Nokton 40mm v Ultron 40mm f/2 SL

[davidwau]

I was just wondering if anyone has compared the Nokton 40mm with it's SLR cousin on Nikon for example. I am loving my R3a but at times I do wonder if I should just stick with the FE2...

I am a rangefinder newbie and was quite amazed at how similar the size, weight and noise is with both systems. I thought that was the real selling point of RF? My FE2 with 50mm 1.8 weighs less, is smaller in volume out from the lens, and to these ears, is just as quiet. And worse, I really don't see a huge difference if viewfinder brightness.

I am happy to keep at it (although still can't quite come to terms with focusing) if the lenses are better than their SLR counterparts. I also wonder how the Skopar 21mm compares with a Nikkor 20mm...

Maybe I really need more time to get used to rangefinders. Unfortunately I have had to send my R3A back for service because of a winder problem and hope this doesn't mean I am in for loads of mechanical issues down the line. The FE2 has survived 10 years of my abuse alone without skipping a beat. But gee I want to love the R3A!

Thanks for your help.

David

 

[sockeyed]

I haven't used the Ultron 40/2, but one of my flickr contacts (and RFF'er "R3M Chris") has some pictures posted:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mx5chris/tags/ultron/

Here's another sample:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaspersee/464066936/

And some more:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lwbsg/tags/ultron/

 

[thafred]

Hi, a friend here at work uses the AIS Ultron 40mm and loves it! we went for a walk once and compared the F-mount Ultron to the M-mount SummicronC (no real test just one test frame each at f5.6 and 8 on Fuji Astia)...he did the actual compairson..he´s a film-geek and did compare the slides with a Minolta 5400 and under the microscope.
His verdict was that at this F-stops the summicron only has a slight edge in corner resolution but in the center the Ultron is just as sharp.

he has the ZF Planar now but still uses his Ultron more often because he likes the FOV so much and doesn´t miss any quality with the Voigtländer. (he allways shoots well stopped down so WO performance doesn´t matter to him)

 

[Doug]

I have the Ultron 40mm Aspheric (in P-KA mount) as well as the 40 Nokton SC and like them both, but I admit I've not attempted to put them up against each other. Surprised to see a bit of barrel distortion with the Ultron, but then the Pentax-L 43mm has that too.

 

[Avotius]

your right about rangefinders and size, I have a canon ae1, while the lens is bigger then my 50mm rangefinder lens its a lot faster at 1.8 vs 3.5, the canon body is smaller too, frankly I think rangefinders being smaller as a selling point is quite off

 

[Huck Finn]

I was just wondering if anyone has compared the Nokton 40mm with it's SLR cousin on Nikon for example. I am loving my R3a but at times I do wonder if I should just stick with the FE2...

I am a rangefinder newbie and was quite amazed at how similar the size, weight and noise is with both systems. I thought that was the real selling point of RF? My FE2 with 50mm 1.8 weighs less, is smaller in volume out from the lens, and to these ears, is just as quiet. And worse, I really don't see a huge difference if viewfinder brightness.

I am happy to keep at it (although still can't quite come to terms with focusing) if the lenses are better than their SLR counterparts. I also wonder how the Skopar 21mm compares with a Nikkor 20mm...

Maybe I really need more time to get used to rangefinders. Unfortunately I have had to send my R3A back for service because of a winder problem and hope this doesn't mean I am in for loads of mechanical issues down the line. The FE2 has survived 10 years of my abuse alone without skipping a beat. But gee I want to love the R3A!

Thanks for your help.

David

The biggest difference between RF lenses & SLR lenses is at the widest apertures. Test results can be found at www.photodo.com. Shooting in low light is where the difference between rangefinders & SLRs is really apparent. Not only are the lenses better at wide apertures, but the viewfinder is brighter, making the RF better for this kind of shooting.

The FE series was designed to be compact & is more so than many other SLRs. I have the FM3a, a descendant of your FE2. With its standard Nikkor 45/2.8 P, it's every bit as compact as any rangefinder. However, this is not necessarily the case with other lenses. RF lenses can be made smaller than SLR lenses, but that doesn't mean they necessarily are. Compact size is one of the restrictions that Leica places on its lens designers, but this increases the cost. RF lenses of the same focal length & max aperture vary in size.

 

[nightfly]

I think part of the issue is that a Bessa and some of the CV lenses have a lot more in common with SLR equipment than other rangefinders like Leica. The shutter is louder, the build quality is comparable and it's generally very similar. Also I think rangefinders come into their own with faster, wider lenses. Is there an SLR that compares size wise to a Leica M with a 35mm Summicron for speed, size and quietness? At 40mm there are some pancake style SLR lenses that are pretty small and at 50mm rangefinder lenses get bigger. Also a lot of CV's faster lenses are pretty SLR like in size. I love the CV 28/3.5 due to it's size, quality, and price but most of their other lenses are bigger compared to their Leica counterparts.

I find the size of even small SLRs (I've got a Pentax MX) to be too much. The big SLR lens sticking off is much less pocketable than a Leica even if the body is smaller and quiet-wise there is no comparison, even with a cloth shutter, the cu-chunk of the Pentax (a realtively quiet SLR) is much more noticeable the click of a Leica.

If you can live with an SLR there is no question that they are much cheaper and I think more flexible but I find that rangefinders are much more suitable to quiet shooting in wider focal lengths. Personally if the Bessa isn't doing it for you, sell it and keep your Nikon and be happy for the opportunity to see what all the fuss is about.