35/2.0 Ultron v. 40/1.2 Nokton

[kxl]

Looking to add another lens and I'm trying to decide between the CV 35/2 Ultron and the 40/1.2 Nokton. Uses will be on the ZM and a Fuji X-T2. I already have the a few ZM lenses (25, 35/2.8, Planar and Sonnar) as well as the CV 75/1.5. From what I've seen here on RFF and elsewhere, images from both the Ultron and Nokton are superb. I like the 40/1.2's sharpness (even wide open), rendering and color compared to the 35/1.2, which I owned on 2 separate occasions and with which I had a love-hate relationship. The Ultron's focusing knob won't bother me as it probably does others.

So I'm open right now: go with the more familiar FL and a natural complement to the 75/1.5 or explore a new (to me) FL that gives me a fast f1.2? I don't think the equivalent 60mm AOV on the X-T2 would make it too long the types of images that I shoot.

I'm leaning toward the 40/1.2 but wanted to get your thoughts.

Thanks,
-Keith

 

[steveyork]

The 35mm f/2 Ultron Asph. is very small, tiny even, if that makes a difference. Reminiscent for me of the 35mm Summicron Asph. I once owned. Sharp and clinical. Very much the modern look.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

35 f2 while you already have 35 f2.8?
40 for 1.5 crop and non 40 framelines ZM?
I'm thinking of 40 1.2 for M-E instead of newer M upgrade, but M-E 35 framelines are 40mm framelines.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

I'm leaning toward the 40/1.2 but wanted to get your thoughts.

I have the 35/f2 Ultron (and love it) and have looked at an awful lot of 40/f1.2 Nokton images (having also considered buying it).

My take - both are very, very good optically, and at least in Australia, the prices are similar. The big differences are going to be subjective.
- Do you value speed or compactness?
- What do you think about the ergonomics?