Ultron 35mm better than 35/1.4 Nokton?

Krosya

Krosya

Konicaze
Local time
12:49 PM
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
3,550
I know this lens (Ultron ) is no longer made. However when it was made it sold for around $300 or so. Maybe even closer to $400 - cant remember, even though I bought one from CQ as my first RF lens to go with Bessa R.
It was a good lens, yet it was replaced by CV Nokton 35/1.4.
There was a lot or talk a while back which is better, but I think I see a confirmation from CameraQuest that after all Ultron is a better lens. CQ, right now, has a used Mint- Ultron listed for sale for $579 - more than it was new !!!!!! While a used Mint Nokton 35/1.4 is sold for $479! $100 difference and Nokton is even in better condition (well a little better, but still..). Here is a link:
http://cameraquest.com/inventor.htm

So, my question is - why did Cosina stop making such a good lens like Ultron 35/1.7?
 
Nokton has better fit and finish, is M mount so no additional adapter cost, focuses closer and is truly faster.
I sold my Ultron (which I liked very much) to upgrade to the Nokton with absolutely no regrets.
 
Krosya said:
I know this lens (Ultron ) is no longer made. However when it was made it sold for around $300 or so. Maybe even closer to $400 - cant remember, even though I bought one from CQ as my first RF lens to go with Bessa R.
It was a good lens, yet it was replaced by CV Nokton 35/1.4.
There was a lot or talk a while back which is better, but I think I see a confirmation from CameraQuest that after all Ultron is a better lens. CQ, right now, has a used Mint- Ultron listed for sale for $579 - more than it was new !!!!!! While a used Mint Nokton 35/1.4 is sold for $479! $100 difference and Nokton is even in better condition (well a little better, but still..). Here is a link:
http://cameraquest.com/inventor.htm

So, my question is - why did Cosina stop making such a good lens like Ultron 35/1.7?
Click to expand...

think again, its not that simple, there are a number of factors.

the black 35/1.7 was discontinued several years ago and is now hard to find. and the M adapter is included at $579. Most CV lenses sell for more after they are discontinued then when they were current production due to rarity. Like the 28/1.9 and 28/3.5 and 50/2.5 and 50/3.5. the 35/1.4 is current production and easy to find. the 35/1.7 is probably the best faster than f/2 screw mount lens ever, while the 35/1.4 M won't mount on screw mount cameras. Add to that black lenses are usually more sought after than silver or chrome. While it was in production some complained about the 35/1.7's lens barrel, they wanted a more modern lens barrel with focusing lug. The 35/1.4 did that while also providing a faster lens.

Stephen
 
I picked up the 35/1.7 Ultron on RFF this Summer, took it on vacation. Very impressive lens. It is an Aspherical design. Pop Photo tested this lens when it first came out, extremely impressive. It tested as being sharper at F1.7 than the 35/2.5 did at F2.8.

It is a first rate lens. The one I have has some years on it, works well- has held together nicely.

As per the July 2000 Pop Photo, the list price was $839 with an expected street price of $459.
 
Last edited:
I can't talk for the Nokton f/1.4 35mm but I can for the 35mm Ultron.

I have used a lot of 35mms in my time as it is my favourite focal length. Be that the Canon EF 35mm f/2, Super Takumar 35mm f/2, Summicron 35mm (pre-ASPH), CV Color Skopar 35mm f/2.5 (LTM and M mount versions), and other M42 mount 35mm's before I got the Ultron.

The Ultron is a lot better than all of those lenses at all apertures except the Summicron and Color Skopar which do excellently wide open too. That said, I prefer my Ultron's handling to the Summicron (!) and the Color Skopar. The quality of colour and black and white is exceptional, some people call it a low contrast lens, particularly wide open. I haven't really found that, it might be a touch more gentle than the Color Skopar but it can still pack a punch. It truly is gem of a lens at its price.

The only negative is that it doesn't like being attached to a RF (a M2 in my case) for 160 miles swinging from you neck up and down hills across the South East of England as I did this year (It was quite a long way) and the lens did suffer some problems with the back part coming loose and then not focussing correctly at infinity.

It has been with Cosina for the past few months but I am expecting it back tomorrow (hurrah) and I can say that if only for some Loctite on the back screws and perhaps a better strap on my part it'd not have suffered this issue.

It is a sublime lens though and I will stick by it as pssst I prefer it to the Summicron I have used! That is of course very subjective.

Example photos about on my Flickr pages.

