dazedgonebye
Veteran
Will I like the nokton as much as the ultron? (I know you can't really know what I'll like.)
I’m concerned about the ergonomics and the lens hood. I’ve read mixed reviews about the tabs and the hood looks a bit “attention getting” to me.
Anyone with experience with both of these lenses that can help me with both image quality and the “user experience” ends?
I’m concerned about the ergonomics and the lens hood. I’ve read mixed reviews about the tabs and the hood looks a bit “attention getting” to me.
Anyone with experience with both of these lenses that can help me with both image quality and the “user experience” ends?
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Both are excellent fast lenses. If you're OK with the 40 focal length and can work out the framelines, then I think you'll like that a lot more. You probably saw the recent threads exalting both the Nokton and the Ultron. I don't think it's hyperbole.

I don't own a 40 Nokton, because I am very happy with my Ultron. Don't fix what ain't broken.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Let's narrow it down, then: if you were a tree, would you like to be:dazedgonebye said:Will I like the nokton as much as the ultron? (I know you can't really know what I'll like.)
1) Run over by a Hummer?
2) Avoided by a Subaru Outback's excellent handling?
3) Rescued promptly by the folks being called from the cellphone in what's left of that Yaris?
4) Why did I have to sell my 50mm lens?
Take your time
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Gabriel M.A. said:Let's narrow it down, then: if you were a tree, would you like to be:
1) Run over by a Hummer?
2) Avoided by a Subaru Outback's excellent handling?
3) Rescued promptly by the folks being called from the cellphone in what's left of that Yaris?
4) Why did I have to sell my 50mm lens?
Take your time![]()
True. Had one. But a severe lack of headroom for a six-footer.
.
ferider
Veteran
I think (but that should be obvious by now) the Nokton is better than
the Ultron, in particular when you have an R3*.
Roland.
the Ultron, in particular when you have an R3*.
Roland.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Long live 40mm.
raid
Dad Photographer
I don't like to use the 40mm focal length; I use the 50mm lenses a lot, followed by 35mm and 85mm lenses. Somehow, the 40mm focal length seems out of place for my personal preference in lenses for photography. I know that it has become a very popular focal length based on what I have been reading in RFF.
Raid
Raid
FrankS
Registered User
I figure the 40 is just a tight 35. No big diff.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Either 35 or 40 will satisfy me for fov, I think.
I like the very simple ergonomics of the 35 ultron.
I'm only worried about the 40's feel because it's different. Maybe I'll like it more?
Possible positives I see with the 40 are:
Being able to focus a bit closer.
Slightly faster.
Overall image quality difference between the two lenses would be important, but I can't find much said about either lens that isn't good.
I like the very simple ergonomics of the 35 ultron.
I'm only worried about the 40's feel because it's different. Maybe I'll like it more?
Possible positives I see with the 40 are:
Being able to focus a bit closer.
Slightly faster.
Overall image quality difference between the two lenses would be important, but I can't find much said about either lens that isn't good.
ferider
Veteran
.7m vs .9m close focus, a little longer focal length and half stop faster
does make a big difference in OOF behavior for portraits, Steve. At
.7m the 40/1.4 will behave just like your 50/1.5 at .9m. Would
guess that at close focus the OOF circles of the Nokton are probably
twice the size of the Ultron. Here is an example that would be impossible
to do with the Ultron:
And here a crop into the focal area:
I had two Ultrons, and liked them - the Ultron bokeh sure beats the
Summicron v4, IMO
But RF lenses are supposed to be small ...
And with your R3* there should be no question, IMO.
Cheers,
Roland.
does make a big difference in OOF behavior for portraits, Steve. At
.7m the 40/1.4 will behave just like your 50/1.5 at .9m. Would
guess that at close focus the OOF circles of the Nokton are probably
twice the size of the Ultron. Here is an example that would be impossible
to do with the Ultron:

And here a crop into the focal area:

I had two Ultrons, and liked them - the Ultron bokeh sure beats the
Summicron v4, IMO
And with your R3* there should be no question, IMO.
Cheers,
Roland.
kshapero
South Florida Man
CV 40mm F1.4 is sweet.
ferider
Veteran
FWIW, I just did the math, the Ultron close up (.9m), wide open has a
DOF of 6cm, the Nokton 40/1.4 (.7m) of 2cm.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
The Nokton 50/1.5 has a close up DOF of 3cm.
Roland.
DOF of 6cm, the Nokton 40/1.4 (.7m) of 2cm.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
The Nokton 50/1.5 has a close up DOF of 3cm.
Roland.
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
nope.FrankS said:I figure the 40 is just a tight 35. No big diff.
it's the other way 'round: the 35 is just a 40 that has gone a bit too wide ...
raid
Dad Photographer
FrankS said:I figure the 40 is just a tight 35. No big diff.
This is true Frank, but when looking at it as part of a set of lenses for use, the 40mm is too close to 50mm to make me use both on the same day [or trip].
Raid
ferider
Veteran
raid said:This is true Frank, but when looking at it as part of a set of lenses for use, the 40mm is too close to 50mm to make me use both on the same day [or trip].
Raid
40 is as apart from 50 as 28 from 35.
Think about it Raid: Nokton 40/1.4 and Canon 50/1.2, the ideal combo !!
(for me, YMMV)
Roland.
raid
Dad Photographer
Roland,
I see the 40mm lens play a role in changing the traditional trio 35-50-90 to a more useful 28-40-90. Of course you can also suggest the 28-50-90 trio or [for Nikkor 105mm/2.5 fans] a 28-50-105 trio.
The 50/1.2 is an extremely versatile lens, and I agree fully with you on this issue. If I decide one day to sell my 35mm Summicron V1, then I will replace it with a ...?
To be "complete", my set may be a 28-40-(50/1.2)-105 if a 40mm lens must be in that set.
Raid
I see the 40mm lens play a role in changing the traditional trio 35-50-90 to a more useful 28-40-90. Of course you can also suggest the 28-50-90 trio or [for Nikkor 105mm/2.5 fans] a 28-50-105 trio.
The 50/1.2 is an extremely versatile lens, and I agree fully with you on this issue. If I decide one day to sell my 35mm Summicron V1, then I will replace it with a ...?
To be "complete", my set may be a 28-40-(50/1.2)-105 if a 40mm lens must be in that set.
Raid
Last edited:
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Actually, I'm looking at:
21, 28, 35/40, 75.
If I had a camera that could focus it reliably, I'd make that 75 a fast 90.
I just can't find any love for 50mm. I tried. I bought the nokton 50, I shot it, nothing wrong with the quality. I just never want it on the camera.
21, 28, 35/40, 75.
If I had a camera that could focus it reliably, I'd make that 75 a fast 90.
I just can't find any love for 50mm. I tried. I bought the nokton 50, I shot it, nothing wrong with the quality. I just never want it on the camera.
ferider
Veteran
raid said:To be "complete", my set may be a 28-40-(50/1.2)-105 if a 40mm lens must be in that set.
Raid
YES !
Roland.
FrankS
Registered User
So, 35 or 40. Take a look at what's available. Do you need speed? (I think one should have at least 1 fast lens just to cover that circumstance.)
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.