Ultron 35mm f2 Aspherical vs Summicron 35mm f2 ASPH

An other bokeh comparison, not sure if it's useful for you guys.:
The three lenses (this time at the exactly same point!) @ F2, Iso 160, 1/3000s and focused at 1 Meter.
All from raw with WB on "daylight" in Photoshop:

Summicron v2


Summilux pre asph v2


Ultron




And the same with slightly corrected vignetting:

Summicron V2


Summilux pre asph v2


Ultron
 
It's subjective but I like the impression of 3D with the Ultron compared to the others.
On an other hand the color rendition is not really my favorite, like colder and also with a lot of purple fringing. I find it also a bit contrasty for b/w but most of this can be corrected with the computer.

At the end of the day, I'm keeping the lens!
 
EVIL_Guy said:
In Germany it's approx. the same, maybe 50€ difference in favor of the f2 version.

I'm still uncertain, to change my f1.7 against the f2 :(
The last pictures I saw here, show a bit more nervous bokeh of the new one.

For me actually it looks like this:

Ultron f2
+ size
+ focus stick (very big point)

Ultron f1.7
+ half stop faster; I could live without it...
+ better Bokeh?
- no focus tab/stick

In my region it's a problem to find a local dealer for a comparison between both.

WW distribution is a big problem vor Cosina, I think ...
Click to expand...

Yes, the Ultron f/2 background rendering is busier than the f/1.7 and not as busy as the Nokton classic f/1.4... in other words, it's a mix of the two, and IMO somewhat closer to the f/1.7's rendering.

In case you haven't seen it yet, there are some samples posted by a member over at Fred Miranda, but they were shot on a Sony a9. You should still be able to get an overall feeling for the rendering style, but image quality does seem to degrade towards the edges, in typical fashion, with wider angle lenses on Sony mirrorless cameras. With the Ultron f/2, there seems to be some field curvature induced by the Sony sensor stack thickness. From the preliminary examples here by nutmeg (particularly the building photos), the edges look normal on his M9. Therefore the lens should work as one would normally expect on a Leica M compared to Sony mirrorless. A post with a link to a photo gallery. Another post with a link to additional photos.

I agree with all of your points. The Ultron f/1.7's ergonomics leave much to be desired, but optically it's excellent. In practical use I find the difference in photos shot at f/1.7 compared to f/2 extremely minor. The central third of the image is slightly brighter but the periphery of the image is nearly identical between the two settings. I mostly use it for stopped down urban and natural landscapes where rendering is not much of a factor. Therefore I'm thinking about the f/2 Ultron for the size reduction and could probably live with the busier rendering for those times I need to shoot wide open. The only concern I have about the f/2 Ultron thus far, was the lower central sharpness seen in nutmeg's preliminary comparison photos of the buildings, but may have been due to missed focus (set at the infinity hard stop though the buildings were not at infinity). Edge sharpness in those examples looked good but makes me wonder a bit if there is indeed some field curvature even on the Leica sensor. Therefore looking forward to a few more 'infinity' stopped down photos from nutmeg. :)
 
nutmeg said:
It's subjective but I like the impression of 3D with the Ultron compared to the others.
On an other hand the color rendition is not really my favorite, like colder and also with a lot of purple fringing. I find it also a bit contrasty for b/w but most of this can be corrected with the computer.

At the end of the day, I'm keeping the lens!
Click to expand...

It's a modern lens with less spherical aberration and therefore higher contrast in the plane of focus. Especially compared to the Lux. But each have pluses and minuses. It just depends on what you prefer.

I noticed the colder color tones. Reminds me of the difference between the Leica Lux lenses I've used (neutral) and the 28 Cron v1 (slight magenta tint/shift). On the M240 I find the Ultron f/1.7 to be slightly magenta biased compared to the 50 Lux ASPH, 28 Lux and 21 SEM (my other most used M mount lenses). The 90/4 Macro is somewhere between the two. The 90AA has a slight cyan tint.

Unfortunately wide open purple fringing is relatively common with fast Voigtlander lenses. Some Leica Luxes will also do it, like the 21 and 28, but usually require higher contrast transitions areas for it to be problematic.
 
Here it is..
focus on infinity, F2, 80 Iso, 1/4000s, from raw, white balance set to "daylight" and vignetting reduced in Photoshop.

Summicron V2


Summilux pre asph v2


Ultron
 
To my eyes:
Summicron is best on the center and worst on edges

Summilux is best on edges and worst on the center

Ultron very close to Summicron in the center and not the sharpest on edges but has more contrast.
 
Here's a couple of screen grabs to make the comparison easier (hope you don't mind me using your pics, nutmeg).

Center
32578966167_f2523d7219_o.png


Slightly left of center
46797679714_acbf268da9_o.png


Left side
46605984515_7c3e0f5651_o.png


Right side
33644560878_32816bb13d_o.png
 
nutmeg said:
Here it is..
focus on infinity, F2, 80 Iso, 1/4000s, from raw, white balance set to "daylight" and vignetting reduced in Photoshop.
Click to expand...

Thanks! This looks very promising for the Ultron. Any chance of seeing one from the Ultron of a similar scene at f/4 or f/5.6?
 
a last batch at f4, 1/3000s, ISO 160.
All from Raw with WB on "Daylight". No further corrections.

Summicron v2:


Summilux pre asph v2:


Ultron:
 
To MY eyes:
Summicron still a bit sharper in the center but softest at the edges.
Summilux is becoming slowly "softer" than the others over the frame (definitely at f8). This time the softest in the center.
The Ultron is the sharpest almost all over the frame (sharpest in the edges and corners and close to Summicron in the center)
 
Here's your shots at f4 (not edited in any way btw, I just opened up three Preview windows side by side and displayed the images at 100% to display a portion of each image then took screenshots).

As mentioned by rscheffler, I think you have a decentering problem with your Summicron. Its waaaay too soft on the right side of the frame. As for sharpness in the center, it really comes down to splitting hairs.

rscheffler said:
Lastly, I think your Summicron is decentered - the right side is quite soft even at f/8, especially compared to the left side. It's also probably front-focusing at the infinity hard stop given that the near building is in focus but things farther away in the distance are out of focus.
Click to expand...

I agree with both points!

Center
33651677198_eebef44ae4_o.png


Right side
40562451123_13c95f6af0_o.png


Left side
46612939545_0689bf3685_o.png
 
Has anyone used this new VC 35/2 as well as the Zeiss 35/2.8? I'm interested in both and wondered if anyone could provide some hands on experience.

Extra stop isn't much of an issue for me. I have seen great images for both, a bit turned off by the focus stick and potential ergonomics of the VC. Only VC lens I've used is the 21mm and while the images were great I didn't particularly like the tabs on the aperture dial.

Thanks in advance!
 
When I see threads like this I think: if you aren't happy you will be looking for another lens.

I have the 35mm 1.7 VM version and each time I use it on my M5 i say: "yes!!". Love the feeling when I shoot with this combo. And when I see the b/w film scanned... I say "YESSS!!!". I don't need more.

I usually shoot between 1.7 and 2.4.
 
Are there any head to head comparisons between the Ultron asph and Summicron asph on a digital M body? I think that comparison would tell the full story here, but I don't see that comparison in this thread and can't seem to find one online elsewhere...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom