Marsopa
Well-known
Hi:
I'm planning to buy a 35mm lens. Among other "vintage" lens I have in mind the mentioned (Nokton and Ultron). After searching and reading many threads it seems to me that the Ultron (35/1.7) is a better performer than the Nokton (35/1.4) being this one superior only in the size/speed... Has anyone used both? Do you regret changing one for another?...
Thanks in advance, and as in many times I have to forgive for my "painful" use of english
Juan Luis
I'm planning to buy a 35mm lens. Among other "vintage" lens I have in mind the mentioned (Nokton and Ultron). After searching and reading many threads it seems to me that the Ultron (35/1.7) is a better performer than the Nokton (35/1.4) being this one superior only in the size/speed... Has anyone used both? Do you regret changing one for another?...
Thanks in advance, and as in many times I have to forgive for my "painful" use of english
Juan Luis
photogdave
Shops local
I currently have both and like them both. I've probably read all the same threads and reviews you did but I couldn't reach a conclusion until I tried them both myself.
The supposed "bad bokeh" of the Nokton is total rubbish in my opinion. All the examples I have seen of this were in very extreme conditions that no lens would perform well in. All the shots I have taken so far with out of focus areas in front of or behind the subject look good.
The barrel distortion of the Nokton is real however. In a side-by-side comparison of the same subject the Nokton had more visible distortion than the Ultron.
I am staying with the Nokton because it is more compact, faster and focuses closer. To my eye it is a bit sharper (but not much) wide open. I think the Ultron is a very good lens and I am keeping it until I find that magic deal on a 35 Summicron, then it goes!
The supposed "bad bokeh" of the Nokton is total rubbish in my opinion. All the examples I have seen of this were in very extreme conditions that no lens would perform well in. All the shots I have taken so far with out of focus areas in front of or behind the subject look good.
The barrel distortion of the Nokton is real however. In a side-by-side comparison of the same subject the Nokton had more visible distortion than the Ultron.
I am staying with the Nokton because it is more compact, faster and focuses closer. To my eye it is a bit sharper (but not much) wide open. I think the Ultron is a very good lens and I am keeping it until I find that magic deal on a 35 Summicron, then it goes!
oscroft
Veteran
I haven't used both, just the 1.4 Nokton, with which I've shot about a dozen rolls so far - which is half a dozen more since I last posted anything about it here.
Generally I really like the look of its images, including the OOF areas - I have no "bokeh" complaints. And it's definitely usable at f/1.4, which is why I really got it. It's also very compact, which is important for me as I want to take it traveling.
And yes, it does indeed show barrel distortion, so if you're going to be shooting a lot with straight lines along the edges of the frames, it's probably not the lens for you.
Generally I really like the look of its images, including the OOF areas - I have no "bokeh" complaints. And it's definitely usable at f/1.4, which is why I really got it. It's also very compact, which is important for me as I want to take it traveling.
And yes, it does indeed show barrel distortion, so if you're going to be shooting a lot with straight lines along the edges of the frames, it's probably not the lens for you.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I have both and admittedly I tend to use the 35f1.4 more than the 35f1.7. I find the latter a bit clumsy ergonomically - the apterture ring is awkward to grip.
The slight distorsion of the 35f1.4 is not an issue with me as I dont shoot architecture or "precision" lined up shots. I use it on a M2 as a constant companion package.
As with any lenses, go to Flickr and type in the tags for the lenses you are interested in and there are 100's of examples shot with them. Resolution is difficult to asess from screen images, but issues like distorsion and out of focus areas will show up quite well.
The 35f1.4 is very good at f1.4 - I find it better than the 35f1.7 at 1.7 ! As for color rendition, I dont know as I dont do color anymore. I shot it commercially for a looong,loooong time and when I stopped I decided I was going back to what I liked shooting, black/white and aimless wanderings with a couple of bodies (M2 with 35f1.4 Noktons and usually a 21/28 and/or a 50 on either the R4M or another M2).
The slight distorsion of the 35f1.4 is not an issue with me as I dont shoot architecture or "precision" lined up shots. I use it on a M2 as a constant companion package.
As with any lenses, go to Flickr and type in the tags for the lenses you are interested in and there are 100's of examples shot with them. Resolution is difficult to asess from screen images, but issues like distorsion and out of focus areas will show up quite well.
The 35f1.4 is very good at f1.4 - I find it better than the 35f1.7 at 1.7 ! As for color rendition, I dont know as I dont do color anymore. I shot it commercially for a looong,loooong time and when I stopped I decided I was going back to what I liked shooting, black/white and aimless wanderings with a couple of bodies (M2 with 35f1.4 Noktons and usually a 21/28 and/or a 50 on either the R4M or another M2).
