Disappointment... (sorta)

[quezra]

Well I've been raving about 28/2.0 as my favorite length at the moment, so yesterday I went to go try out the Voigtlander Ultron in a store. It was beautiful to hold and wield, but at the end of the day, I couldn't tell the difference in sharpness between it at my antique $75 FDn 28/2. The colour was probably a bit better (hard to tell in a store) but that was it.

Then I went to another store and found a nice Thorium concave FD 35/2 sitting right next to a FDn 35/2. And here there was not one bit of difference between the two. In fact I thought if anything the FDn was sharper (and also smaller and lighter - the concave 35/2 was almost as heavy as my 55/1.2!), and also $80 cheaper. It's so hard to tell objectively till you try, and then the grass isn't always greener.

It looks like it's going to be a straight fight between Zeiss 24 and 32 lenses for me to see any improvement from what I have now, and waaah that's a lota money!

 

[Amin Sabet]

Just goes to show how good those FD primes are! I suppose the main advantages of the Ultron would be size and beauty. In exchange, you give up minimum focus distance and pay a lot more.

 

[quezra]

Yeah, it's been a good reality check for me. I have to remember that these were the best lenses of their day, and more expensive/newer doesn't always equal better.

And of course the Ultron is more "expensive" only because it's up against 20-40 year-old lenses - in their day, these Canons were no different (I read that the FL 55/1.2 was the most expensive mass market lens in its day - on Canon Museum it says it retailed in 1968 for 363,000 Yen which was at that time over USD 1,000 or about USD 6,700 in today's prices! Even the FDn 28/2 in 1979 retailed at $300 which is $1,000 in today's prices), so if you get a good copy, it's like striking gold.