The two lens diagrams look somewhat similar in concept though, at least with the first 6 elements, don't they...
Ultron 35mm f2 Aspherical vs Summicron 35mm f2 ASPH
- Thread starter jonmanjiro
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 178
- Views 36K
d.dulin
Established
Have you any personal experience with comparing the summilux and nokton classic 35mm f1.4?
Hard to justify spending more on a lens than I did my car 🙄
the nokton images I've seen are truly fantastic when one uses its "faults" to their advantage.
telenous
Well-known
Thanks for the test, Jon. Looks like the most pronounced difference between the two lenses is in the amount of vignetting. The older Summicron 35 versions (preasph. and earlier) also exhibited heavier vignetting. The cost of miniaturization, it seems. The Summicron 35 Asph is not completely vignette-free either (Putts reports -1.8 stops in the corners) but it does have a more even performance than other 35s. It does flare a bit, that's true. Few Leica lenses are flare-proof. On the other hand it does very, very well with colour. Which reminds me -- any shots from the Ultron 35/2 on colour film?
PS. The UK importer of Zeiss/ Voigtlander I usually buy from, sold the first 10 Ultron 35/2 like hotcakes. Whoosh.
PS. The UK importer of Zeiss/ Voigtlander I usually buy from, sold the first 10 Ultron 35/2 like hotcakes. Whoosh.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I have a lot of experience with the Summilux steel rim. I own one since 2001. I don't have a car. I've seen enough examples of pictures with the Nokton 35mm f/1.4. I never liked these because of the barrel distortion.
Erik.
nzeeman
Well-known
i see distortion on every summilux photo as well... but i guess price is straightening lines....
Erik van Straten
Veteran
nzeeman
Well-known
well it changes with distance-this photo suffers from wavy one for example.. on closer focus is just barrel...
but lets stop this and just comment about the great job Voigtlander did with this lens and how ultron dominated this duel...
but lets stop this and just comment about the great job Voigtlander did with this lens and how ultron dominated this duel...
bayernfan
Well-known
dominated? let's stop THIS nonsense.
raid
Dad Photographer
I believe in letting images do the talking. As long as I am satisfied with my own images taken with my own lenses, I never feel the need to justify or defend any lenses to anyone. A lens is just a tool. I would not make it a personal fight to defend one lens over another.
I have a roll of Natura 1600 waiting to be scanned, Alkis. Meant to do it over the weekend but got sidetracked with other stuff. Will post some pics from that roll soon!
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Yes Raid, but I can't stand iniquity. Sometimes people just say nonsense when they try to make a popular statement.
Erik.
raid
Dad Photographer
I understand what you are saying, Erik. If we stick to making comparisons based on personal experiences, it should be useful information to all here.
lynnb
Veteran
I'd be interested to see how the new CV Ultron 35/2 compares to the M-Rokkor 40/2 and Summicron-C 40/2. Not a huge difference in focal length, and the 40mm lenses are also very compact, like the Ultron. Anyone?
Edit: something to discuss in another thread...
Correction: I meant to say 40mm lenses, not 35.. now corrected
Edit: something to discuss in another thread...
Correction: I meant to say 40mm lenses, not 35.. now corrected
Last edited:
nzeeman
Well-known
yes yes of course - its ok that you say bad things about nokton but when i say that summilux have wobbly distortion which is obvious- then i become person who just wanna draw attention... i love you leica people! (now it will come that aryument-you hate it because you cant afford it-but leica simply doesnt have that mystical power for me... i had m4 and my wife has m6 and still i sold mine and use canon p which is same in everything with better film loading... and not to mention that almost all leica lenses have distortions which i absolutely hate... i simply like zeiss approach more since they try to keep their lines flat and dont hunt for unnecessary speed. so its not me hating leica-but me hating the fact that leica owners never admit any fault of leica lens or body, and never accept that some other manufacturers lens can be better. i even saw reviews that see leica magic in leica p&s cameras that were just minoltas)
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
Not sure you picked the right person to get stuck in to for being a Leica fanboy, considering Erik has been a vocal advocate of several Voigtlander lenses for years. But you know, whatever...
nzeeman
Well-known
well maybe je was but in reality ultron wipes the floor with summicron in everything except vignetting...
guys, let's not derail the thread any further ok.
dave lackey
Veteran
Jon,
Despite the usual snarkiness that crops up now and again, my hat is off to you for the lens testing you have done. As always, great job!🙂
Eric, thank you for your input as well. As always, it is a pleasure hearing from you and seeing your images.
As for me, there are still two Leica cameras in my bags at the moment but neither is an M. Maybe one day, that Black Paint MP or an M10 will find a way to my door... but I am so busy with the important things in life right now and my work has evolved as well with Medium and Full Frame Formats. When/if I do return to an M, your testing has given me a good idea about which lens to choose. I am sure it will be "my" dream lens though, the 35mm Summilux, the "Bokeh King". Strictly a personal choice though I have always loved the Summilux.
The V lens is a great choice too! If I could afford both, then I would buy them.
Despite the usual snarkiness that crops up now and again, my hat is off to you for the lens testing you have done. As always, great job!🙂
Eric, thank you for your input as well. As always, it is a pleasure hearing from you and seeing your images.
As for me, there are still two Leica cameras in my bags at the moment but neither is an M. Maybe one day, that Black Paint MP or an M10 will find a way to my door... but I am so busy with the important things in life right now and my work has evolved as well with Medium and Full Frame Formats. When/if I do return to an M, your testing has given me a good idea about which lens to choose. I am sure it will be "my" dream lens though, the 35mm Summilux, the "Bokeh King". Strictly a personal choice though I have always loved the Summilux.
The V lens is a great choice too! If I could afford both, then I would buy them.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Hey, Jon - Very helpful post and images. I think I told you that I love the C/V 35 1.2. I have a v.1 of that lens that works well with all my Leicas. I love the OOF areas on that lens. I'd love to hear your appraisal of the f:2 lens's OFF areas where the subject is close to the close-focus distance. In other words, subject in the foreground, busy background.
I used to be a 50mm guy -- not exclusively, but as a jumping off point. I have to say, though, as I have gotten older and my photographic vision has . . .ahhh. . . matured, that my view of the world has widened. Can't really explain why, but the 35 is my starting point now.
The technical "winners" vs. "losers" debate doesn't really get my blood going. Sean Reid has sort of fed this idea: that different lenses have different qualities and that you dip into the bag to get the qualities you want.
Anyway, what I am interested in is whether the new (and exciting) f:2 offering is more like the 1.2 in rendering at f:2 or whether it is busier in the background. Happy to take an answer off-line if you think your impression is going to stoke the passions unhelpfully. . ..
Best,
Ben
I used to be a 50mm guy -- not exclusively, but as a jumping off point. I have to say, though, as I have gotten older and my photographic vision has . . .ahhh. . . matured, that my view of the world has widened. Can't really explain why, but the 35 is my starting point now.
The technical "winners" vs. "losers" debate doesn't really get my blood going. Sean Reid has sort of fed this idea: that different lenses have different qualities and that you dip into the bag to get the qualities you want.
Anyway, what I am interested in is whether the new (and exciting) f:2 offering is more like the 1.2 in rendering at f:2 or whether it is busier in the background. Happy to take an answer off-line if you think your impression is going to stoke the passions unhelpfully. . ..
Best,
Ben
nzeeman
Well-known
Similar threads
