Jump to content
blacksinner

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

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everybody, i just got my summilux 35 fle this week. and i'm having difficulties comparing these two lenses. i'm sorry if my writing is not good and my sample picture are very crappy but this is only a test. i just want to share my experience with these lenses

 

Please checkout this link first in flickr to see in high resolution. https://flic.kr/s/aHskP24eFN

 

from my observation in couple days for brief moment, comparing side by side in lightroom, i really impressed with the voigtlander 35mm f1.7 ultron.

 

Sharpness at the center

the ultron beat the summilux on sharpness wide open. (f1.7 vs f1.4)

but summilux beat the ultron at the same aperture f1.7 but not by much though

 

Bokeh

both have beautiful bokeh. sometimes i can't tell which is which. 

 

Contrast

summilux has more contrast, but only a hair

 

saturation

summilux has more saturation but only like 3-5% i think

 

size

the Lux with the hood and the ultron without the hood is about the same size. i never use the hood on ultron since i bought it. it resist the flare very good. and it looks nicer.

the ultron is slimmer than lux and lighter than the lux

 

rendering

both lens render is quite the same also. 

 

Now, the difference visible in my eye is curvature of the lens

   the summilux has center curvature that makes the subject on the center pop. ( i think this is the way leica did to make 3d pop)

    i can notice the size of a subject side by side with the voigtlander. the subject at the center is bigger on summilux than voigtlander.

   certainly the plane focus is not flat 

 

overall ultron is only 5-10% to catch up the FLE i would say.

 

so in the end, i still finding the reason to keep this lens since the lens is 4x the cost of the ultron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FLE is 1000% better at f/1.4

. Little point in comparing lenses of different focal lengths and/or apertures IMHO. People needing f/1.4 would compare the FLE to ZM 35/1.4, CV 35/1.4 and Leica 35/1.4 pre-asph, asph and "aspherical".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FLE is 1000% better at f/1.4

. Little point in comparing lenses of different focal lengths and/or apertures IMHO. People needing f/1.4 would compare the FLE to ZM 35/1.4, CV 35/1.4 and Leica 35/1.4 pre-asph, asph and "aspherical".

 

i also compare at f1.7 if see the album. summilux is already better at f1.7.

i know the aperture is different, but ultron is the best choice considering the cost. if the cost i no problem then lux would be the better for sure. some people for sure appreciate alternative choice other than summilux. and i think the ultron is the best summilux alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People needing f/1.4 would compare the FLE to ZM 35/1.4, CV 35/1.4 and Leica 35/1.4 pre-asph, asph and "aspherical".

 

 

I'm not sure there are that many people for whom F1.7 couldn't substitute for F1.4. You can be pretty sure that if the boot was on the other foot – i.e. the Leica was the F1.7 – the slight loss of speed would be considered irrelevant. Just like when the 50 APO came out, F1.4 (or even F0.95) no longer seems so important to many buyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little reason to buy faster lenses then. I could compare my Leica 21/3.4 asph to CV 21/4 the same way. I like both lenses but those are different beasts to me. Same for 50/2 apo & 50/1.4 asph. I never use the former indoor for instance. Too slow for me but YMMV. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3775/32537746900_3c98a8a15d_k.jpg&key=e18235ea8a8fbd5c28f49c7e1e6451c4d6ab8b3724655f71a84c22d61c3ada33">

 

left voigtlander ultron 35mm f1.7. on the right summilux FLE

 

well this is the real test straight out of camera. look at the result of both lenses. i really keep looking for the better reason the keep the summilux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 for Leica and 0 for CV if you want to count me in. I would never buy the CV lens i'm afraid as i need f/1.4 and i have plenty of f/2 and f/1.4 lenses already. 

Edited by lct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a bit puzzled by the comparison pictures as both say f 1.4 and the speed is the same. I thought VC was 1.7.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a bit puzzled by the comparison pictures as both say f 1.4 and the speed is the same. I thought VC was 1.7.

Leica has no way to enter 1.7 into exif data, only the coding selected as the closest match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you are expecting too much of a difference? Of course both lenses are not bad at all. Of course both can beat most of the competition out there and both can produce plenty IQ for web images. But I can still clearly see the difference, even on those postage stamp sized images...

 

e.g. in 3d-rendering for lack of a better word. That is enough for me to pay the price difference. It is hard to quantify the quality difference, so it will always be personal matter if what you see will be enough to pay for the Leica lens.

 

One after thought... If you see any difference and you payed a lot of money for the SL anyway. Why not pay some extra to get the lens which gives the best result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you,

 

I really apreciate those who takes the time to compare and post result  as opposed to only critize other :-) . Did you compare the distorion of the lenses with or without Lightroom lens profile?

I have used the 35/1,4 FLE for a while, and before that 35/1,4 pre ASPH and CV 35/1,4 MC. Very different lenses.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From all I know trying myself and from what I see at the examples, it is very difficult to compare lenses. You need "laboratory" surroundings to show differences. In practical usage you never have those clinical conditions. So the question which lens is better becomes more and more unimportant as you really use them. 

 

It all comes down to personal whim - and price. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a bit puzzled by the comparison pictures as both say f 1.4 and the speed is the same. I thought VC was 1.7.

Its a manual lens thus the SL only aproximate the aperture. Not always accurate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 for Leica and 0 for CV if you want to count me in. I would never buy the CV lens i'm afraid as i need f/1.4 and i have plenty of f/2 and f/1.4 lenses already.

Thats another reason, ultron 1, lux 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you are expecting too much of a difference? Of course both lenses are not bad at all. Of course both can beat most of the competition out there and both can produce plenty IQ for web images. But I can still clearly see the difference, even on those postage stamp sized images...

 

e.g. in 3d-rendering for lack of a better word. That is enough for me to pay the price difference. It is hard to quantify the quality difference, so it will always be personal matter if what you see will be enough to pay for the Leica lens.

 

One after thought... If you see any difference and you payed a lot of money for the SL anyway. Why not pay some extra to get the lens which gives the best result?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you,

 

I really apreciate those who takes the time to compare and post result as opposed to only critize other :-) . Did you compare the distorion of the lenses with or without Lightroom lens profile?

 

I have used the 35/1,4 FLE for a while, and before that 35/1,4 pre ASPH and CV 35/1,4 MC. Very different lenses.

Yes i have compare, the ultron has similar rendering with the lux.

Other voigtlander lens is very different character. I can't compare those it would be irrelevant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy