Which Lense? 1.2 40mm Nokton, 1.4 35mm Nokton or 2.0 35mm Ultron?

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
Nakaya Regular Member • Posts: 153
Re: Which Lense? 1.2 40mm Nokton, 1.4 35mm Nokton or 2.0 35mm Ultron?

I realize the 1.2 40mm is much larger but if I am giving up the small size I think I rather have that lens than the 1.7. Yes you don't have exact frame lines but I think it is easy enough to work around it.

How often will you shoot at f1.2? The f1.7 is cheaper, lighter, fits the frame lines and is, I suspect, a better performer at all shared apertures.

For $1k what sort of Summicron would you get? the Ultron f2 from what I have seen is very comparable to the current ASPH Summicron in terms of sharpness.

For $1k you're looking at a clean 35/f2.8 Summaron, which is a great lens, particularly on B&W. Alternatively, you could get a v2 or v2 35/f2 Summicron.

A word of warning on these options. They're great lenses, but they're also decades old. Don't fall into the trap of expecting them to be 'better' than something like a f1.7 Ultron just because they have Leica written on the front. There's a good article below that touches on this...


I suspect you've seen this thread over at RFF, which suggests the f2 Ultron doesn't give up much, if anything to the Cron ASPH. Bearing in mind that it's shot on film.


Interesting. I am looking at some of the same lenses too. So is the f2 Ultron only good on film when compared to the summicron asph?

I know some lenses dont work well on digital leicas, but are fine on film.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow