p.6 #4 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
I looked on Rakuten global market last night and did not find the lens listed yet. Folks might want to wait on Ron's feedback anyway. I know at least one user review said that on the A7 it worked well with the sensor but across the frame performance as compared to an RX1 was not as good (yes, I know. A high bar). That might mean it would struggle a little on the higher resolution A7r/A7rII.
p.6 #5 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
So I got the lens quite late today... feel sorry for the overworked UPS driver. Didn't give me a lot of time to go out and shoot something before it got dark. I pretty much concentrated on wide open performance/rendering.
Initial impression is it's pretty decent, but no Otus, or ZM, haha. I do like the rendering at near distances. OOF specular light sources seem to have a pretty even blur disk. I primarily bought it for shooting events/weddings, so in other words, people photos. That said, I'd also like to use it as an all around lens.
My 35mm M mount experience is primarily with the ZM 35/2.8 and CV 35/1.2 II. The 35/1.7 definitely renders faithful to the Voigtlander family - moderate contrast and saturation. Not a huge amount of bite. Wide open across-frame performance is pretty decent, but not perfect. My copy seems to be a bit soft on the right side compared to left. Not enough light this evening to really compare stopped down results to see how this changes. There is some SA wide open, enough to take some edge off. Seems a bit more noticeable at near distances, but again, not so bad. I haven't really noticed any regular CA, yet. There's definitely LOCA, which can be obvious in certain situations (bare branches against a bright sky) but overall, in most normal situations, LOCA isn't too bad and I haven't yet noticed any really bad purple fringing (though branches against the sky will probably be problematic). Distortion seems pretty low. So far I've only used it uncoded on the M240 and there might be a slight amount of magenta color shift along the right edge. No idea how it will be on Sony.
I bought the black version. In-hand it feels pretty light and build quality is decent, though not quite as nice as Leica. Biggest beef at the moment is that the focus feel is a bit gritty and uneven. I'm hoping this smooths out over time. I also don't like the supplied hood. The lens is already a bit long and cuts into the corner of the M OVF. The supplied hood isn't vented and only makes this worse. I guess it's no big deal for use on other mirrorless cameras.
Anyway, some quick photos. These are pretty much straight from the camera, DNGs converted with default LR settings and only tweaked to pull back highlights in a few cases. No additional clarity...
All are wide open unless stated otherwise.
Minimum focusing distance (EVF live view focused):
No onion rings, yet, yay!
Minimum RF coupled distance (70cm):
And a bit farther away:
Far distances:
Last one at f/5.6.
Distortion seems minimal:
Right side is a bit soft compared to right, in this one...
p.6 #7 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Yes, thanks a lot Ron for all the effort to post an initial impression of the lens. Beyond the obvious size/ weight difference, I would be curious as to your assessment of how this lens compares to it's bigger brother, the CV 35/1.2 in both bokeh/ rendering and sharpness. At least in the states, the lenses are currently selling new for around the same price.
p.6 #8 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Thanks for the first look. Bokeh looks really nice to my eye. I'm looking forward to some people photos at f/1.7. When you eventually take them, I'd be interested in seeing some 100% crops of the focus area to get an idea of overall sharpness. The rendering overall looks really nice, though.
p.6 #9 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Thanks guys. I will try to do a comparison against the 35/1.2 II in the next week or so. Initial impression of the 1.7 is it's probably sharper across the frame at wider apertures, though I need to see how bad the blur on the right side of my sample is at various distances. Some of my farther distance shots with the 1.7 wide open are quite sharp on the left side... more so than I would expect with the f/1.2, which IIRC, I found needed some stopping down. Both seem to have similar background blur character, though the 1.2 should of course blur more.
I'm also wondering how useful f/1.7 will really be. Like a number of other Voigtlander lenses I've used/owned, that have fractional wide open stops, like the 21/1.8, 35/1.2 and 75/1.8, initial impressions from the 35 Ultron are that the half stop gain over f/2 is only somewhat seen in the very center of the frame. Vignetting is relatively strong and overall image illumination is more even at f/2, though there is still a fair amount of vignetting.
