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.

  • Similar Content

    • By Al Brown
      Just came from Latvia on assignment and got me a little souvenir... noticing how similar their Laima chocolate company logo is to Leica's. What do you think? Does any other company have a similar logo?

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
    • By Holger1
      Verkaufe ein neuwertiges Summilux-M 1,4/35 ASPH, silbern eloxiert, E46 ( 11 892) ohne sichtbare Gebrauchsspuren.
      Originalverpackung mit Front-u.Rückdeckel und der Anleitung.
      Dies ist ein Privatverkauf. I only send within EU
      www.HolgerDaberkow.de
       
       
    • By onasj
      I obtained a customer-release—not pre-release/beta—M10-R and compared it side-by-side with the M10 Monochrom (hereafter referred to as the M10-M) on a test scene at high ISO values.  The firmware version for both was the latest firmware currently available to the public: 10.20.27.20 for the M10-R (upgraded from the initial released 10.20.23.49 firmware that was pre-installed in the new camera), and 2.12.8.0 for the M10-M. 
      Methodology: all shots were taken on a tripod with a 2-second delay to minimize vibration.  The same Leica 50 APO lens was used for all tests.  The aperture was set to f/5.6 for all tests, at which the resolving power of the 50 APO is about as high as possible among commercially available 35-mm format lenses.  The ISO value and shutter speeds were as follows:
      ISO 6400, 1/60 s
      ISO 12500, 1/125 s
      ISO 25000, 1/250 s
      ISO 50000, 1/500 s
      ISO 100000 (M10-M only), 1/1000 s
      To the best of my ability, the M10-R and the M10-M were treated equally.  The test shots were taken in one sitting, with the same tripod position 2.2 m from the target, and under the same lighting.  The images were focused by rangefinder and confirmed by live view for each camera.  The subject distance (2.2 m) was farther from the test scene than my earlier M10-R tests (1.3 m) because I anticipated that the M10-M might have no trouble resolving all the details of the scene from 1.3 m, even at absurdly high ISOs.
      To keep the test as pure as possible, all the test shots were taken as DNG files, then transferred and opened in Adobe Photoshop 2020 with Camera Raw 12.3 (which has native M10-R support) with no corrections or adjustments to the default image settings, other than clicking “B&W” to convert the M10-R images to monochrome.  Therefore, this test does not really answer the question of how the performance between the cameras compares if one were to bring the full power of modern post-processing, noise removal, AI-driven scaling and sharpening, etc. to bear on the images.  It also does not exploit the important ability of adjusting the levels of different colors when converting color files to monochrome files—arguably the largest advantage of using the M10-R to generate monochrome photos instead of the M10-M.  Instead, the purpose of this test is to compare the acuity and noise level of the two cameras at ISO 6400 to ISO 50000.
      Overall, both cameras take remarkably good monochrome photos, even at ISO levels such as 12500 that would previously be considered out-of-reach.  Here are 100% crops from a small portion of the center region of both cameras (M10-R on the left, M10-M on the right).  Click on the image below to view it at 100% to avoid scaling artifacts.  I would have no hesitation using ISO 12500 monochrome images from either camera for virtually any application.  But of course there are substantial performance differences.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! Finding #1: The M10-M captures higher acuity levels than the M10-R across the ISO range tested (6400 to 50000).
      As expected, given the lack of a Bayer color filter array (CFA) and no need to de-mosaic the red-, green-, or blue-filtered pixels, the M10-M offers significantly higher acuity than the M10-R.  To my eye, the advantage persists even if you give the M10-R an advantage of one or two stops: compare the sharpness of the fine features of the scene as captured by the M10-M at ISO 25000 vs. the M10-R at ISO 6400, or the M10-R at ISO 25000 to the M10-M at ISO 100000—a remarkable testament to the M10-M’s ability to capture a scene down to the smallest details, even zooming in to 100%.  Notice also that at the same ISO level, aperture, and shutter speed (chosen by each camera’s auto-shutter speed setting to be the same at all ISO levels!), the M10-M images are only modestly brighter than the M10-R; I was surprised that the Bayer CFA didn’t dim the M10-R images more strongly.  Perhaps the M10-R firmware partially compensates for the loss of light due to the Bayer CFA.
      Finding #2: The M10-M offers about a 1- to 2-stop advantage in high-ISO noise levels over the M10-R.
      Compare the M10-M at ISO 50000 to the M10-R at ISO 12500, or the M10-M at ISO 25000 to the M10-R at ISO 6400. The M10-M continues to blow me away with its high-ISO performance.  Indeed, Bill Claff’s measurements at https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm rank the M10-M’s high ISO performance as fourth among all cameras tested to date, behind the Phase One IQ4, the Phase One IQ3, and the Fuji GFX-100—three current or recent top-of-the-line medium format cameras.
      Overall, Leica has created in the M10-M and the M10-R two current-generation sister cameras with outstanding overall performance.  If acuity or high-ISO performance is more important than color for your particular application, than the M10-M outperforms the M10-R and is among the very best cameras to my knowledge, even joining some medium-format monsters.  And if color is needed, either in the final image or to enable creative conversion to black and white images that allows easy sky darkening, face lightening, etc. during post-processing, the M10-R remains an option worthy of its current flagship status among Leica M cameras.
    • By LeonTheFirst
      Here are some photos of Pasvik (near Norilsk), I took in my Leica Q2. What a wonderful camera! I am really satisfied with it 

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
    • By TheGodParticle/Hari
      Most of us seem to be photographers as well as collectors.
      Show me your favorite lenses, old and new alike.
      I like the Noctilux range for the extreme apertures, but I prefer the Summilux range for the best speed:size/weight ratio.
      Here’s a Summilux gathering of 21, 24, 28, 35, 50 and 75mm. All in black. 

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
×
×
  • 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