photophorous
Registered User
Sorry for asking such a subjective question as this, but I would appreciate hearing some opinions from anyone who has used both of these lenses. I need to get a fast lens for low light shooting and I don't have a preference between these two focal lengths. So, it comes down to which lens performs best wide open. I've read a lot about both lenses, but they are seldom compared to each other. Could someone who has experience with both tell me which they prefer and why?
Thanks,
Paul
PS...35mm Nokton is out of my price range.
Thanks,
Paul
PS...35mm Nokton is out of my price range.
Avotius
Some guy
If the 50mm lens is your happy place, the nokton is a winner, the ultron...yeah good, but the nokton is a winner winner winner.
Ok too much wine tonight for me.
Ok too much wine tonight for me.
sockeyed
Well-known
What body are you using? I use the 40mm Nokton as a 35mm on my M6 (with a small modification to the lens mount to bring up the 35mm framelines). The 40mm lens fits the 35mm framelines almost perfectly, and it costs a fair amount less than the 35mm Nokton. Quality-wise, it's very comparable, and it has better eronomics and build quality than the 35 Ultron or 50 Nokton. If you are using a Voigtlander body, however, the 35mm framelines will not work as well.
I can't really speak to the IQ of the Ultron 35, but I do have the Nokton 50 and it is an excellent lens that always delivers very satisfying and impressive results. It's a lens I find hard to imagine ever giving up (unless they come out with a newer version with improved build quality and ergonomics). Here's a sample image:
Lots more here
I can't really speak to the IQ of the Ultron 35, but I do have the Nokton 50 and it is an excellent lens that always delivers very satisfying and impressive results. It's a lens I find hard to imagine ever giving up (unless they come out with a newer version with improved build quality and ergonomics). Here's a sample image:
Lots more here
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
well..if it is sooo difficult, get the 40mm f/2.4 nokton.
edit: f/1.4, of course.
edit: f/1.4, of course.
ferider
Veteran
What Pherdinand said. Sounds like the 40 might be perfect for you. Faster, smaller, shorter min. focus, etc.
Roland.
Roland.
photophorous
Registered User
I have an R2A. I've heard a lot of good things about the 40mm Nokton, but I'm not sure I want to deal with guessing how close the framelines are. I've considered it, because I really like the 40mm field of view on my Canonet.
Part of my problem is that I only have two lenses, a Heliar Classic and a C/V 35/2.5 PII. Neither are fast enough. I don't like the idea of having two lenses at the same focal length, but I can't bring myself to get rid of the Heliar Classic. I was thinking maybe I'd trade the pancake lens for the Ultron, but it sounds like I'd be better off with the 40 or 50 Nokton.
This is going to be a tough choice.
Thanks for all your replies.
Paul
Part of my problem is that I only have two lenses, a Heliar Classic and a C/V 35/2.5 PII. Neither are fast enough. I don't like the idea of having two lenses at the same focal length, but I can't bring myself to get rid of the Heliar Classic. I was thinking maybe I'd trade the pancake lens for the Ultron, but it sounds like I'd be better off with the 40 or 50 Nokton.
This is going to be a tough choice.
Thanks for all your replies.
Paul
ferider
Veteran
Hi Paul,
the R2 35mm framelines are perfect for 40mm - smaller even than the
35mm lines of the M6. You will be safe from 2m-infinity with negative film.
Best,
Roland.
the R2 35mm framelines are perfect for 40mm - smaller even than the
35mm lines of the M6. You will be safe from 2m-infinity with negative film.
Best,
Roland.