|
Being (arguably) the most popular focal length among rangefinder users, Cosina offered 3, 35mm lens choices: the small but slow 35/2.5 Skopar, the big but fast 35/1.2 Nokton, and the subject of this review… the “compromise” lens of the bunch, the 35/1.7 Ultron. Discontinued just this year (2007), it still remains one of Cosina’s most popular lenses sold under the Voigtlander brand name. As with my reviews of other rangefinder lenses, this is one based on usage and not lab testing. There are enough of the “lab test” sort of reviews out there and no need for me to add another one to the pile. I’ve been using CV 35/1.7 Ultron for 4+ years now and this review is based on the results I’ve gotten in that time. In fact, until I picked up the CV 28/1.9 Ultron, the 35mm Ultron was my lens of choice for day-to-day photography. What follows is my personal opinion of the Ultron based on my personal experience with the lens.
 1/125@f8. ERA100 in Rodinal (1+25) for 9m @20C Why?
This is an easy one to answer. With regard to what is the “normal” focal length for 35mm film there are really 3 schools of thought: 35, 40, and 50. My personal choice is 35 because it is wide enough to get a lot in but no so wide as to drastically “stretch” lines, introduce barreling, or render an unnatural-looking perspective. The reason I specifically chose the Ultron is also simple: speed plus 35/1.2 Noktons aren’t within the realm of a teacher’s budget. Up until I purchased the Ultron my lens kit consisted of the CV 15/4.5 Heliar and 35/2.5 Skopar, neither of which are really considered “fast”. I really wanted a lens I use indoors in ambient light and outdoors during Taiwan’s typhoon season yet also make the most of my film and not be forced push it. So I saved for a couple of months (this was before my twin boys were born so I could actually save money) and when I had the cash proudly walked in to my favorite local photo shop and picked up a silver one to go with my olive R2.  1/30@f2, Tr-X in HC-110 (dil B) for 5m @ 20C Skopar versus Ultron
Wait a minute. You had the Skopar and you bought the Ultron? Yes, I had already owned and been using (almost exclusively) the Skopar version for a few months prior to purchasing the Ultron and still chose to buy the 35/1.7. For a few months afterward I even used them both as the Skopar is very sharp and it’s small size makes for a very compact “toss it in the bag” kit. Eventually I sold it off, though. Besides the difference in speed, there are a couple reasons why. The first has to do with my particular style of exposure and development. As a general rule, Skopars are contrasty, more so (again, generally speaking. I’ve heard different opinions on the 28/3.5 Skopar) then their Ultron brothers. This didn’t fit well with my methods. Basically I over expose my negative by 2/3 -1 stop then over develop slightly in stretched out developer. I love the way this renders images with certain films (like Tri-X and ERA 100). This method already increases contrast and using the Skopar pushed the resulting contrast higher then I would have liked. Yes, I could have adjusted my development, but I spent long enough experimenting to find this “magical” combination and I wasn’t ready to invest the same amount of effort and time. The second reason is again contrast-related and has to do with my favorite and most-used photographing technique: hyperfocus. Hyperfocal technique is applied best at smaller apertures to maximize depth of field (I usually use f8, a good compromise between DOF and minimal diffusion). This means bright and sunny lighting. Bright and sunny lighting means contrast. Again, this was amplified by the Skopar. So the Skopar went and the Ultron stayed. Out of the Box
As previously stated, I purchased this lens from my favorite local retailer, JS Foto (in Taipei city across from the old North Gate and main postal center). Their price fell in line with the going street rate, the husband/wife owners are very friendly, and they knowledgeable about classic and modern film gear. This being my first “fast” CV lens I really didn’t have any expectations. I was very pleasantly surprised. It was small (obviously larger then the Skopar) but felt heavy and solid. It definitely had a quality feel to it, something I’ve always found lacking in most of the SLR kit I’ve used. As with the Skopar, focusing was smooth and even. In fact, the focusing ring “drag” of the Ultron was better then that of the Skopar, which always felt a little loose to me. When looking through the viewfinder the included hood blocks about 5% of the 35mm framelines in my R2, not enough to be an issue for me. If you really, really need to see that 5%, simply remove the hood and there is no framelines obstruction at all. The .9m minimum focusing distance is a non-issue with my R2, which has a minimum focusing distance of a meter. On my R2A, with a minimum focusing distance of .7m, it can be an annoying limitation on the rare occasions in which I want to get in as close as possible.  1/
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, Tri-X in HC-110 (dil H) for 15m @ 20C Rendering
One property that I really like about the Ultrons is the tonality of the images they produce. The 35/1.7 Ultron isn’t an exception and produces a beautiful tonal range. Contrast is good, but not so high as to pull tones away from the middle. Together, this means that the Ultron can keep detail in the shadows and highlights fairly well but still render blacks black and whites white. One issue I’ve experienced is that of vignetting (see photo, above)…and it’s only happened once…and I’ve been unable to reproduce it. Considering the length of time I’ve had the lens and the sheer number of images I’ve produced with it I’m inclined to think that it was the result of some weird cosmic alignment and nothing more. If I am able to repeat the results I will update this article. For those that bow down to the God of Sharpness this lens will not disappoint. As with most lenses, it’s sharpest 2-3 stops in (f4-f5.6). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Good: Great value. Well-built. Sharp with great midtone coverage and good contrast. Bad: Hood blocks a small bit of the framelines. Long-ish minimum focus distance when compared to the current and previous generation of Bessa bodies (R2A/M, R3A/M, R4A/M), which can all focus down to .7 meters. Ugly: Discontinued, so new stock is limited. Maybe an updated version (M mount and shorter minimum focusing distance?) is coming soon? I hope if there is an updated version Cosina sticks with an LTM mount, otherwise Bessa, Bessa L, and Barnak Leica owners will be left out in the cold. Discuss this article on the forums. (1 posts) |
Reviews 