I agree the blur character looks good. This is primarily what made me wait on getting the ZM 35/1.4 until at least trying this lens. The ZM is certainly a fair amount sharper at wider apertures, with more pop/bite in fine details, but I'm somewhat unenthusiastic about its background rendering in some situations. I suspect the detail I'll have most trouble with is the Ultron's LOCA. It generally seems to be reasonable but wonder how it will fair in backlit situations, which I frequently encounter with weddings and events. That said, the ZM isn't immune from it either, but probably better controlled.
I've put higher-rez images online at Google Photos, scaled to 4800 pixels wide due to the 16MP limit on Google's free storage option, which can be accessed here.
p.6 #10 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Thanks Ron! Mine should be in my hands tomorrow as I'm not home to receive it today. I'm really hoping I'm happy with it WO as my 35 C-Bigon takes care of all my needs from 2.8 on.
p.6 #11 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Thanks Ron!
It sounds like you never owned the original 35/1.7 ? I'm curious how they stack up. This is a far newer design and a higher price point so I imagine it's a significant improvement.
Also, I don't know if you've owned any lenses that were black-painted brass like the original 35/1.7 to know what that looks like, but can you tell whether the new lens is that or actually anodized aluminum?
p.6 #12 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Lee Saxon wrote:
Thanks Ron!
It sounds like you never owned the original 35/1.7 ? I'm curious how they stack up. This is a far newer design and a higher price point so I imagine it's a significant improvement.
Also, I don't know if you've owned any lenses that were black-painted brass like the original 35/1.7 to know what that looks like, but can you tell whether the new lens is that or actually anodized aluminum?
The black is anodized aluminum and the silver chrome according to the specs, which is backed up by the much lighter weight of the black one as well.
p.6 #15 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Looks good Ryan!
Lee Saxon wrote:
Thanks Ron!
It sounds like you never owned the original 35/1.7 ? I'm curious how they stack up. This is a far newer design and a higher price point so I imagine it's a significant improvement.
Also, I don't know if you've owned any lenses that were black-painted brass like the original 35/1.7 to know what that looks like, but can you tell whether the new lens is that or actually anodized aluminum?
I have the 50/1.5 LTM which is black paint. The new 35/1.7 is anodized, which I prefer. I don't really like the look of black paint. IMO anodized is a much cleaner finish.
I've only briefly tried the original 35/1.7. I never really felt anything for it and never tried to get one of my own, so unfortunately can't compare the two.
---------------------------------------------
uhoh7 wrote:
Well, I sure would like to see some proper Sony sensor test shots. Infinity, long, with equidistant details to the edges and at least one corner.
WO, f/4 5.6 and 8 would be nice.
Unfortunately can't help you there Charlie. I'm sure it won't be long before others do this.
Using the lens a bit more today and I'm realizing I REALLY miss having a focusing tab on it. The knurled focusing ring is pretty, but so far I'm having trouble getting used to it. By touch I have no idea where the lens is focused, which I find results in a fraction of a second where I need to rack the focus a bit to figure out where it is focused via the RF patch. The focusing ring is also a bit too close to the body... Maybe this is more an M shooter type complaint and might not have much bearing on Sony users.
p.6 #16 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
rscheffler wrote:
Using the lens a bit more today and I'm realizing I REALLY miss having a focusing tab on it. The knurled focusing ring is pretty, but so far I'm having trouble getting used to it. By touch I have no idea where the lens is focused, which I find results in a fraction of a second where I need to rack the focus a bit to figure out where it is focused via the RF patch. The focusing ring is also a bit too close to the body... Maybe this is more an M shooter type complaint and might not have much bearing on Sony users....Show more →
This is definitely a personal (and M-shooter-focused) issue. I for example cannot stand focus tabs. My fingers are too fat for them, for one thing.
The design of the new 35/1.7 focus ring is quite strange though. Focus tabs make sense on a lens too small for a decent focus ring like the 35/2.5, but the 35/1.7 is not that small. There should've been room for a fairly wide focus ring. Yet they put this tiny narrow thing on there that looks very difficult to grip and looks like, yes, it SHOULD have a focus tab...
Also thanks for confirming it's anodized, I too hate the black paint (which also has ZERO durability).
p.6 #17 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Unfortunately it seems Cosina wanted to continue to try to tap into the retro appeal seen with the 50/1.5 revision. I have to admit I find the silver versions of these retro lenses quite nice looking, but otherwise don't like silver lenses much. I went with black for the color, weight and cost savings. I definitely would have preferred a 'normal' lens design with a decent sized focusing ring. The 'saw blade' focusing ring is very narrow to grasp. Maybe I need time to get used to it?
I shot a very limited amount with it today, most of which I can't share. I had great success shooting it at around f/2.8 with focus and recompose between 1.5-3m.
Below are a couple farther distance shots. The beach scene was at f/8 and the storefront was an aperture series from wide open through f/11 in full stop increments. 4800 pixel wide versions have been added to the Google Photos gallery linked in my earlier post above.
I've been shooting the lens uncoded on the M240 and I'm seeing persistent vignetting even stopped down to f/8. If I have time Friday I will play around with coding options to see if any ease this, as well as what I perceive as very mild color shift. Very slight amount of magenta on the right side and cyan on the left.
Focus point in the aperture series was the storefront. I'm pretty impressed with how sharp it is. While I do still think there is something off with mine causing a slight drop in sharpness on the right side, it seems fine by f/4. It also seems to peak by f/5.6 with a slight drop in fine detail sharpness at f/8 and further diffraction softening at f/11. There is a very, very slight amount of CA, which wasn't removed from these. Quite impressive compared to some other Cosina-Voigtlander lenses I've used. Images in the series were tweaked somewhat to taste, which boosted contrast slightly. LR sharpening was changed from default to 40/0.7/40/12.
p.6 #18 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Thanks again Ron for all the effort and sharing. These look really good to my eyes albeit at a slightly reduced size and with fairly strong sharpening (similar to what I used to cut through the mild AA filter on the RX1).
I actually just sold my 2nd copy of the original version of this lens but as I only used it on the A7r, it's difficult to make any detailed comparison of course. My gut feeling is that this lens is better across the frame at earlier F-stops though. Your F4 example looks fairly impressive for instance. I am surprised to see the slight color vignetting even on the Leica. That does make me wonder what might happen with the Sony's.
As far as the ergonomics, I know Cosina is trying to replicate the look of the original lenses from the 50's but maybe they have gone too far. At the very least, it seems it would have been more user friendly to switch the design used for the focus ring and aperture ring while widening the focus ring at the same time.
p.6 #19 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Maybe more of interest to M240 shooters, but here's a peek at vignetting/color shift...
I tried all of the 35mm codes available in-camera and none of them really offer a neutral correction. In fact, I'd be apt to just leave the lens uncoded, though it's a bit of a pain in respect to EXIF reporting. Most of the available 35mm codes actually make color shift worse. And most shift to the magenta side. Just the 35 Cron ASPH code offers something different... with a slight greenish shift on the right side. It also seems to clean up the vignetting enough when stopped down. In normal use, I don't think the color shift from any of the codes would be that obvious, but the 35 Cron ASPH would be the least noticeable.
Color shift is worst wide open. In the images below, I've tweaked the files a lot in LR to bring out the color shift (+100 saturation and vibrancy, etc.) Accompanying each is also the untweaked version at LR default settings.
The darker bottom corners are likely due to the white reflector I was shooting being a touch darker at the bottom than top as a result of how it was being illuminated by sunlight reflected off a white wall...
Here are a couple at f/5.6, same procedure as above:
For the sake of EXIF reporting and a bit of vignetting clean up, I plan to use it coded as 35 Cron ASPH, unless there is a better suggestion?
p.6 #20 · Official: Voigtlander 35 F1.7 Ultron M mount
Flare tests with the sun just out of the frame. This is the worst I could provoke. Normally the lens seems to be better than this and if the sun is in the frame, it deals with it quite well. It's when the sun is just out of the frame that things seem to go bad.
Starting at f/5.6 and working backwards to wide open:
