ultron or 35mm nokton?

M

morgan

Well-known
Local time
6:51 AM
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
711
I'm going to buy either the ultron or the nokton, but I'm trying to decide between them. Both look like great lenses, but when I see output from the nokton, there's something special there. It's less the extra stop or so that gives the edge to the nokton, but the quality of the shots I've seen from it that maybe gives it the edge. They all seem to have the glow, and a creaminess to them that is heart stopping to me. I know it's huge (and expensive), but there seems to be a magical quality to it. I know that other thread sings the praises of the nokton, but I'm looking for a more direct comparison to the ultron. What do you guys think?
 
The 40mm shots look pretty good, a bit creamier, perhaps better than the ultron, which seems a little sharper, if that makes sense. The nokton still looks the best to me. How's the 40mm work with the 35 framelines on the R2A?
 
If you shoot negatives, Morgan, the R2* 35mm framelines match the 40 from about 3m onwards.

I have used the Ultron and the 40 Nokton. I considered the 35 Nokton
but didn't buy it because of size. You are probably right, it has the nicest
rendition of the 3 lenses, but the 40 is very compact which made
the decision for me. Note that both Noktons have a close focus of
.7m, the Ultron of about .9m. For 35/40 portraits the closer focus distance
helps sometimes, IMO.

You cann't go wrong with either of the three lenses.

Best,

Roland.
 
I'm using the 35 2.5 cs right now. And I like it's size and handling, but I want something that renders smoother. I feel like sometimes it's a little harsh and I could use the extra stops. Just looking at pics online, the ultron renders similarly to the cs, the 40mm is a bit creamier, and the nokton the smoothest.
 
Anybody else have any input? I have an ultron inbound (thanks Michael!), but there's just something about the noktons...
 
morgan said:
Anybody else have any input? I have an ultron inbound (thanks Michael!), but there's just something about the noktons...
Click to expand...

The only reason I haven't posted is because it sounds like your mind is made up! :)

Here's my input:
I think the Ultron is the better "all-arounder" lens. The size vs. speed is very nice. It seems a little less contrasty than the 35/2.5, and is a good little light-sucker in its own right.

The Nokton, or course is THE light-sucker of the CV stable, the poor man's Noctilux. What I like about the Nokton is that it has character, but it doesn't have such a heavy fingerprint that the image is overwhelmed by the lens characteristics, which is what I see a lot with the Noctilux (I lens I'd STILL love to own).

You have the 35/2.5, which is still in the fast range, so probably the Ultron would be a better fit. I keep my Ultron in my Low-light kit, and the CS gets dedicated to an M4-P body, with a wrist strap that gets tossed on the seat of the car or shoved in my coat pocket when I head out for street photography.

:)
 
I have the original Nokton 50mm/1.5 and the 35mm/3.5 Skoparon for the Voightlaender Prominent. Both are great lenses.

Raid
 
morgan said:
Anybody else have any input? I have an ultron inbound (thanks Michael!), but there's just something about the noktons...
Click to expand...
Hey, thanks for sticking in there and waiting for me to get the lens back, it looks really good, they did a good job cleaning out that bit of whatever the heck it was inside. I hope you like it. Post a picture with it sometime. I also think the 35 focal length is ideal for much of my photography, the 50 too long and a 28 usually too wide except for quick streeter stuff.
mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom