Is the Leica 35mm Summilux worth FIVE TIMES the Voigtlander Ultron?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 сен 2023
- Let's compare the Leica 35mm Summilux FLE to the Voigtlander 35mm Ultron VMII. These lenses are WORLDS APART in pricing. How are they in real-world results?
Check out the OBSBOT Tail Air PTZ Streaming Camera! @OBSBOT #obsbot
www.obsbot.com/?rfsn=7749721....
Me:
dave.online/
/ daveherring
verygoodpresets.com
Another great video mate. Well done. Always enjoying your content recently. Cheers from Ireland.
Thank you!
Dave cranking it!! Growing this channel very nicely bro with awesome content. On the other side this video will be very helpful because Leica glass is so expensive getting the voightlander sometimes is a great option. Keep up the great work Dave!
Thanks so much!
Thanks for this! I recently succumed to GAS and upgraded my Ultron to the Summilux and am thinking I made a big mistake. I just cannot see a difference, other than that my viewfinder is now blocked.
Interesting to hear about the film results. I wonder why that is?
Light imprinting on film is going to be a more unique experience than a sensor. Film tends to let us experience the lens character and characteristics more than a digital sensor, in my opinion.
I have this 35mm Ultron II paired with an M9/M10 and I have absolutely no complaints, sharpness and OOF are great. For everyday use I couldn't ask for more from my Ultron II copy, I have no desire for a Summicron or Summilux.
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for the review! Would be interesting for you to elaborate more on the differences on film, otherwise it was hard to tell by comparing the images in the video...
Thanks for the feedback. I guess overall, the Lux was much sharper and truer to life than the voigtlander. Colors, contrast, and sharpness were much better on film. Digital wasn’t incredibly far off.
Our morning low, overnight, here in SE Texas, was 81 degrees F, with “severe clear” skies, so, I am vicariously enjoying your weather! Voigtlander lenses can be a very good value, indeed, and the best of them compete quite well with their Leica counterparts.
For a more apples-to-apples comparison with the 35mm Summilux, one might try the Nokton 35mm f/1.4 II MC, which may have a bit more character than the Ultron, as well as the maximum aperture to match the Summilux’s f/1.4. I got to try this Nokton at a meet-up with “Jay OC,” a member of the DPR forum, at Blendin Coffee Club, a coffee shop in Sugar Land, Texas, earlier this year. An experienced Leica M film and digital CL shooter, he wanted to experience using the viewfinder and rangefinder in an M10-series camera, before buying an M10-R, sight unseen. He tried my original-version M10, and I tried his Nokton 35/1.4 II MC on my M Type 246 Monochrom. (I have yet to see or handle the Ultron. I do have the like-able little Voitglander Color Skopar f/2.5 II. I have test-shot a demonstrator Summilux 35mm ASPH FLE at a Leica dealer, Houston Camera Exchange, in Texas.)
The Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.4 II MC may have a bit more barrel distortion that the Ultron you are testing, but, the Summilux 35mm ASPH has distortion of its own. Notably, Version II of this Nokton is reported to be much better than the original version, especially regarding focus shift. “MC” refers to Multi-Coated. There is the SC, the Single-Coated version, for those who want more vintage-type flare.
Thanks for sharing! If I get my hands on a Nokton I’ll give it a try!
Great video and beautiful shots. I wondered if you have tried these voigtlander lenses on your m11? I have both the 28 and 35 ultron v2 and am thinking of getting the m11 but wondered how they rendered that 60mpx sensor. Curious if you have any experience with that. Thanks and I appreciate you taking the time to make these great videos.
No, I had sold the 35 Ultron by the time I got the M11. I think it’s a fantastic lens, though!
@@davidherring oh ok. I’m just curious if it can handle that much detail. It looks really cool when I’ve adapted it on my Sonys though.
When you use hyperbolic statements like “blown out of the water” it makes it hard to accept your accuracy. Some of us have both lenses. Blown out of the water is absolutely not my experience at all.
Thanks for the feedback
can't agree more. absolutely no logical comparison between the two lenses on film
Curious your thoughts on the Nokton MC f1.4? I've been shooting with it on the M6 for almost a year and love the results. Thinking about renting some different versions of the 35 from Leica to compare. $2000 would be my budget so looking at a used Summicron. Great video!
I think the Nokton is wonderful, but kind of lacks the personality of the Summilux or even the summicron if you get the right version. I’d be looking at the 35 summicron KOB (its version 4) and that’s an amazing lens in your price range!
Love the Ultron on my M10R, nice comparison with your Lux.
Thanks! Ultron is a fantastic lens.
The film difference is crazy. I was using the Ultron for about a year and picked up the new Nokton f1.5 not that long ago and love it. The bokeh rendering is smoother more like the lux and I find the fall off to be less harsh as well.
Thanks for sharing!
I also got the Nokton 1.5, mainly to test if 35mm worked for me and because it was roughly the same size as the Leica Summicron. I don’t need any other 35mm lens and I may even sell my 50mm Summicron.
Great comparison.just wonder, why on film There is a big difference with the lens and on digital it’s less obvious a difference? Thanks
I think it goes to show how the imprint to film vs a sensor really comes across.
Color rendering difference in the first shot of the hut is jarring. Wild how green-shifted the Voigtlander is.
I thought so too! I’ve never been one to really believe how much the glass significantly plays a role in color, but this test really proves that wrong. It plays a big role!
The funny thing is... it's probably more "realistic" then the Lux's magenta veil. Still, the main difference is the vignetting and perhaps Ultron's atrocious swirly bokeh. On the other hand, Ultron is sharper (wide open, at least in comparison to the first gen FLE, which is not a particularly sharp lens by any means), more contrasty, much lighter and smaller - but it¨s also ugly, lack proper ergonomics... it's capable of stellar or bad images, as any lens is.
But I wonder - shouldn't it be compared to the Cron? (Or perhaps Biogon / even C-Biogon, which is much better?) Or the Lux to a Nokton (1.2 III or the disappointing 1.5)...
I have been shooting the CV 35/2 Ultron II for sometime now on my M10 and have really enjoyed using it. I would like to replace it one day with a Leica 35mm f2, but for me I don't think it would really be worth the cost.. Thanks Dave...
Thanks for sharing!
@@davidherring Use the CV 28/2 Ultron II also that is great and wish they would make a 50/2 Ultron II also.
Great video
Thank you!
The newer Nokton 35 F 1.5, would also be a good comparison, and off the same light gathering/DoF.
Good call! If I ever get my hands on one I’ll do a comparison.
In monetary terms, not. But in optics, you pay more exponentially for incremental improvements. Since I have a few 35mm M lenses from Leica and Konica, I can say that my Summilux ASPH ( first version ) has some magic about how it renders. Is it worth that much money? Only the individual can decide.
Thanks for sharing!
The first version is gorgeous
Wouldn’t the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.2 Aspherical III be a better comparison with the Leica Summilux? The Ultron is from Voigtlanders vintage line of lens formulas and doesn’t try to achieve a modern rendering like the Summilux. You should try reaching out to Camera Quest for a Nokton loaner to review/compare.
It would be but the Ultron is what I have typically on my M6. But I’ll reach out and see what they say!
Dave, you should consider doing a video on digitizing your images ;)
From film to digital?
I'm interested in seeing the difference between digitalized film photos vs digital photos. I don't shoot film, "yet". I'm interested in film, however once film photos are scanned with a digital camera what difference is there? @@davidherring
I sold my 35 Ultron in favour of the 28 Ultron and the only complaint I ever had with the 35 was the busy bokeh at f2-4. Is it bad? No, it's just not my taste. The 28 is a perfect lens to me
Thanks for sharing!
Why was the color so different between the two lenses? The voigtlander color looked kinda bad.
Pretty wild, in my opinion. I scanned the negatives exactly the same.
This was great.
Finally someone saying the truth;
The difference between expensive and cheap lenses on modern digital is very small. Not worth the 8x price tag. On film you see it big.
Thanks for the comment!
From the video, I totally agree that they don't seem different in digital application. The film difference was massive, though! Super interesting!
I thought it was interesting too!
Why would it matter more on film?
I don’t have a technical reason, but as far as I can tell, since light imprints on film I’m thinking that film is going to resolve more of the glass nuisances and character. Digital being a sensor will not fully have all of that because there is no physical imprint happening.
35mm Ultron and lens blur filter applied in LR. You'll not tell the difference
Ha that is NOT how this is suppose to work
Would love to see a side by side, maybe on your instagram?
Thanks for the feedback! I missed the opportunity to do this on this video, but I’ll keep it in mind for future videos.
a summilux 5-6 times better on film?
No, I don’t think so.
“Ultron v2 is softer and vignettes more at f2”. Moving along...
Thanks for the comment.
There are basically four sharper 35mm M lenses available: Distagon and C-Biogon, Apo-Cron and Apo-Lanthar. (And perhaps FLE II.) C-Biogon vignettes wide open, so you can pick either a humongous lens - or one decorated by humongous price. Take your pick!
There could have been some reasonable explanation why *you feel like* the leica blows the ultron out of the water, because it is not obvious from the video tbh.
To each their own.
Considering it’s softer in the corners and vignettes more heavily… no
It’s really about taste.
@@davidherring Of course. Expensive taste aside I've never seen anyone pick the images from each lens apart without comparing images side by side, same subject and framing, and 200x pixel peeping. Throw up five random images in series, no side-by-side or pixel peeping allowed, good luck.
Hard to take this video serious when you lay out such hyperbole. “Blows it out the water” we can literally see the results right there in the video.
A slight color shift is worth 5x the price? What the hell are we saying here.
Thanks for the comment.