Hello,

I would like to know if someone could comment on the Voigtlander Ultron 28mm F1.9 and how does it compare to the Leica Elmarit and Sumicron ?

Thierry Mallet Paris, France

-- Thierry Mallet (tpmallet@aol.com), November 25, 2001

Answers

It's cheaper.

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), November 25, 2001.

Thierry,

Here's the thread: http://www.greenspun.com/ bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00695t. My first impressions have been completely confirmed. Here's another sample of wide open in b&w (f 1.9, 1/15th, Ilford Delta Pro 400):



Australian screenwriter Terry Hayes reading through his own script of "Dead Calm" while the movie is being screened during a lecture held in Geneva, Nov. 22nd, 2001. © Lutz Konermann

Cheers.

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), November 25, 2001.

I have the CV 28mm f/1.9. I have never used the Leitz 28mm so I can't compare them. I will say that I have been very impressed with the Voigtlander lens. It's very good and it seems to stay attached to my IIIf more that any other lens.

It's a low risk deal to buy one and use it for a month. If you are not satisfied you could sell it and not take much of a loss (far less than what it would cost to rent it for a month).

Note that it doesn't come with a viewfinder and if your camera doesn't show the 28mm frame you will have to buy a seperate viewfinder. The CV one is nice.

Good luck!

-- Tony Oresteen (aoresteen@mindspring.com), November 25, 2001.

Irwin Puts Newsletter #41 gives his never humble opinion of this lens: >>> The 1.9/28.

The difference between 1.9 and 2 can be neglected so I limit myself to the f/2 aperture. At full aperture the lens exhibits low to medium contrast and definition of very fine detail is soft but very even over the image field extending till the corners. The extreme corners are very soft. Even finer details are resolved in the center, but rapidly become softer when going to the zonal area. There is no astimatism and only a very small amount of curvature of field.

There is some barrel distortion, but quite small. At 2.8 the overall contrast improves and at f/4 the optimum is reached. After f/8 contrast lowers again and from there we see a softening of image details with every additional stop. This is usual behaviour. At f/4 we note a resolution over the whole image area of above 100 lp/mm.

As a design philosphy this lens is a bit tuned to high resolution versus high contrast.

Mechanically this lens is excellent: no decentring at all, collimation at zero. As with the 3.5/90 there is a definite amount of play in the focusing mount. Also the amount of dust in the lens is above what we are see in Leica lenses.

Flare control is excellent: no secondary images and no soft spots even in critical contre-jour lightning.

Still at wider apertures the lens is a shade soft and lacks the clarity and crispness of the Summicron-M 2/28. I shot pictures with Kodak E100VS and in low light and contre-jour situations and noted the low contrast compared to the Summicron. Specifically the tightness and sparkle of high light and shadow rendition was excellent with the Summicron and a bit dull and washed out with the Ultron 28.

These differences in rendition are quite visible in critical inspection and may or mey be not be not interesting for some users. Fact is they exist.

Where the Summicron 28 excels is the high contrast and the very crisp rendition of extremely fine detail, given the Summicron images a brillance and clarity that can be compared to the Ultron's duller representation.

Stopped down the differences are quite small.

So which one to choose?

The Leica has the advantage of superior mechanical engineering and materials. It also sports a visibly better imagery at wider apertures. Wide open there is no contest: Leica is still the one to beat. If you do not see the difference, you are the cause! It as simple as that! And while the Ultron comes close, it just is not able to challenge at wide apertures. Stopped down it is a draw. The Ultron is one third of the price of the Leica and delivers excellent, and close to outstanding imagery. For heavy duty use the choice is simple: Leica. For somewhat less demanding situations the Ultron is a tempting alternative, if you can live with its lack lustre wide open performance. To get some perspective: an older 28mm lens from Leica is blown to pieces by the Ultron.

MTF measurements show that the Ultron at wide apertures delivers quality that is one step behind the Summicron: The 20 lp/mm of the Summicron have a contrast transfer of 90%. The Ultron has 76%. At 10 lp/mm the Ultron has 88%. So Voigtlander at 10 lp/mm is as good as Leica at 20 lp. That does show! <<<

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), November 25, 2001.

"To get some perspective: an older 28mm lens from Leica is blown to pieces by the Ultron" I'd say that was a key point in the review, and has to be taken as quite a compliment for the Ultron.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), November 25, 2001.

I've used one for about 3 months. I've bought several Voigtlander lenses. This one is a keeper. I cannot find faults to it. Except maybe the finish. Mine looks already worned. But who cares. The new Leica 28 'cron is probably marginally better, but considering the price difference, I will keep the voigt. and never buy the Leica. This is not the case with all Voigt. lenses: I got rid of my 35mm and replaced it with a 35 'cron. Same thing will probably happen to my 21 mm if I keep loving this focal length as much as I do now.

-- Xavier (xcolmant@powerir.com), November 26, 2001.

Xavier,

What happened with the finish of the lens ? What finish did you have, black or chrome ?

Thierry Mallet

-- Thierry Mallet (tpmallet@aol.com), November 26, 2001.

The black finish wears off pretty easily, showing the nice metal underneath. Maybe that makes it a valuable "black paint" lens. The chrome finish seems more durable, and it is quite nice.

-- John Morris (jtmorris@slb.com), November 26, 2001.

I have the black finish lens, and as John said above, I can now see the metal underneath the paint. I don't really care, it might even make me look like a pro ;)

I have the the 21mm in chrome and so far the finish is intact, but I've had this lens for only one month...

-- Xavier (xcolmant@powerir.com), November 27, 2001.

As I wrote elsewhere, I think E.P. does good a valuable work on the bench. On must not minimize bench results. They are valuable and do give a good pictuure of what to expect in the field.

That said, I, like other writers here, have had good experiendes with the Ultron in the field. That to is as valid as the bench results.

How do we resolve this seeming contraction?

Consider EP's statement that the Ultron blows away previous Leica 28s. Remembering what those older 28s produced (masterpieces among other things) we should look at this matter from another angle: It is not that the Ultron is so bad (or "lacksuster") but that the new Sumicron 28 is so good.

Purpose is important. If you are doing wall sized landscapes, used the Leica 28. If you are doing street photography with grainy fast film, perhaps the Ultron will do.

The Ultron has the advantage of mounting on L-screw as well. If you have a favorite L-mount that you use with your M-mount, this may be the way to go. If you use only L-mount it is the only way to go. Forget the old f 6.8 Leica 28s.

I know about the black paint being prone to wear. A compromise to keep the price down.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@suma.kobe-wu.ac.jp), November 29, 2001.