same thought here, Ultron is high performing but doesn't look great for my taste.
Desmolicious wrote:
I have the Ultron v2 i.e the latest one, and the CS 2.8 v1 (that matches my 40 2.8).
The thing I don’t like about the Ultron is the physical design. It’s just ugly in that weird CV conehead design aesthetic. I just don’t get why they are doing that.
Optically? Just great.
Desmolicious wrote:
I have the Ultron v2 i.e the latest one, and the CS 2.8 v1 (that matches my 40 2.8).
The thing I don’t like about the Ultron is the physical design. It’s just ugly in that weird CV conehead design aesthetic. I just don’t get why they are doing that.
Optically? Just great.
- - -
Mayasan wrote:
same thought here, Ultron is high performing but doesn't look great for my taste.
The exterior design definitely deserves the Ugly Duckling label. They had complete freedom to produce a lens that was just as short but with less optical vignetting.
The exterior design definitely deserves the Ugly Duckling label. They had complete freedom to produce a lens that was just as short but with less optical vignetting.
I don't mind the external design at all. What I don't particularly like is the very modern rendering, which is similar to the Summicron but with more pronounced cat-eye-shaped highlights. That said, it’s excellent for landscapes or any application that demands high image quality.
if they raise the diameter from 39mm to 43mm would have solve the cat eye bokeh and optical vignette.
highdesertmesa wrote:
- - -
The exterior design definitely deserves the Ugly Duckling label. They had complete freedom to produce a lens that was just as short but with less optical vignetting.
Tor82 wrote:
I was about to ask the same question today ! I waited since march for the 28mm F2,8 Elmarit to get back in stock where i live.. And my patient is a bit thin at this time.
I need a compact, but sharp across the field 28mm. Unfortunately, my experience with the 28mm F2 Ultron II, was bad. It was sharp in the center, but was burry already from the mid zone and out, even at F7. It was so bad that I used the old Zeiss 28mm F2,8 biogon instead, and that to has some bad corners, that almost looks like the photo is smeared out (old lense design for film) ,but at least the mid and center is sharp. So its sharp where you tend to have your subject most of time in street photography.
So far I'm pulled more towards the 28mm F1.5 nokton. It's small, its light, it gets great review's
It can do F1,5 (which is a nice bonus giving it size ) And it seems to have a great rendering.
Following this thread with great interesse! ...Show more →
You must have a bad copy of the 28mm Ultron II. Go to the reseller and get it fixed. As Fred Mirandas, as well as my own, tests show that the Ultron II is impressively sharp wide open in the entire frame.
Mayasan wrote:
if they raise the diameter from 39mm to 43mm would have solve the cat eye bokeh and optical vignette.
Not necessarily. The filter thread size is less critical than the size of the front element. The rear element and other optical groups also affect the level of optical vignetting a lens produces.
For instance, the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Lux Black Chrome has a smaller filter thread but shares the same optical design and amount of optical vignetting as the regular 50mm f/1.4 Lux. Similarly, the new Voigtlander 50mm f/3.5 APO Type I has a 34mm filter thread, while the Type II has a 39mm thread. Despite the difference in filter sizes, both types have the same optical design, element diameter, and amount of optical vignetting.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Not necessarily. The filter thread size is less critical than the size of the front element. The rear element and other optical groups also affect the level of optical vignetting a lens produces.
For instance, the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Lux Black Chrome has a smaller filter thread but shares the same optical design and amount of optical vignetting as the regular 50mm f/1.4 Lux. Similarly, the new Voigtlander 50mm f/3.5 APO Type I has a 34mm filter thread, while the Type II has a 39mm thread. Despite the difference in filter sizes, both types have the same optical design, element diameter, and amount of optical vignetting. ...Show more →
True, but perhaps Voigtlander could have gone with a less restrictive optical design if they had more room out at the end of the lens.
highdesertmesa wrote:
True, but perhaps Voigtlander could have gone with a less restrictive optical design if they had more room out at the end of the lens.
That's a different story, though. I keep hearing that they should have just added a bigger filter thread, but my point is that it wouldn't make any difference as long as the optical design doesn't change.
Yup, agree with that there are multiple factors causing optical vignette, size of front element and rear element, lens barrel, filter thread, and subsequent size of image circle. In general, a faster lens in a compact design will have more severe vignette. In a way that some Voigtlander lens tends to choose more compact designs, ie. 28/f2.8, 28/f2, 35/f2, 50/f1.5 will have more vignette, swirl bokeh observed.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Not necessarily. The filter thread size is less critical than the size of the front element. The rear element and other optical groups also affect the level of optical vignetting a lens produces.
For instance, the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Lux Black Chrome has a smaller filter thread but shares the same optical design and amount of optical vignetting as the regular 50mm f/1.4 Lux. Similarly, the new Voigtlander 50mm f/3.5 APO Type I has a 34mm filter thread, while the Type II has a 39mm thread. Despite the difference in filter sizes, both types have the same optical design, element diameter, and amount of optical vignetting. ...Show more →
It looks beautiful! I have the 28mm Summicron and 28mm Summaron, so I don't really need another 28mm. But if this lens had been available when I bought the Summaron, I would have chosen it instead.
