W/NW Testing 35mm LUX and 35mm VC ULTRON

[35mmdelux]

just going around testing. 100 iso superia<div></div>

[35mmdelux]

35mm/1.7 VC Ultron<div></div>

[alan_wilder1]

Ultron looks a bit flat. Veiling flare or just low contrast?

[35mmdelux]

taken on separate days, but I'd have to agree with you based on what is shown.

[stuart_richardson]

Taken of separate things on separate days...I cannot see how this can be particularly

informative. Sure, if you use both lenses regularly you can build up a feeling for how they

compare over the course of many photos, but just two separate photos can tell you very little.

There are simply too many variables that could account for the difference. Negative film

makes the comparison even more difficult.

[vic_.]

What features/benefits are you testing?

[ronald_moravec1]

Test on censecutive frames at the same time and use lens shades or not on both, but do them the same. Then have them prints without the printer changing settings and this is the hard part.

 

Or scan the two frames as one lare neg.

[35mmdelux]

good question. I'm testing film color, flare, and whatever else I can deduce from everyday fieldwork. This is not a scientific test (obviously). I'm more interested in esthetics. I'm also interested in low light rendition, which I have yet to tackle.

 

The sculpture foto was taken w/ the ULTRON @ f/1.7, 1/15 sec, iso 100. Again, its not meant to show sharp detail but to ascertain lower light rendition. The softness is due to holding my son in one arm and shooting w/ the other. I was amazed at the amount of light captured.<div></div>

[frank uhlig]

Your approach to testing makes a mockery of the word "testing".

 

If you were to write a car review, i am afraid you could say something like: "When I last drove this way on a sunny summer day with my old crusty Yugo, the trip felt much safer to me than yesterday when I took the Audi 2 out in the snowflurries and over the icy road.

 

It is sure hogwash what you (try to) infer about the lenses since the fair test rules are sooooo violated by your appraoch.

 

Sorry, but testing means a bit more than the nonsense of your so called "comparisons'.

 

Think about it, please, and try to clear this up within your mind!

[35mmdelux]

Frank,

 

Quit being a weenie and if you have a need to blow off steam, try to make it productive. Save your allegory for someone who cares because I don't give a sh_it.

[jsc1]

Frank Uhlig...

 

You may have forgotten that science, scientific investigation and scientific methodology

also includes simple observation. Observation coupled with non-parametric statistics a

very powerful tool. As a matter of fact, I'll bet you use observation and non-parametric

ordering all the time. Possibly without even realizing it.

 

I am surprised by the photo of the sculpture. Surprisingly good exposure but it is "soft."

Is the VC simply soft "wide open" or is it really because you were holding your son in your

other hand? I guess you need to do some more testing.

[35mmdelux]

I'd have to say slow shooting speed combined w/ nervousness and holding 25 lb child in other arm.

 

We can read alot about slow shooting speeds but until one acquires some experience its merely philosophical discourse. That is what MY tests are all about. Can I do it? What does it take? When to shoot slow? When to hit them w/ flash? (yup)Off camera of course!

 

I'll let Messrs Gandy and Puts figure out the sharpness stuff.

 

Having said that, I've noticed softness in both my 50mm Nokton and the example posted above. Regards. P

[andrew robertson]

This isn't really much of a test. Different subjects on different days in different light - it's

like testing two cars by driving one on a Forest Service road and the other on the Interstate.

 

I'm not trying to insult you or anything, but a test usually implies that there is some control

over variables and some common ground by which the results can be measured.

[runkel]

Intuitively, I think very few people would own the Ultron if they also owned any version of the Summilux. It reminds me of something a student host said to me on a college visit years ago: "If you go to X, you'll always wonder what it would have been like if you'd gone here--but if you go here, you won't care what it would have been like if you'd gone to X."

 

When shooting at 1/15 handheld, even with best technique, I find it's helpful to "bracket," taking several successive exposures of the same static subject. One of them is almost always materially sharper than the others.

[HarryBaker]

What a mean-spirited thread this has turned out to be! It's clear that objectivity doesn't really come into it when discussing the merits or otherwise of CV or other lenses in comparison with Leica lenses. Naturally those who have paid large amounts for Leica lenses need to justify their decisions to themselves, usually by criticising the alternatives. Psychologists call this resolution of cognitive dissonance. Like most subscribers to this forum I have been seduced by the Leica myth and can see myself being sucked into the trap of assuming that Leica must be best..it's so expensive. This, of course, breaks down when you have 2 identical cameras with identical Leica lenses, one called a Panasonic and one called a Leica with the large price difference due entirely to the red name badge. CV have made a major contribution to RF photography. I use both Leica 35mm and CV 35mm lenses and actually can't tell the difference between them. But then, I don't photograph grids and charts.<div></div>

[tom_levidiotis]

I agree with Harry. I do not understand the mean spiritedness. Reading this threat is -- at least for me -- supposed to be fun, goofing off, "wasting time." Paul is showing off his handiwork. Fair enough. You're not being asked to pay money to read his "test." Relax and enjoy it, or otherwise, vote with your mouse and surf elsewhere.

 

The beauty of the forum should be in a lot of input from a lot of different sources. Some will be better than others and for a lot of different reasons.

 

Having said that. I have the Ultron and several Leica lenses and do not find the Ultron to be of Leica quality -- although I would be hard-pressed to say exactly why. Maybe it is just the price.

 

Happy Fat Tuesday!

[john_morris4]

Just as for the previous poster, I have a 35mm Ultron and find that it is not of Leica quality. Mostly, I think the easily chipped black paint and the overall light weight are features that you wouldn't put up with in a Leica lens.

 

The pictures from the Ultron can be really great, though.

[35mmdelux]

Allow me to restate my thesis again for those who may not have understood.

 

To paraphrase Lee Freidlander: "I take pictures to see how they come out!" Thats it. What more can I say?

 

I'm not interested in agruments about scientific analysis vis-a-vis photography. My interest in such analysis ended when I graduated from college and entered the real world years ago. The one overriding question I seek to answer when viewing images is: Is the image compelling? Its the fundamental question that interests me most. Salgado is compelling IMO. Sometimes Salgado uses different cameras and I find it interesting to see what he produces, given the use of different tools. Freidlander too. I find it interesting to study his 6x6 images against his 35mm images. Its not a scientific analysis, purely an esthetic one.

 

Thank you all for your input and suggestions. Regards, Paul

[jsbc]

This is definitely not an interesting thread.

 

Anyway, as a comparison between the two lenses, this thread is pretty useless. But it is good that your are testing the ultron. The sculpture is soft because of a mis-focus issue - not camera shake.

 

If anything, Paul, you should get your ultron re-calibrated.

 

Btw, frankly I am not surprised by the light captured by the ultron, because a f1.7 lens is a f1.7 lens.

[runkel]

Harry, in the entire thread I don't see any "mean spiritedness" directed toward CV lenses, including in the post I made. I was just thinking it seemed like an unusual situation to be in, owning those two fast 35s. (And it seems to me just human nature that anyone owning both would be using the Leica predominantly--that's nothing against CV at all.) As I use only one Leica body, I wasn't considering the need to have different 35s on different bodies at the same time.

[vic_.]

Hi Paul, This is an example of a lens test done a long time ago by Andy Piper. Most of us don't have the luxury of (a) access to all the gear, or (b) the discipline or tech skills to create the end result the way he did:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Pjv

[frederick_muller]

Josiah S. Carberry Photo.net Patron, feb 27, 2006; 04:07 p.m. wrote:

'You may have forgotten that science, scientific investigation and scientific methodology also includes simple observation. Observation coupled with non-parametric statistics a very powerful tool. As a matter of fact, I'll bet you use observation and non-parametric ordering all the time. Possibly without even realizing it."

 

I wholeheartedly agree. "Testing" starts with "trying it out". The whole scientific process began when man or child started to play with the physical world and conduct even the most simple experiments. It's called "putting nature to the question". This activity can range from the most simple to the most structured. I just picked up a Canon 50mm f1.2 and my "tests" involve nothing more than pumping two or three rolls through it wide open to see if I like the pictures. As far as I'm concerned, it's testing.

 

Love to see more of your pictures, Paul.

[andy m.]

No problem with the thread but just a comment. Experiments need to be carefully designed and controlled, that's why this is a test. Looks like image 1.42 for example has camera shake (I hope) and I would hesitate to conclude that the lens is flat based on 11.19 which could be improved significantly in photoediting software.

 

Cheers, A