Vicky
 
Well, Krosya, since half a stop seems to make no difference to you, why did you lay out for your 50/1.2, instead of buying a Nokton 50/1.5 ? Or, does your argument hold when comparing the 35/1.2 to the 35/1.4 ?

The Ultron is a great lens. But I have no regrets using my 1.4 Nokton instead. Besides speed, it's better built, smaller, and has closer min. focus. IMO, due to speed difference, comparing the two lenses is an apple vs orange comparison.

And as a side note, have you used the 35/1.4 ?
 
Last edited:
I liked the results I got from my Ultron 35/1.7, but sold it recently anyway b/c (1) I prefer 40mm these days, particularly the Rokkor-M (CLE version); and (2) I prefer more compact lenses for RFs. Bottom line: I just wasn't using the Ultron enough to justify keeping it, so I sold it in the hope that it will be used more. I have to say, though, that some of the photos Vicky has posted on her flickr taken w/ the Ultron are stunning.

I haven't used the Nokton 35/1.4, but from what I've seen here and on flickr it produces great results, particularly for street and portrait shots. If I were to buy a faster lens w/ a more modern look, though, I think I'd get the Nokton 40/1.4.
 
i believe the 35/1.7 is sharper on center at f2.0 than other 35s i've used: cron v4, uc-hex 35, m-hex 35, zm 35/2. nice bokeh, balanced contrast, decent corners. but i want to try the 35/1.4 out of curiosity. (beyond the 35/1.4's other qualities, i make it a point to try lenses victimized on the internet by much-dreaded focus shift. for some reason i do well with such lenses.)

i may buy another 35/1.7 though as i downsize and "downgrade" from leitz and hex glass to a small set of zeiss and one-two CVs.
 
Last edited:
Both are excellent lenses. I had 35/1.4 for two years. As much as I like it, I didn't care for the "harsh" contrast comparing to older lenses. just not my cup of tea. The images are sharp, sharp sharp, no questions about that.
I might give 35 ultron a try
 
I would describe the Ultron as "Medium-Low Contrast", more contrast than a Canon 35/2.8.

Close to wide-open:

picture.php


Stopped-Down.
picture.php


Wide-Open during the middle of a Space Battle, taken while firing Lasers at the Evil Emperor Zurg.

picture.php


I'm not sure how the 35/1.4 Nokton would perform during a space battle. The black finish would be damaged by Laser hits more than a Chrome finish lens.
 
"[W]hy did Cosina stop making such a good lens like Ultron 35/1.7?"

Commercial decision, presumably, so we should not speculate. I am a little wary of the build quality and finish of my Ultron 35, but its performance so far has been exemplary.
 
Ultron : the great misunderstood

Ultron : the great misunderstood

Every time I read reviews of 35mm I think I would change my Ultron for a more glamorous lens.

But eveytime I look pictures made with my Ultron, I find it completely satisfying. Even shocked some time by the quality.

An I keep it.
 
ferider said:
Well, Krosya, since half a stop seems to make no difference to you, why did you lay out for your 50/1.2, instead of buying a Nokton 50/1.5 ? Or, does your argument hold when comparing the 35/1.2 to the 35/1.4 ?

The Ultron is a great lens. But I have no regrets using my 1.4 Nokton instead. Besides speed, it's better built, smaller, and has closer min. focus. IMO, due to speed difference, comparing the two lenses is an apple vs orange comparison.

And as a side note, have you used the 35/1.4 ?
Click to expand...

Roland,
First, reason I got 50/1.2 is because I like it and the only other lens that could match it was Leica at a lot more $$. Also, since I have NOT tried Nokton 35/1.4, I had a question as to which is better. My personal view on this, based on photos I have seen is that Ultron or Nokton 35/1.2 are better lenses than Nokton 35/1.4. Not to say Nokton 1.4 is a poor lens, just didnt have that look to images I like from other lenses. But than I thought - maybe I was missing something - as I never used 1.4 Nokton.

Apples and Oranges - well maybe, but on CQ site, if I'm not mistaken, it says that 1.4 Nokton replaces Ultron - so apparently they think that these lenses are similar enough.

As far as my argument - I'm not sure you understand what I said correct. All I said was that those prices seem to finally rate these lenses correctly. In other words - the more it costs the better it is. And based on this theory Nokton 1.2 IS better than Nokton 1.4 and Hexanon 50/1.2 is better than Nokton 1.5/1.1. And it does hold true to me. I know - "better" is subjective term, but I think many people will agree with my statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom