Amateur lens test: 35/1.4 sc Nokton vs 35/1.7 Ultron

[lubitel]

Hi,

for what its worth I just did this little test, comparing the 2 lenses. I never did these kind of tests, so I am definitely not that good at it, but it was useful to me, so I thought may be it will also be useful to someone else here.

film kodak BW 400 CN, scanned with nikon V, no levels or sharpening applied. It seems to me that nokton is just as good of a lens as Ultron is, and since I will probably never be able to afford a summilux and love shooting with available light, this lens definitely suits my needs. It is also a significantly smaller lens, so its more suitable for street shooting.

 

[lubitel]

nokton and ultron at 2.0

 

[lubitel]

nokton and ultron at 2.8

 

[lubitel]

nokton and ultron at 4.0

 

[lubitel]

nokton and ultron at 5.6

 

[myoptic3]

Great test. You can see clearly that at 1.7 the Ultron has a slight advantage, but by 2.0 it is nearly neck & neck, and by 2.8 there is no difference in the lenses. I actually prefer the Nokton shots in the guitar photos all the way through the range. Having the little signs showing lens make & aperture is a wonderful idea.

 

[Keith]

To me there's no contest ... the Ultron creams the Nokton by a fair margin. At 1.7 it's a lot sharper and has none of the rather flarey look the Nokton exhibits. I agree, the gap closes as you stop them both down but looking at these tests I wouldn't be buying a 35mm Nokton! 🙂

 

[lubitel]

I agree that at 1.7 nokton seems to be softer or "flarey" but already at 2.0 it seems to be just as good. I hope these differences are not a result of any fault of my "testing skills".

 

[ruby.monkey]

Perhaps a comparison with both wide open, to show the trade-offs (if any) one accepts for the Nokton's extra speed?

 

[lubitel]

here is nokton at 1.4

 

[lubitel]

okay last one, this time a bit wider view of the close up

 

[Keith]

In the last three examples the shots at 2.8 are much of a muchness but at f2 and wider the clock at the edge of the frame is a standout with the Ultron ... the numbers are much sharper and the candle itself is creating more flare with the Nokton at these apertures.

Fun test Lubitel! ... normally lens tests bore me to tears but I enjoyed these! 🙂

When I said I wouldn't spend my money on the 35mm Nokton I meant as a choice between it and the 1.2 ... the size advantage of the 1.4 wouldn't sell it for me!

 

[lubitel]

thanks Keith, i am glad i could entertain you with a test. I bought the nokton to replace the Ultron and I think for my purposes Nokton is a more useful lens.

 

[ruby.monkey]

I.... honestly can't say which I prefer wide open. I'd be seriously tempted to buy both.

 

[nevin]

Nice test. It seems the Nokton is a bit soft (and less details) compare to the Ultron. But it's faster and smaller.....oh well...

 

[35mmdelux]

the test with any lens is best shot wide open. The problem for me with the Ultron was that I did not like the ergonomics nor the larger form factor, for this matter.

Look at it this way, shoot the Nokton at f/2.0 and have the f/1.4 in reserve.

 

[AzzA]

Interesting test, thanks for taking the time post it up.
For me (a student on a limited budget), i couldnt go past the ultron. It's very sharp and reasonably quick. Yes it's bigger than the 1.4 nokton, but it's also $200 cheaper (based off cameraquest prices).
When/if i eventually upgrade i'll probably spend a bit more and go for the 1.2 nokton instead of the 1.4.
But for a compact 35mm, it seems hard to not seriously consider the 1.4 nokton.
It's nice to have this sort of choice with lenses 🙂

 

[ferider]

Thanks for the comparison !

There seems to be a bit more going on. When you look at the f1.7 shot, the "Vincent Van Gogh" labeling on the picture in the background it visibly sharper with the Ultron, the Nokton seems to have a thinner DOF (is the Nokton pic at the same stop brighter, i.e. is it effectively faster ?) or different focus.

The one thing that always put me off on the Ultron is the .9m min. focus.

Roland.

 

[boy_lah]

Great test. You can see clearly that at 1.7 the Ultron has a slight advantage, but by 2.0 it is nearly neck & neck, and by 2.8 there is no difference in the lenses. I actually prefer the Nokton shots in the guitar photos all the way through the range. Having the little signs showing lens make & aperture is a wonderful idea.

i'm with myoptic on the differences except I prefer the nokton 1.7 all the way through the range.

i have been considering the 1.4 nokton MC vs SC and the Ultron 1.7.

I like compact so the compromise for me is probably 1.4 nokton MC - which hopefully will help with some of that 'flarey' look. Besides, on everyday use, I doubt I'll be able to tell the difference between the lens.

Of course there is still the issue of sample variations but little i can do about that.

thanks for the tests!

 

[35mmdelux]

Interestingly enough, not too many of these lenses on the pre-owned market.