Summilux 35mm FLE vs voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron

[blacksinner]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently got a nice used 35asphpreFLE for my SL and love it to death. Also have CV35/1.2 and Zeiss35/1.4. All three are very different and not competitive. I got the preFLE due to perceived smaller size than the FLE (well, plus great price), but comparing it recently with FLE, it seems it is all in the lens shades. I am sure both of yours are excellent and will serve you well. If concerned about the investment of the FLE, perhaps you should return it and get the CV1.2 AND Z35/1.4 for less cost and you will have definite choices in lens character then. However, I will keep my preFLE for character (and definitely smaller than my other large 35s) and use (I have alternative shade; standard shade sucks). Sounds like you have buyers remorse and are concerned about $ tied up in the lens. If that is the case, return while you can, as the CV/1.7 sounds like it will serve your needs without quilt. It is great to have choices, but not great to get bogged down.

I already have the cv 1.2. It is different so i don't compare those lenses. I only compare the cv 1.7. Because the render is so similar. The ultron is noticebly smaller and lighter as well. I will keep try for a month at least and then i will decide which one i will keep. But for tight budget ultron is your answer for sure

[blacksinner]

To me 35 mm lens is my bread and butter on Leica. It is the focal range I use most. Yes, I've had Ultron 35 1.7 ASPH briefly, yes, it is fine lens by its rendering. 3D and other things. Yet, it was next to useless to me. This little tab attached to the lens makes huge difference for street, reportage and even home portraits photography. It is called zone and intuitive focusing. You get none of it with Ultron and while it is more less OK with 50mm lenses, the 35 lens is fast lens to me. Fast to focus is a must with 35mm RF lens, IMO and fast focus means tab.

 

To bring it close to OP it is same as manual focusing on birds with old long tele lens. Still possible, but AF does it faster and more precise. Sure, tables lens is OK to focus for couple of days on still objects which will patiently wait for you to get where. But my subjects for 35 lens ain't waiting. Often by the time I figure out where to turn the focus ring my subject is gone. Even at home

First time using focus tab is very confusing. I'm still finding a way to finger the focus tab while maintain the camera stable. I'm used to the common focus ring. Its more stable. But i'm sure i'll learn in the future. So i think its not a problem for me

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[dpitt]

Nothing come close to the sl currently.

Thats what i'm looking for what is the reason yo keep the lux because the performance is very similar to the ultron

 

Let me make clear that I do not own both lenses , nor do I own the SL. I just go on what I see in your samples. Those from the ultron look flatter compared to those from the summilux. To some it might be a small difference, but IMO  this  is one of the things that the best Leica lenses are particularly good at.

[lct]

I would think twice before selling an f/1.4 lens for an f/1.7 one. Same difference as between 6,400 and 10,000 iso more or less. Not a problem with clean cameras like my A7s mod when fast shutter speeds are not requested but with my M240 it would be a no no for me, let alone with my M8.2. I have no experience with SL601 & M10 bodies though. In general, i try to follow my grandmother's advice to never sell a Leica lens but to fit an SL601 i would be tempted by the ZM 35/1.4 if i did not like small bodies and lenses as much as i do. FWIW.

Edited February 16, 2017 by lct

[blacksinner]

I would think twice before selling an f/1.4 lens for an f/1.7 one. Same difference as between 6,400 and 10,000 iso more or less. Not a problem with clean cameras like my A7s mod when fast shutter speeds are not requested but with my M240 it would be a no no for me, let alone with my M8.2. I have no experience with SL601 & M10 bodies though. In general, i try to follow my grandmother's advice to never sell a Leica lens but to fit an SL601 i would be tempted by the ZM 35/1.4 if i did not like small bodies and lenses as much as i do. FWIW.

Yeah i will keep it for a month though then i will decide which is suitable for me

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blacksinner]

Let me make clear that I do not own both lenses , nor do I own the SL. I just go on what I see in your samples. Those from the ultron look flatter compared to those from the summilux. To some it might be a small difference, but IMO  this  is one of the things that the best Leica lenses are particularly good at.

 

yes you are correct, the only difference i see is the lux has the 3d pop at the center. it is because the field curvature of the lens makes the center of the image is more closer. while the ultron is just a flat curvature. as you can see in the picture below, the object on the left is not on the focus plane, while the ultron is on the focus plane. i really don't know where the focus go is to to the front or to the back. i still can't tell where the curve go.

 

[blacksinner]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i got some new comparison. check it out guys. can you tell which is which honestly?

 

 

 

[lct]

Too small pics to judge and better open the curtains if you want to show the OoF renditions. I would do this at the same apertures of course. Try f/2 and f/2.8 on both lenses if you want to see how nice or ugly some bokeh can be

[blacksinner]

Too small pics to judge and better open the curtains if you want to show the OoF renditions. I would do this at the same apertures of course. Try f/2 and f/2.8 on both lenses if you want to see how nice or ugly some bokeh can be

 

right, will do

[JonPB]

I'd recommend exploring field curvature at different f-stops. The FLE's focus plane (on my M9) shifts from corners-away wide open to corners-close at f/4, which is a very useful trait. I don't know about the Voigtlander, but it appears to be rather flat, which most technically inclined photographers prefer.

 

If you want to compare fine nuance between two lenses, I recommend testing your testing procedure first. It would help to follow the same procedure you already are -- e.g., find an interesting scene, capture with lens A, change to lens B, capture with lens B -- except, instead of changing lenses, remove and replace the same lens. Doesn't matter which one. Just repeat the same steps and see how much variability this procedure creates, even using the exact same lens. When I've tried testing lenses, overcoming this factor was always the largest hurdle. Handholding defeats the point of A-B testing, in my mind.

 

I'll also mention that there are differences between the lenses that will not be apparent from optical testing. Materials quality, durability, repairability, handling, etc. That alone can be worth a substantial premium in my mind.

 

Ultimately, I think the Voigtlander surpasses the Leica in some ways and falls short in others. Both are more than capable of producing excellent images; at this level of quality, everything is sufficient and choices come down to matters of preference. Does one like the character of the FLE, and, if so, are they willing to learn its quirks in order to wrangle the lens into submission? Or, does one simply want a predictable, high quality 35mm lens at a much lower price? I'd say that, for most photographers, the Voigtlander is a smart default choice. I strongly prefer the drawing, handling, apparent durability, and size of the Summilux. We are fortunate to have such options.

 

Cheers,

Jon

[CYBORA]

i got some new comparison. check it out guys. can you tell which is which honestly?

 

 

 

 

The 35 Lux can be seen in the picture , so it should be captured with the Voigtlander , and the second one is of course with the Lux as we have the Ultron lens standing in the frame.

[blacksinner]

The 35 Lux can be seen in the picture , so it should be captured with the Voigtlander , and the second one is of course with the Lux as we have the Ultron lens standing in the frame.

 

hahaha yes thats a hint. but really from the image you really can tell?

[tsleica]

If I were you..I would be testing for different things..test for color and contrast separately..and for flare too..and then for closeup and mid range and infinity performance..as well as bokeh at all ranges..and then for mechanical issues..as well as resolution..and corner performance..

[blacksinner]

If I were you..I would be testing for different things..test for color and contrast separately..and for flare too..and then for closeup and mid range and infinity performance..as well as bokeh at all ranges..and then for mechanical issues..as well as resolution..and corner performance..

Will do. Thank you

[su25]

hahaha yes thats a hint. but really from the image you really can tell?

Yes. Not only from blur/out of focus, but also from colour rendition.  

Edited February 17, 2017 by su25

[tom0511]

I did similar comparison for other lenses and you can go on for ever. I recommend to focus less on technical details, but shoot subjects which are typical for you in good light, look at the whole images and what it does to you. Color, pop, overall look, bokeh might be more important than pixel peeping.

By the way one advantage of Leica lenses: If calibration s off or doesnt fit your body you can d send your body and lens to Leica for calibration.

But if you cant see any advantages for you in the Leica lens I would go with the less expensive option.

[Mr.Q]

I vote for the FLE. The deciding factor for me was the color rendition, contrast and the focus tab. The Ultron is a good performer but a class below the FLE and Zeiss 1.4. The only 35mm lens worth buying from Voigtlander is the Nokton 1.2 in my opinion.

[blacksinner]

Finally i've come to a decision, i kept the FLE. i just went out trying this lens. And it is amazing in its own way. i finally feel the rendition. its awesome, the lux is smoother than the ultron. i think i'm already in love with the lux. i will keep the lux, ultron 1.7 and the 1.2 .

 

i rest my case. 

[blacksinner]

I vote for the FLE. The deciding factor for me was the color rendition, contrast and the focus tab. The Ultron is a good performer but a class below the FLE and Zeiss 1.4. The only 35mm lens worth buying from Voigtlander is the Nokton 1.2 in my opinion.

 

have you try the ultron? you should try first then tell me what you think. 

this is the review from stevehuff http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/09/12/voigtlander-35-1-7-ultron-one-hell-of-a-lens/

 

i still keep the lux, i love it i think it has smoother bokeh and rendition, while the ultron is more sharper across the frame. i tested it like 5 times with different environment with tripod. i couldn't believe this at first. maybe i have a bad copy?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ibramr]

Yes. Not only from blur/out of focus, but also from colour rendition.  

 

Plus one, albeit I could not really tell from the color (do not know what is the color rendition of the Voigtlander, but was relatively clear from the out-of-focus areas).  There is also a tad clearer 3D effect in the Leica shot.  Voigtlander is certainly competent, but Leica is a keeper.  Thanks a lot for sharing.