35 ultron vs the 1.4?

[morgan]

So I have the 35/1.7 which I think is ok, but not great. I mostly use it when I don't feel like (or want to protect) my 35 1/.2. But I always feel a want a little more out of the 1.7. A little more sharpness, a little more depth (or 3d ness if that makes any sense). So I've been thinking about trying another 35. The 35 1.4 would cover a lot of ground, but how does it compare to the 1.7? I'm not sure I've seen comparisons between the two. The third option would be a used summicron maybe. These would mostly be used on an R-D1.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Lenses cannot give 3-Dness or depth. Photography is a 2-D art form. You want 3D, do sculpture. Seriously. I've shot the 35 Ultron and it beats any other 35mm lens I have ever used. I have not used the 1.4 Nokton or a 35 Summicron, but the 35 Ulton I have used is sharp wide open and has much nicer Bokeh than the others I have tried (Olympus 35/2 and 35/2.8, Nikon 35/2 AF). I think you're chasing rainbows instead of taking pictures.

 

[ferider]

The Ultron is a very nice lens. IQ up there with the pre-asph Summicron if you got a good one. The 1.4 Nokton is a bit more involved when shooting, with shift and barrel distortion and all that. But then you know the barreling from your 1.2.

Maybe try the Color Skopar ? Easy to add to your kit since very small, very contrasty, nice bokeh, and very sharp.

Both Color Skopar and 1.4 Nokton focus down to .7m, BTW.

Cheers,

Roland.

PS: I have to disagree with Chris though: my Zuiko 35/2 has about the prettiest bokeh I know from a 35. 🙂

 

[MCTuomey]

I should never have sold my 35/1.7, which was paired with an R2A when I had one. Excellent all-around 35, I think. I prefer my UC-Hex 35 (perfect handling for me), but would happily shoot with the Ultron otherwise. I liked its rendering, balanced contrast, and bokeh very much. So much lens for the money, really.

 

[RayPA]

Lenses cannot give 3-Dness or depth. Photography is a 2-D art form. You want 3D, do sculpture. ...

obviously...but the OP is asking about quality or characteristic that some lenses have. I've read about it here, heard others refer to it, and have seen it in photos. Most folks here know exactly what the OP is referring to.

The OP might want to look at the Zeiss lenses and peruse the M-Mount/LTM group on Flickr for samples.

/

 

[Svitantti]

After Summicron, the Ultron is my second choice. If money is included, it is my first choice.

It is not quite as sharp wide open as the 1.4 or Summicron, but it does not have distortion like the 1.4. It is bigger than these small lenses but also cheaper.

The Ultron only focuses down to 0,9 m where these others go to 0,7 m.

I think the Ultron is a great bargain for what it is... And it is kind of a shame it is discontinued.

 

[noimmunity]

Hey Morgan, you might really like the little Nokton as a compliment to your Big Nok. Unless, that is, you are planning to use it to take photos of things that will show its barrel distortion.
The little Nokton is a really fantastic lens. It has its faults, but for what it is--a fast and really small medium wide lens with a kind of classic look--it deserves praise.

 

[morgan]

Lenses cannot give 3-Dness or depth. Photography is a 2-D art form. You want 3D, do sculpture. Seriously. I've shot the 35 Ultron and it beats any other 35mm lens I have ever used. I have not used the 1.4 Nokton or a 35 Summicron, but the 35 Ulton I have used is sharp wide open and has much nicer Bokeh than the others I have tried (Olympus 35/2 and 35/2.8, Nikon 35/2 AF). I think you're chasing rainbows instead of taking pictures.

Wow - could you be more condescending?

 

[morgan]

The Ultron is a very nice lens. IQ up there with the pre-asph Summicron if you got a good one. The 1.4 Nokton is a bit more involved when shooting, with shift and barrel distortion and all that. But then you know the barreling from your 1.2.

Maybe try the Color Skopar ? Easy to add to your kit since very small, very contrasty, nice bokeh, and very sharp.

Both Color Skopar and 1.4 Nokton focus down to .7m, BTW.

Cheers,

Roland.

PS: I have to disagree with Chris though: my Zuiko 35/2 has about the prettiest bokeh I know from a 35. 🙂

Hey Roland - yeah, I'm not too worried about barrel distortion. I had the color skopar and it was super sharp. Maybe I should think about that one again. I was shooting more film then, with the R-D1 the slower speed of the 2.5 might be less of an issue.

I think the Ultron is a great lens, it's what I shoot most with on the R-D1, sometimes I just want a little more sharpness with it.

 

[Bobfrance]

I've grown luke warm to the image quality of my 35/f1.7 Ultron since I bought the 50/f2 Zeiss Planar. The Zeiss renders so well (to my personal taste) that I think I'll have to go for a 35 Biogon as soon as I can afford it.

It tick all the boxes of clarity, 3D-ness etc. Just doesn't open up as wide as you might like.

I'm also intrigued by the M-Hexanon 35mm too.

BTW. I too know exactly what you mean by 3D in image rendering terms, but then again I'm not Commander Data 😉

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Photography, like other forms of art, is full of myths and superstitions. I would suggest that the appearance if depth in photographs comes from arrangement of elements within the picture plane, lighting, contrast level you print at, and use of depth of field rather than the lens. At least the 3D lens myth won't kill you, unlike some of the chemicals that some photographers, painters, and ceramacists swear by.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Morgan,

I looked over your stuff on Flickr. You've got some cool concert photos. I've never been able to capture fast action well, and musicians on stage never stand still, so you are good. I think that they need a LOT more contrast. Especially the black and white ones (the color ones are actually pretty nice as they are now). The BW ones are flat and gray. Try increasing the contrast in Photoshop; you'll see a lot more texture and modulation of form through lighting that will give you the 3D look you want without spending money on a lens. I may be arrogant sometimes but I was trying to help and I stand by what I said. Buying a lens to get depth in your photos is a waste of money that you could use for travel, film, focal lengths you don't already own, etc.

When I was younger, I spent a lot of money I couldn't afford chasing perfection in lenses. I wasted a lot of money when all i really needed to do was become a better printer.

 

[Florian1234]

The Zeiss renders so well (to my personal taste) that I think I'll have to go for a 35 Biogon as soon as I can afford it.

As one who did the step from FSU lenses to the 35/2 Biogon from Zeiss, I am also very pleased with this lens. The oof areas are a bit different from the Leica glas, but it does very good overall. I shoot 90% black&white, but the colour shots also are very nice with it.

 

[morgan]

Morgan,

I looked over your stuff on Flickr. You've got some cool concert photos. I've never been able to capture fast action well, and musicians on stage never stand still, so you are good. I think that they need a LOT more contrast. Especially the black and white ones (the color ones are actually pretty nice as they are now). The BW ones are flat and gray. Try increasing the contrast in Photoshop; you'll see a lot more texture and modulation of form through lighting that will give you the 3D look you want without spending money on a lens. I may be arrogant sometimes but I was trying to help and I stand by what I said. Buying a lens to get depth in your photos is a waste of money that you could use for travel, film, focal lengths you don't already own, etc.

When I was younger, I spent a lot of money I couldn't afford chasing perfection in lenses. I wasted a lot of money when all i really needed to do was become a better printer.

Thanks for looking at my stuff and I appreciate the tips. In terms of the contrast, I tend not to like a lot of contrast, but I'll play around more and see what happens, I do agree that they can look a little flat. Plus in most of those band shots I'm eeking what i can out of the raw files. The bulk of those were the R-D1 and the cv 35 1.2 at 1600 and no flash.

In terms of the thread, I don't think there's anything wrong with trying different lenses if you're not happy with what you've got. I'm a much better guitar player than I am photographer, but even now after playing for decades, I can occassionally want some other sound or something else out of my existing gear that I just can't get, distortion pedals aren't all the same, and neither are 35mm lenses. If I feel like my ultron is consistently soft and flat looking, then trying something else would seem to be a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Krosya]

I used to have Ultron. I still like it and think it's second best CV 35mm lens. CV 35/1.2 being the best. I sold it only because I got Hexanon 35mm lens. And because ot only focuses down to .9m. Optics were superb I think. Is Hexanon a better lens? Yes, but most of the times It's hard to see a difference. I did try Skopar - sharp, small, contrasty - good lens, but nothing special for me as far is it's signature. Ultron is FAR better. Never tried Nokton 35/1.4, but most photos I have seen from it didnt impress me. So, if you want something different than Ultron, I'd look at Hexanon, Biogon or Leica.