Voigtländer VM 35mm f1.7 Ultron asph. review (for Leica M)


Image Property of Voigtländer

In the end of 2014 i did a review of the Zeiss 35mm ZM Distagon and it turned out that this was a great lens. Now, about 9 months later, i have the chance to write about another alternative for the M mount.

Ultron 5

Open day at the DLR near Cologne – click on all images for best quality (one click large, two clicks 100%)


It took me quite a while before i first tested a non Leica lens on my M. There was little reason because i was always happy with Leica. Shure these lenses are pretty expensive but you get what you pay for and they hold up in value very well. Still there are good and more reasonable priced alternatives out there on the market.

While Zeiss was always known for quality glass with its own optical character Voigtländer seemed to be a bit behind, both in terms of build and optical performance. But like in the car industry times are changing and new products from less renowned companies surprise us. So after hearing good things about the new Voigtländer Ultron i thought it would be time to give it a try.


Exposed aero engine, CV 35 Ultron asph. at f 6.8 – nice 3D pop

Build quality

Note that i can only speak about the chrome version of the lens which is made out of brass. There also exists a black version that is made of aluminum. I went for the chrome one because i thought it would look cool on my M and i loved how the latest edition of the 50mm Nokton looks like. In fact the Nokton and this lens are very comparable in look and feel.

The chrome version of the Ultron is noticable heavier (330g) than its black sibling (238g). Both are well made but maybe not on par with Leica glass (or Zeiss for that matter). The aperture ring is solid and smooth at the same time although the focus ring feels a bit harsh in comparison. There is nothing wrong with it, it is just how it feels to me after shooting Leica lenses almost exclusively. The filter thread has a size of 43mm which is uncommon for Leica mount. The lens is quite small with a length of 50.6mm and comes shipped with a (screw on) metal lens hood. It feels very dense and solid in the hands and works just fine.


 Tail fin, CV 35 Ultron asph. at f 5.6 – nice color and tonality

Optical quality

Now the question is how well compares the 980 US dollar Voigtländer lens to the rivals from Zeiss and Leica ?

The new Voigtländer starts with a 1.7 aperture and wide open it is very compareable to the fantastic Zeiss in terms of sharpness. Overall performance is improved when stopping down and from 2.8 on it is as sharp as it gets, even on pixel level and even in the corners of the frame. Micro contrast is also on a high level but i usually like to add a bit clarity in post.

Colors look very true to life with this Voigtländer lens. I had my problems in the past with lenses from that company but this one is on a new level. Even better than the 50mm Nokton 1.5 asph. (which was already a step forward). The lens shows no visible focus shift also. Well done.


Imperial troopers with hostige, CV 35 Ultron asph. at f 1.7 – sharp even wide open

The lens has a good flare resistance when you shoot against the sun. At small apertures and in very contrasty scenes you can find color fringing occasionally. In most shooting situations you will see none. With its ten aperture blades it easily creates nice looking sunstars not only at f 16. The overall rendition is very organic with just the right contrast. Bokeh is also pleasing for a 35mm lens.


DLR facility, CV 35 Ultron asph. at f 6.8 – sharp from corner to corner

At f 1.7 there is visible vignetting. That is expected. It goes away when you stop the lens down. In actual photography it will not be an issue but when you shoot white walls this lens shows also a minor magenta color cast in the corners of the frame. I coded the lens as a 35mm Summicron asph. and it helped (see images below).


White wall, CV 35 Ultron asph. at f 1.7 – Image 1 uncoded, uncorrected,  Image 2 coded, corrected in LR              

If you are sensible to distortion and want straight lines right out of the box, here is good news. Distortion is on a very low level and the little there is can easily be fixed in LR if you want perfection.

The bottom line

The Voigtländer VM 35mm f1.7 Ultron asph. is a strong performer. It is sharp, has good color and contrast, a nice bokeh and handles nicely. It is not a f 1.4 lens like its more expensive competitors but that does not matter much to me. With its compact size it feels very balanced on a Leica M and it also does not block the view finder much. It comes with a lens hood and a three years warranty (in Europe) for a very reasonable price. What is not to like ? Highly recommended.

Ultron 6

Landing gear, CV 35 Ultron asph. at f 1.7 – another example of a shot taken wide open

If you want to follow my blog for more articles in photo you can do so by hitting the follow button. Thanks for reading.

Replacing the Leica M9 with the Leica M – why it was worth it for me.

Hello dear readers of my blog,

i just wanted to share my thoughts on the Leica M and explain why it finally replaced my M9. The reasons might be interesting if you wonder if it is worth it for you, too.

This is no review of the camera. I am not going to repeat what others already wrote about the Leica M. Instead i want to explain what matters to me and why i finally bought it.

When you have read what i wrote under “My gear” you know that i love the M9. So much, that i thought i would never replace it with the M. I still think that in terms of pure image quality (at base ISO) nothing beats the M9. Pictures in fact have a very unique look that i am a big fan of. But images from the M9 are not (technically) better than those coming from the M. They are just different.

So the biggest difference between the M9 and the M is of course the sensor (18mp CCD sensor on the M9 versus a 24mp CMOS sensor on the M). And while CMOS brings many advantages like live view, focus peaking, better high iso quality, etc., i totally understand people who prefer the CCD sensor – not only in Leica cameras. In a market where almost every consumer camera has a CMOS sensor, CCD stands out. I sometimes find it hard to distinguish a picture from a Sony A7 combined with a Leica lens from one that was shot with the M and the same lens but i can always tell when the image was shot with the M9 (or M8 for that matter).

I prefer colors from the M9 and i believe that is due to its CCD sensor. Out of camera jpegs never impressed me though on the M9 and the M has the edge here if that is important to you. So better shoot RAW on your M9. Shure the M has much better dynamic range. There is more room to work with your shadows and highlights in post.

There is a debate going on wether the M9 files are sharper than the M’s and to me the M9 files indeed do look sharper on screen. But comparing images on screen is problematic. The more resolution your camera has the more compressed they show on screen and even looking at 1:1 pixels is not a fair comparison because the higher the pixel count the higher the magnification. What i can tell is, when you downsize the images to match screen resolution before you export them results from the M are great and compareable to those from the M9 in terms of sharpness. And if you print, you will be very happy with your results. Here the extra resolution can be a big plus depending on the size of your print.

I think that the combination of modern CMOS sensor and higher pixel count on the M makes it worth shooting it with the best lenses out there. In my opinion the camera shows the differences much clearer than the M9 did. Images from the 50mm Noctilux 0.95 look at least as good on the M. Same is true with the 90mm Summicron APO for example. Other lenses, especially older ones, dont come to life in the same way they did on the M9. So older lenses work better on the M9 while the latest lenses help the M especially in terms of color rendition and overall look and feel. Images then have the same pop and 3Dness that you love on the M9.

Apart from that the M is indeed a worthy successor. I mentioned the expanded dynamic range that i appreciate, the better low light performance, better ooc jpegs and that is not all.

The build of the M is superior (but not by much cause the M9 is already among the best). For example the little wheel on the back of the M works better for me than that on the M9, both when you review your pictures and when you move around the menue. The buttons also feel more responsive. You will notice the exta weight of the M though and the little thumb rest does not help much to hold the camera safely. I used a Thumbs Up on the M9 and it is a great tool on the M as well. The extra Leica hand grip might be worth it for you but i prefer to keep the system as small (and light) as possible.

The new shutter is smooth and very silent. Definetly an improvement here as well. The display is higher resolution, which combined with live view (and/or focus peaking) is great. If you shoot lenses wider than 28mm you still can see what is in the frame. A big plus if you don’t want to carry extra view finders. Working with filters is much easier now, too, because you can see the effect in live view. The battery life is also much improved and the body is even weather sealed. As i am much into outdoor photography i appreciate the M for that.

Last not least my M9 had sensor problems twice in three years and needed a repair twice. This might not be the biggest issue in the world but having a sensor that is free of corrosion is a good thing.

So for my type of photography the M is the better camera. Yes, the difference in output is definetly noticeable and not everybody will prefer the M but it also features a lot of improvements that make it a better package for most, especially when you are into landscape photography and work with wide angle lenses and filters.  And it is still a true Leica rangefinder camera that works perfectly well with almost any Leica lens ever made. Photos to showcase this will follow so keep coming back for more.

Thanks for reading.