Amateur lens test: 35/1.4 sc Nokton vs 35/1.7 Ultron

for me it looks like the ultron is not really 1.7 lens because on 1.7 it shows bigger DOF than nokton. it looks like its f1.7 is more like a f2...

edit: i see ferider said almost same thing.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't surprise me; I have always thought that the Ultron is not valued enough and that when I moved from it to a pre-asph Summicron 35 (iii), it actually seemed like the images were worse for me. Going to a 1.4 lens that is more compact, you would expect that they had to sacrifice some optical performance.
 
Thanks for the test, I like the format and setting you have chosen. Sometimes test are just too overloaded with data and comparisons. This one is simple and give a good idea of the qualities of the two lenses.
 
best cure for feeling the Ultron is too bulky: carry around an SLR with battery grip with a 17-35 2.8 or so on it for a while. Now Ultron seems like feather. :)
 
First, many thanks, Lubitel, for an actually useful test. Good work.

But... now I have more Nokton GAS than ever :bang::bang:

(shaking fist at the price...!!!)
 
The Ultron seems to have more depth of field even at smaller apertures. I love the look of the Ultron images, but the Nokton's handling and size are so nice.
 
Last edited:
photogdave said:
Interesting...
It seems your results are the exact opposite of this test:
http://www.cosina-voigtlander.com/content/view/73/28/
Click to expand...

I think the tester's LTM->M adapter or Ultron are causing focus errors. In the shot with the Ultron, the chair on the right seems much more in-focus than it does in the Nokton shot. Even with the 1/2 stop diference in aperture, it seems that the Ultron's focal plane is behind the no smoking sign. Then again the Ultron does seem to have more DoF, so who knows.
 
also it would be interesting if someone can compare shutter speed when ultron is set to f1.7 with some other lens on f1.7. someone with m8 or rd1...
 
photogdave said:
Interesting...
It seems your results are the exact opposite of this test:
http://www.cosina-voigtlander.com/content/view/73/28/
Click to expand...

that is pretty interesting, one has to wonder how reliable or trustworthy our tests are. Does anyone know of a more professional review, done by some magazine? Ultimately, what it comes down to is do I like the images that I get with it? and so far from what I've seen from my 2 films - I like. Even the soft and dreamy feeling at 1.4. but based on this test and your replies, I think I should hold on to ultron for a few months, just in case I change my mind. :eek:
 
lubitel said:
that is pretty interesting, one has to wonder how reliable or trustworthy our tests are. Does anyone know of a more professional review, done by some magazine? Ultimately, what it comes down to is do I like the images that I get with it? and so far from what I've seen from my 2 films - I like. Even the soft and dreamy feeling at 1.4. but based on this test and your replies, I think I should hold on to ultron for a few months, just in case I change my mind. :eek:
Click to expand...

Who needs a professional review. That will just confuse the facts with math and graphs. Just go out and shoot the two, keep the one you like better. The best endorsement for your test is the fact that some people like both lenses. I didn't count but it seems the Ultron is getting more votes, but the Nokton has some fans too. Everyone's eye is different, these two lenses offer different things for different eyes.
 
lubitel said:
that is pretty interesting, one has to wonder how reliable or trustworthy our tests are. Does anyone know of a more professional review, done by some magazine? Ultimately, what it comes down to is do I like the images that I get with it? and so far from what I've seen from my 2 films - I like. Even the soft and dreamy feeling at 1.4. but based on this test and your replies, I think I should hold on to ultron for a few months, just in case I change my mind. :eek:
Click to expand...

Sean Reid has done a very comprehensive comparison between the two lenses but you have to subscribe to his site to read it. It was all done with an M8 and Sean's results were actually very similar to your results ... the Ultron was noticably sharper throughout the range!

I guess it comes down to compactness/size for the Nokton over the Ultron ... to me it has an optical disadvantage that may not be realised in actual use though! :)
 
Last edited:
lic4 said:
It doesn't surprise me; I have always thought that the Ultron is not valued enough and that when I moved from it to a pre-asph Summicron 35 (iii), it actually seemed like the images were worse for me. Going to a 1.4 lens that is more compact, you would expect that they had to sacrifice some optical performance.
Click to expand...
I have tested the Ultron against pre-asph Summicron (IV) and at f2.8 and wider the Ultron is significantly superior in sharpness and contrast. The only problem is that I like the compactness and focusing tab of the Summicron.
 
The only thing I've never liked about my Ultron is the .9m closest focusing. This factor alone is driving me towards the Nokton.
 
photogdave said:
The only thing I've never liked about my Ultron is the .9m closest focusing. This factor alone is driving me towards the Nokton.
Click to expand...

I went the other way and added a Skopar to go along with my Ultron. I will make due using faster film with the Skopar if I need speed and closeness, or if I want small, other wise I will make the 1.7 and .9 work for me. Plus, being and LTM lens means I can use the Ultron on my Canon bodies too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom