Nokton 35 1.4 II vs Ultron 2 II

mpaniagua

mpaniagua

Newby photographer
Local time
4:40 AM
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
1,326
Hello

I'm planning to add a Voightlander 35mm to my Leica kit and trying to decide between the Nokton 1.4 II vs Ultron 2 II>

Aside from the obvious extra stop, I wondering about performance on both of them at f/2. Sharpness? Contrast? If I were to use them at f/2 what would be the advantages/cons of them?

Also considered the APO Lanthar but discarded it due to the size difference.

Thoughts?

Really appreciated.
 
I have the V1 version of the Ultron ASPH and have been very happy with it. It's a nice size, doesn't block the viewfinder and the results are very good. For many years I owned a Summicron ASPH and the Ultron comes pretty close for a third of the price. If you can live with a 2.0 lens there aren't many out there that can beat it. Good luck with your search.
 
The Ultron Asph is sharper with more contrast at F/2. It's that "modern look." If sharpness is what you want, then that's the one to get, but be aware of the MFD of that lens goes down to .5 meter.

The Nokton is more of that old school look. More of a character lens. Plenty sharp at f/2 for good pics but not like an aspherical lens. As you probably know, the Nokton is a knock off of the pre-asperical summilux with most of its' crazy, swirly bokeh look but not the limitations of MFD and filter threads.

At one time, I had both the version 1 of the f/2 Ultron Asph. and the f/1.4 Nokton II MC. Good lenses and great values in today's market.

I eventually sold the Ultron and kept the Nokton. Only shoot B&W film and I'm not always a big fan of aspherical lenses for that medium. Too sharp for my taste at times. Felt the same way about there aspherical Summicron. Plus having all that crazy bokeh at 1.4 gives another tool I wanted.

If I shot color film or digital, maybe I would have kept the Ultron instead.

Flickr has plenty pictures taken with both lenses.
 
They are pretty different at f2 - the ultron is a little sharper and draws a 'denser' image, with heavy mid tones. The nokton has very pretty classic bokeh at f2, the ultron tends towards a cat eyed swirl.

I sold the v1 Nokton for the ultron on the account of focussing inaccuracies due to the focus shift, but I often miss the rendering at f1.8 or f2 compared to the nokton. It's definitely a character lens but I found that aperture is a sweet spot of the lens.
 
I was waiting several years to have CV 35 1.4 MK II. For film M and on low ISO M-E 220. It is lovely lens on Canon RP as well.
If you need f1.4 here is this Nokton. It is direct alternative to non-ASPH Lux.

If you need tiny 35/2 which does the same than overpriced Cron ASPH does, get Ultron.

Contrast itself is really for PP. IMO. But 35 Ultrons offering same thing Leica does. Microcontrast in BW. It means more refined image than from 35 1.4 Noktons. IMO.
 
Thanks for the feedback guys. Seems I would get the Nokton. Focus shift held me from VI but seems the issue has been reduced on VII.

Thanks

Marcelo
 
mpaniagua said:
Thanks for the feedback guys. Seems I would get the Nokton. Focus shift held me from VI but seems the issue has been reduced on VII.

Thanks

Marcelo
Click to expand...

Marcelo, the Nokton wide open is a very nice lens with lots of character

48784910603_ab71dfbf71.jpg
 
The new ED element really makes the Nokton II a very balanced lens. If we're back in the 1990s it's gonna be top class IMO.
 
As others have said above, both lenses are excellent. Both are different. In terms of resolution, the only lens that I have that is sharper than the Ultron is the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM. In terms of rendering, the Nokton feels like a pencil drawing and the Ultron is black ink. The Ultron is nearly flare proof. The Nokton flares in a very pleasing way. The OOF of the Ultron is a little annoying wide-open...as is the Nokton...but in different ways. Stopped down a stop or two and both have a beautiful blur. Size wise, both are nearly perfect, but I'll give a slight edge to Nokton in terms of how it feels, in-hand. The black painted Ultron is gorgeous, but the focusing action on mine isn't as smooth as the Ver I Ultron I had or the Nokton.

Images...some digital...some film...

Ultron First

Jordan by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Taylor by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Dad by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Barrels & Wood by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Patti & Steve by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

And the Nokton

JHF00401 by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

ss5 by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Dad at Crowley Station Vineyards by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
 
This thread is the one for me (film photo only, at modest level). I was excited by new Nokton, but I wonder if it will give more interesting pictures than my current Ultron V1 (f/1.7, LTM, 1999) of sweet bokeh. If I want clean slides without flare, I doubt a new Ultron f/2 will be notably better than my M-Hexanon.
 
I got the Ultron v. 1, and have been very very happy with it. Most of the photos in my Venice 2021 Flickr album were taken with that lens. And Jim’s results in post #11 reinforce that, for me at least, the Ultron is the right lens.
 
One thing that has not been mentioned yet: the Nokton has quite a lot of barrel distortion, which I find annoying for any shots with buildings in them. The Ultron f2 is much better behaved in that way. I also find the out-of-focus of the Ultron very nice actually, as the_jim has beautifully demonstrated above.

The close-focus capability of the Ultron is another plus, at least for digital shooters. I only wish they had implemented some sort of click stop before you enter the (uncoupled) close focus range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top