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
As a corollary question, Tom, which do you prefer wide open--the 35/1.4 or the 40/1.4?
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I think my 35f1.4's are marginally sharper at f1.4 - but not enough to discard the 40f1.4's by any means.
I did some shooting with my late pre-asph Summilux 35 and the 35f1.4 SC - mostly nightime shots with glaring lights. The Nokton came out a clear winner with much less flare. I went back and looked at some stuff that I had done with the 40f1.4's (SC and MC) and the flare suppression is just as good on these, but slightly more "halo" around the light sources.
I have said it before and say it again/" There are really no bad lenses out there anymore". Modern computers and CNC machining has given us cameras and lenses that we could only dream off 15-20 years ago! Your selection is probably based more on price,ergonomics and availability today.
I did some shooting with my late pre-asph Summilux 35 and the 35f1.4 SC - mostly nightime shots with glaring lights. The Nokton came out a clear winner with much less flare. I went back and looked at some stuff that I had done with the 40f1.4's (SC and MC) and the flare suppression is just as good on these, but slightly more "halo" around the light sources.
I have said it before and say it again/" There are really no bad lenses out there anymore". Modern computers and CNC machining has given us cameras and lenses that we could only dream off 15-20 years ago! Your selection is probably based more on price,ergonomics and availability today.
pmu
Well-known
Does anyone have samples of that nokton barrel distortion? please give a link if you have..
I have kept my Ultron and not bought a Nokton.
For some history, I owned and enjoyed an Ultron but sold it when I found a good deal on a 35 Summicron. The Summicron is a wonderful lens, but ergonomically for me, it is short and stumpy, and I didn't like it at all. I also was very happy with the image quality from my Ultron, so I sold the Summicron and bought another Ultron.
When the 35 Nokton came out I wanted one bad, but instead I put the Ultron on my cameras and went out shooting with it. To me, it is a perfect lens size and ergonomic wise. Yes it is larger than the Nokton, but I don't care about that. (I recently acquired a 35 Skopar for when I want to be compact) I do wish it focused closer as I do bump up occasionally against the .9 minimum focus distance, but keep in mind that if you are shooting with smaller apertures DOF will give you some extra room.
So, I have not tried the Nokton, but that is because I really like the Ultron.
For some history, I owned and enjoyed an Ultron but sold it when I found a good deal on a 35 Summicron. The Summicron is a wonderful lens, but ergonomically for me, it is short and stumpy, and I didn't like it at all. I also was very happy with the image quality from my Ultron, so I sold the Summicron and bought another Ultron.
When the 35 Nokton came out I wanted one bad, but instead I put the Ultron on my cameras and went out shooting with it. To me, it is a perfect lens size and ergonomic wise. Yes it is larger than the Nokton, but I don't care about that. (I recently acquired a 35 Skopar for when I want to be compact) I do wish it focused closer as I do bump up occasionally against the .9 minimum focus distance, but keep in mind that if you are shooting with smaller apertures DOF will give you some extra room.
So, I have not tried the Nokton, but that is because I really like the Ultron.
maggieo
More Deadly
I've got both lenses and think that they are both fine, fine lenses. Here's Flickr sets of each lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mediawench/tags/voigtländer35mmultronf17/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mediawench/tags/voigtländer35mmnoktonclassic14/
take a look at both and judge for yourselves, there is much to recommend for each lens and both have their own and distinctive look.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mediawench/tags/voigtländer35mmultronf17/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mediawench/tags/voigtländer35mmnoktonclassic14/
take a look at both and judge for yourselves, there is much to recommend for each lens and both have their own and distinctive look.
George S.
How many is enough?
Maggie, thank you for the link to those shots. I had been debating with myself over which lens to purchase, then beemermark sent me a note about his Ultron and I decided to buy it. I'm glad I chose the Ultron. From what you posted, I like the look of the Ultron shots a bit more than the Nokton.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I've only owned the Ultron briefly and just couldn't get "into it" but I really like the new Nokton
On the M8, ISO640, wide open.
Cheers,
Dave
On the M8, ISO640, wide open.
Cheers,
Dave
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
I just 'could not get into' the Nokton 35/1.4, but I am going through the throes of trying to find a faster 35mm lens. I have the wonderful little Color-Skopar Classic, but simply find too slow now that my standard film is Efke KB25. At times I just need those few extra stops.
I have seen what the Summilux can do, but it is way out of my budget. And for some reason, I just could not love the Nokton. But Ultron does not gain much over the C-SC. The Nokton 35/1.2 seems to be big to be a daily user, but then I used to use my Nikkor 35mm f1.4 on my Nikkormat FTn for 95% of my photography so the Nokton 1.2 cannot be that much larger.
But I may have to reconsider the Nokton 35/1.4...
I have seen what the Summilux can do, but it is way out of my budget. And for some reason, I just could not love the Nokton. But Ultron does not gain much over the C-SC. The Nokton 35/1.2 seems to be big to be a daily user, but then I used to use my Nikkor 35mm f1.4 on my Nikkormat FTn for 95% of my photography so the Nokton 1.2 cannot be that much larger.
But I may have to reconsider the Nokton 35/1.4...
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I really think, and this is merely my opinion only (obviously), that you can't go wrong with either Nokton.
The 35mm f1.2 isn't much larger than a small 35mm f2 SLR lens and likely is even smaller in terms of diameter but longer.
The 35mm f1.4 Nokton, well, I can't get enough of that lens currently... don't know why people p00 p00 all over it for the money...
Cheers,
Dave
The 35mm f1.2 isn't much larger than a small 35mm f2 SLR lens and likely is even smaller in terms of diameter but longer.
The 35mm f1.4 Nokton, well, I can't get enough of that lens currently... don't know why people p00 p00 all over it for the money...
Cheers,
Dave
jmkelly
rangefinder user
Agreed, though I probably am not as "into" mine as Dave
. I'm glad to see someone doing good things with the 35/1.4 Nokton on an M8 - I seem to recall all the p00 p00 over this lens was stirred up by the echo chamber plus a review that descibed the new Nokton as something less than steller. Clearly, YMMV. In my opinion, on film and on the R-D1 the 35/1.4 Nokton is a creditable performer, especially for its small size.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I have had both together for a short time. Nokton is slightly sharper. Ultron gives me more of a "old time feel" both in rendition and ergonomics, but the Nokton won out for compactness and a sturdiness. But I miss the Ultron still.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Well, the beauty is, if you can afford the 35mm summicron ASPH then you're probably (yes, yes, I know, blasphemy..) better off having both the Nokton and the Ultron
Dave
kshapero
South Florida Man
Could whoever I sold my Ultron to, please send it back?
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
I own the Ultron f1.7. It's a fine lens but when I compare my pictures to those taken with a 1963 DR Summicron under the same conditions, the Summicron is quite obviously better when both used at f2.
(Silly comparison, but at that time those were my only M lenses)
Dunno if my sample is not as good as it could be, but the lens just isn't quite as convincing as i thought it should be. Even at f2 resolution begins to drop not all too far from the center of the frame. Ok, only a little bit, but quite visible if you try to read a small plaque with text from a scan I made.
As I am looking for the ultimate 35mm, the Nokton 1.4 seems a better bet for my needs, as Tom states it is better at f1.4 than the Ultron at f1.7. f1.2 is probably strecthing things too much and I like small lenses.
(Silly comparison, but at that time those were my only M lenses
)Dunno if my sample is not as good as it could be, but the lens just isn't quite as convincing as i thought it should be. Even at f2 resolution begins to drop not all too far from the center of the frame. Ok, only a little bit, but quite visible if you try to read a small plaque with text from a scan I made.
As I am looking for the ultimate 35mm, the Nokton 1.4 seems a better bet for my needs, as Tom states it is better at f1.4 than the Ultron at f1.7. f1.2 is probably strecthing things too much and I like small lenses.
maggieo
More Deadly
Agreed, though I probably am not as "into" mine as Dave
Well, since one of the Nokton lenses that was reviewed was mine, I can confirm that the Nokton 35/1.4 is a less-than-stellar performer.
That said, I don't give a damn! I like the way it draws and how it renders light- it gives me that early 60's Summilux kind of look and I like it.
However, my 35/1.7 Ultron is still the all-time winner on my M8. Maybe it's because I grew up shooting a Konica T4 and a Nikon F3, but the lens falls to my hand like an old friend and it has a sharp, but not too-sharp way of drawing that reminds me of, well, drawing.
maggieo
More Deadly
Both lenses, wide open, for comparison...
Ultron on M8:
Nokton Classic on M8:
I've had two copies of the Nokton- the first had a pronounced back-focus problem from 1.4-5.6 and that shows a bit in the photo above. The second copy show no noticable focus shift at any aperture.
Ultron on M8:
Nokton Classic on M8:
I've had two copies of the Nokton- the first had a pronounced back-focus problem from 1.4-5.6 and that shows a bit in the photo above. The second copy show no noticable focus shift at any aperture.