35mm f1.7 Ultron or 35mm f1.4?

computer controlled

computer controlled

Established
Local time
12:21 PM
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
66
I currently use the 50mm 1.5 Nokton VM, but i'm really more of a 35mm kind of guy. Thinking of selling the Nokton on to fund one of these two lenses. But not sure which one to go for.

I use an M6.

:confused:
 
Nokton 35 --> 0,7m min focus distance. dunno about you, but this is a big deal for me.

Not sure about the ultron, but the nokton is quite good.
 
You are less likely to notice it. The shift itself happens even when you have the lens off the camera.
 
I have not used the 1.4 but have in the past used and compaired the Ultron to a v4 35 summicron and a 35 summilux.
The Ultron is the closest lens I ever found to the V4. 1m focus was not a concern. It has a quite short focus throw as well.
 
I have a lot of 35mm's, but the Ultron 35mm f/1.7 is the sharpest and it has no distortion.

The Nokton 35mm f/1.4 really sufffers badly from barrel distortion.

Cosina should bring out an M-version of the Utron as a companion to the Nokton 50mm f/1.5 M.

Erik.
 
I haven't had the 1.4, but the 1.7 was one of the sharpest, most neutral lenses I've ever had. It was so neutral I finally sold it--I felt that the really clean rendition of the lens got in the way. It gave that digital look before I was using digital. If you're looking for approaching perfection, that's the one.

It's too big, and the focus ring doesn't give great traction.

If I were buying a 35, I'd probably get the 1.4
 
computer controlled said:
Also, does focus shift appear when using film cameras?
Click to expand...

Why would focus shift be different for film vs a digital sensor? I don't understand why there would be a distinction.

I haven't tried the 1.4 Nokton, and I am confused by the wide range of opinions being expressed about it, all the way from "best thing since sliced bread" to "poor preformer for sharpness, distortion, and focus shift". I did recently get my hands on an Ultron 1.7, and so far, I am very happy with it. It's not tiny, but it is small enough, uses 39mm filters, and seems well made. The only negative I have heard about it is that it is somehow "too perfect", and I have decided I can live with that.

Here are two pictures from a recent visit to the Smithsonian museum. The Lunar Module was shot at f1.7, and the castle, at f5.6.





Cheers,
Dez
 
The ergonomics of the Nokton, for me make it worth putting up with water flaws it's reputed to have. The Ultron always stayed home because of the .9m focusing distance, its size, and the slow focusing. I have some great images I captured with the Ultron, but it was not fun to have with me.
 
To those who has some, please show me pictures where the focusing distance of the Ultron has a negative impact compared to the Nokton.

I used the Ultron for seven years straight -- because it's the only lens I have.
Never once I have a picture where it doesn't focus close enough for me.

Do I want a version of Ultron that focuses closer?
Of course, but it's totally out of *want*, not real usage necessity.
 
I have both and both are good. The 35f1.4 (in SC) is probably my most used lens in M mount. I also have the Summilux 35f14 ( a late version II). Never use it! Prefer the Nokton 35f1.4. The 35f1.7 is nice and sharp - but ergonomics sucks. The aperture ring is strange and I can never get a good grip on the focus ring. It spends mot of it time in the 35mm drawer, together with the Summilux.
Most 35 in the medium speed range are suffering from a bit of distortion, the Nokton 35f1.4 is not alone in this by any means - but as I don't use it for shooting architecture nor am I too worried about holding it straight. It is a "street lens" and as such it is as good as I will ever need.
Somebody had a question about the 35f1.4 Nokton and claimed it sucks. It doesn't - what sucks is a version 1 Summilux 35 and lenses like the Canon 35f1.5 and 1.8 are close to that too.
 
Agreed on the 35/1.4 ergonomics. I simply enjoy using the lens. The distortion bugs me at times and if I know I'll be shooting a bunch of straight lines I may skip taking it but otherwise its a go-to lens for me.
 
Dez said:
Why would focus shift be different for film vs a digital sensor? I don't understand why there would be a distinction.

I haven't tried the 1.4 Nokton, and I am confused by the wide range of opinions being expressed about it, all the way from "best thing since sliced bread" to "poor preformer for sharpness, distortion, and focus shift". I did recently get my hands on an Ultron 1.7, and so far, I am very happy with it. It's not tiny, but it is small enough, uses 39mm filters, and seems well made. The only negative I have heard about it is that it is somehow "too perfect", and I have decided I can live with that.

Here are two pictures from a recent visit to the Smithsonian museum. The Lunar Module was shot at f1.7, and the castle, at f5.6.





Cheers,
Dez
Click to expand...

I asked because i thought i had heard the focus shift didn't occur when shooting film, but then i remembered that was Focus Peaking vs using a Rangefinder.
 
i have 1.4 sc version and can not really get used to it. only saw ultron, never used it. bought color skopar 2.5 ltm version (ebay for funny price) and love it. the smallest, really fast focus (with pin), superb. only drawback is f2.5, if you need faster of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom