an "instant love" lens. It took me awhile to warm up to it but now I actually like the lower contrast as I find it gives me more options for how the final image comes out. As for sharpness I find it's quite good wide open on center but certainly softer at the edges than the two rolls I've shot with a borrowed Biogon.

A couple of things bug me though:
1) f1.7 is annoying - I generally find I don't get any shots I wouldn't have gotten at 2.0
2) It's more susceptible to flare than I'd like
3) The hood seems so tiny as to be pointless, yet I strangely can't bring myself to take it off...

I'm actually saving to buy a Biogon myself, but like Rover I'll keep my Ultron (I have two bodies and use the 35 focal length enough to justify the two lenses).

My advice to you though is - if you're building up a lens stable buy the Ultron and use the saved cash toward another focal length. If you already know you love the 35 focal length or have all the other lenses you need then I'd go with the Biogon as the flare resistance alone might be worth the price of admission and the sharpness across the film plane wide open is something you might appreciate if you find yourself shooting architecture at night (c'mon a rangefinder is *made* for low-light hand-held photography!)

scorpius73 · 10-10-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmicklea

I have owned the Ultron for the last 2+ years and run through a ton of film with it. It seems to be one of those lenses that's generally very well liked by people who own it and dismissed by those who don't. It's certainly not an "instant love" lens. It took me awhile to warm up to it but now I actually like the lower contrast as I find it gives me more options for how the final image comes out. As for sharpness I find it's quite good wide open on center but certainly softer at the edges than the two rolls I've shot with a borrowed Biogon.

A couple of things bug me though:
1) f1.7 is annoying - I generally find I don't get any shots I wouldn't have gotten at 2.0
2) It's more susceptible to flare than I'd like
3) The hood seems so tiny as to be pointless, yet I strangely can't bring myself to take it off...

I'm actually saving to buy a Biogon myself, but like Rover I'll keep my Ultron (I have two bodies and use the 35 focal length enough to justify the two lenses).

My advice to you though is - if you're building up a lens stable buy the Ultron and use the saved cash toward another focal length. If you already know you love the 35 focal length or have all the other lenses you need then I'd go with the Biogon as the flare resistance alone might be worth the price of admission and the sharpness across the film plane wide open is something you might appreciate if you find yourself shooting architecture at night (c'mon a rangefinder is *made* for low-light hand-held photography!)

Yes, I love the 35mm FOV. I have several primes for my Nikon FE2 and the 35mm f2 AIS is my favorite FOV. I have different camera kits (Contax G, Nikon FE2). So, the fiance is putting an end to my shananigans for now. So, I'm going with just one quality lens for my M6 at the moment. I started out with the Jupiter 8. So, it's either a Zeiss ZM or an Ultron.

photogdave · 10-10-2008

I'm an Ultron owner too but I also use the Nokton 1.4 and am in the minority who really like that lens.
But more to your query, I was on hand at a camera store shoot out of the Ultron, Biogon and Leica 35 Summarit on an M8. For edge-to-edge sharpness and fine detail rendering, the Summarit kicked butt on the other lenses.
I would shop around for a used Summarit!

Andrew Sowerby · 10-10-2008

I don't know why people don't like the ergonomics of the Ultron. I've owned both lenses and both seemed fine to me. If nothing else, the Ultron doesn't have that silly ZM lenscap.

As for "look" they're quite different, as others have noted. The Biogon is a more modern lens in terms of contrast and colour, which I prefer. Take a look aroung the M-mount group on Flickr and decide for yourself.