Ultron 28/2 or Nokton 35/1.4 SC

M

mikeong

Member
Local time
5:38 PM
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
27
Hi Guys,

I was wondering which lens do you prefer.

I'm getting an M6 body .72, I would like to get your opinion which is the better lens for it. I know that Ultron is wider, which will maximize the framelines of the M6 (28mm). Nokton has an extra stop.. I must say that the Nokton 35/1.2 ASPH is just heavy for me that's why I'm residing to these lenses.

I'm a bit concern with the glass though. Does any of the 2 more superior to the other except for the focal length and f stop?

Thanks guys! Still learning a lot here.

Mike
 
The 35/1.4 would be my choice: but that's because I prefer not to go wider. Some people do not find even 28mm wide enough. I should think the quality of your two options would be similar, given that they come from the same stable.
 
Hi Mike -- Your choice might well depend on what OTHER lens(es) you have and plan to have. For a first or only lens, I'd suggest the 35 as more useful all-round than the 28. If you have or plan on a 50mm, for instance, then you'll want to consider how the 28 or 35 complement the 50. I could be happy with just the 35mm only. Both are fine, optically, and the 35 is particularly compact.
 
It sounds like this would be the only lens you would have for this camera? If so, I would definitely start out with the 35mm, it just gives more usage in a variety of circumstances. I have a 28mm and wider, but I find that the wider I go, the closer I have to get to the subject to get them to be big enough in an 8X10 print. The wider you go, the smaller the subject matter in the frame when you print, so then you have to make really big prints to see the scene/buildings/subjects UNLESS everything you shoot is up close, or in a small room or you are scale focussing and doing alot of street photography.
 
Thanks a lot for the reply guys.

Doug said:
Hi Mike -- Your choice might well depend on what OTHER lens(es) you have and plan to have. For a first or only lens, I'd suggest the 35 as more useful all-round than the 28. If you have or plan on a 50mm, for instance, then you'll want to consider how the 28 or 35 complement the 50. I could be happy with just the 35mm only. Both are fine, optically, and the 35 is particularly compact.
Click to expand...

I have a few LTMs but this would be my first M lens.

And FotoMeow.

I usually shoot around the streets. Lately I've been using a 35mm LTM on a Canon P and there are times that I find it not wide enough, specially if I want to put more elements. The negative part is sometimes you'll end up with photos that have empty parts.

Appreciate the replies.

Mike
 
Mike,

I use to have the Voigtlander VM Ultron 28mm f/2, it's a great lens indeed, but I sold it and then got afterwards the Voigtlander VM Nokton S.C 35mm f/1.4, which for me, is the lens that I prefer most as I find it more versatile and also more compact. In any case, you will love either ones you decide to buy :)
 
i don't own either lens, however i think there is something between these lesnes to bear in mind: i think the 35/1.4 has far more barrel distortion and therefore maybe not ideal if you intend to wet print your negatives (i am not aware of any way to fix barrel distortion in the darkroom)
 
aeolist said:
i don't own either lens, however i think there is something between these lesnes to bear in mind: i think the 35/1.4 has far more barrel distortion and therefore maybe not ideal if you intend to wet print your negatives (i am not aware of any way to fix barrel distortion in the darkroom)
Click to expand...

So, the 35mm has more barrel distortion than the 28mm which is wider? Kinda weird huh?

Thanks for this aeolist.

Anyone had this experience with the 35mm?
 
If you are going to be using the lens mostly for street I wouldn't worry about the small amount of barrel distortion this lens has. Many lenses like the summilux pre asph 35 have it but see how popular that lens has been and still is. They are both excellent lenses in real world shooting. I have the SC 35 and the 28. Both produce superb results with B&W film and colour too.
 
I'm a bit leaning to get the 28. I think it's better for streets. There are times that I feel the lack of wide when using my current 35 lens.

It would maximize the use of the framelines as well with the m6.
 
4597776747_abf2e84956.jpg


Taken last night with 35 SC on Leica M8.2 at f1.4 ISO 1250
 
Like some of the other posters I do not have the 28, but I like the 35 and it stayed on my M6 for the most part. Here's a shot with the MC version on my M8, the only thing I did was straighten it and change the color profile, some barrel is present. 2500 iso no detail on aperture.

4592121561_08bd9b9fd3_b.jpg
 
It's a tough call, they are both great lenses. The barrel distortion on the 35 is very acceptable, IMO and similar or less to other 35mm lenses that I have.

The 35 is smaller and one stop faster. Easier for people shooting, since perspective is more "normal". However, if you already have a good 50, or a 35 LTM lens (that is easy to adapt), I would get the 28.

Roland.
 
Hi Nigel

Hi Nigel

I've read this a few places, but have not seen barrel distortion with the pre-asph 35 lux.

I've also not seen it in either the E43 or E46 v2 50 pre asph lux's, but have seen it in exactly one, our member Erik has posted some samples.

Do you have a pre-asph 35 lux that you can show examples of distortion with?

Even Mr. Rockwell :rolleyes: doesn't seem to find it ...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/35mm-f14.htm

Nigel Meaby said:
If you are going to be using the lens mostly for street I wouldn't worry about the small amount of barrel distortion this lens has. Many lenses like the summilux pre asph 35 have it but see how popular that lens has been and still is. They are both excellent lenses in real world shooting. I have the SC 35 and the 28. Both produce superb results with B&W film and colour too.
Click to expand...
 
take my words with a grain of salt. i have seen a lot of photos from the 35/1.4, only a couple from the 28/2. I am sensitive to barrel distortion and would find it an issue - but there are a lot of happy campers here. So just see a lot of examples is my suggestion

as to why it is so. well the 35/1.4 is faster and smaller than the 28/2. A faster, smaller and cheap lens? from an engineering point of view some compromise must be made.
 
Barrel distortion for current RF lenses is very much exaggerated on the internet; and it is typically commented on, without actual use experience of a specific lens. For the 35/1.4 it never has mattered to me for people shots, and only really bothered me with the occasional (very rare), close focus architecture shot. The 28/2 barrels, too, I just browsed the flickr M-mount group and there are examples like this (taken on a u4/3 camera, therefore heavily cropped):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/19432592@N08/4371122511/in/pool-m-mount

Not too different from what the 35/1.4 does. Here is a typical 35/1.4 shot, not corrected for distortion in PS:

719680970_2kSUW-L.jpg


Roland.
 
Last edited:
I notice it a lot

I notice it a lot

With the my HAF, maybe 1-3 shots are ruined by it per roll. If we were living with pyramid buildings, it might be a stellar lens, but since rectangles have become commonplace, and water tends to level itself, it can be very annoying.

I was very excited with a clean J3 recently, until I noticed it had quite severe distortion. I also have a Nikkor 43-86 whose signature and contrast I like a lot, but the distortion is ever-present.

Also, new 35/1.8 Nikkor AFS has it too.

I'm guessing the new lenses with it, are being aimed at photoshop fixer uppers or made for digicams with built-in straightening.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonmanjiro/3656045226/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
optical illusion

optical illusion

It's not very noticeable in this particular photo, but it's there.

Simply put a piece of paper on any of the lower lines like the pipe railing, and you'll see that it's not straight.

ferider said:
Barrel distortion for current RF lenses is very much exaggerated on the internet; and it is typically commented on for a specific lens without ever trying the lens. For the 35/1.4 it never has mattered to me for people shots, and only really bothered me with the occasional (very rare), close focus architecture shot. The 28/2 barrels, too, I just browsed the flickr M-mount group and there are examples like this (taken on a u4/3 camera, therefore heavily cropped):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/19432592@N08/4371122511/in/pool-m-mount

Not too different from what the 35/1.4 does. Here is a typical 35/1.4 shot, not corrected for distortion in PS:

719680970_2kSUW-L.jpg


Roland.
Click to expand...
 
28mm or 35mm ?

It really depends on how you "see" things around you.
I don't mean to sound zen-like but the lens must fit your vision, not the other way around.

-d
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom