Voigtländer Ultron 40mm F2 SL ASPH, for Nikon

A few months ago there was a thread about the CV Ultron 40mm where I

offered to show some photos taken by it. I have just put together some

shots taken in <a

href="http://www.pbase.com/roland_l/guangzhou">Guangzhou</a>, China

and <a href="http://www.pbase.com/roland_l/san_francisco">San

Francisco</a> during early and late April respectively.

 

<p>

 

 

A Nikkor AIS 28/2.8 accompanied the CV Ultron 40/2 for both

portfolios; most indoor shots were taken

at f/2 and outdoor at f/8 by aperture priority with an FG, with

TMAX400 processed by HC-110. Got some

contact prints by Portra VC160 too, but I yet to have the negatives

scanned.

 

<p>

 

As a forum user in the previous thread said, the Ultron 40 is

reasonably sharp at full

aperture, though not remarkably sharp; sharpness improves a bit by

stopping

down, plenty sharp for all normal purposes but still not as sharp as

the excellent Nikkor normal lenses. Its tonal reproduction is

outstanding; there is some barrel distortion, a bit strange for a lens

boasting ASPH design, easily corrected by PhotoShop anyway; no

vignetting is observed; flare resistance seems

well controlled though I have to say that I didn't actually challenge

it; can't say much about the bokeh as none of

the shots demonstrates this.

 

<p>

 

I would say this Ultron is a handy and fast walk-around lens, and it

gives me the little extra coverage than a 50mm which I always want. It

is remarkable for its excellent tonal range, but

compromised in ultimate sharpness -- having said that, it is only

dwafted by the Nikkor normals when scrutinized; anyway there isn't a

Nikkor at 40/2, so the closest rival would be the AI-P 45mm f/2.8,

which has a good reputation in every aspect.

 

<p>

 

More to come, when time allows. Appreciate to have your comments.<div></div>

I had the lens for a short time but returned it due to harsh bokeh(due to aspheric design) and aperture ring ergonomics(same size and milling as narrow friction ring). Great focal length and speed though.

Roland, I enjoyed the Guangzhou folder very much (you do not shoot any people pictures?). Alcatraz, when I visited there, I went with a Minox GL and Leitz gear. Thanks for sharing!

Nice work Roland...thanks for sharing. I'm going to make a point of visiting "The Rock" very soon. That folder you presented has piqued my curiosity.

 

If you went again would you take something wider ...17mm or 20mm...I only see a couple of shots where I assume you used the 28mm.

Vivek, yes, friends said I tend to avoid including people in my pics let alone shooting some :) For the Guangzhou pics, I was warned against flashing around a camera in public because the place is no longer as safe as before, a sad fact ...

 

The terrace was wife's family property, when at the peak accomodated a family of 14, grossly neglected since all moved out. Now the place faces imminent redevelopment -- well, given its condition, it will fall anyway, hence the rush for some more pictures.

 

Robert, that was my first trip to the Rock too, and I was amazed to find that it was quite a small place. If I don't get the audio guide-tour in the cell house, the trip can be concluded in less than an hour. A good place for photographing ruins :)<div></div>

... one more.<div></div>

I'm curious how this lens stacks up against the 45/2.8 and the 50/1.8 AIS, for a fair pancakes to pancakes comparison. I'm surprised that the sharpness isn't all there, since the Voigtlander lenses I've used seem to be up there with my Nikkors.

I was also interested in hearing what other people have to say about the quality of Voigtlander's 40mm Ultron F2 lens - it's certaintly a very useful general purpose focal length - and by its very nature pretty compact and light weight too. Unlike Nikon's 45mm P type Ais lens, it's also reasonably fast (Nikon's 45mm pancake lens was/is a modest F2.8 ... not a problem in itself but it didn't produce the brightest focusing screen in my FM2 that I've looked at).

 

I only used my Nikon 45mm a little mainly for this reason, but perhaps it was also a little too compact for handling ease (I would say that it's a bit smaller than the Voigtlander 40mm lens).

 

Finaly, there seems to be a lot of talk on the net and in these photo forums about 'bokeh'. I must confess it's not a word I'd come across until fairly recently (and now I seem to see it everywhere), however, I would like to point out, that this phenomenon is NOT caused by lenses.

 

I'm not a scientist but I do know that it is merely a characteristic OF LIGHT as it enters and comes out of an opening.

 

The 'opening' in our case is the aperture of a lens ... any 50mm lens set to an aperture of F2 (for example), will have an 'opening' of 25mm ( that is 1/2 the focal length, hence F2), and thus light travelling through it will behave in exactly the same way as with any other lens of this focal length with an aperture of 25mm ( = F2).

 

If most lenses operated at apertures of F64 or F128 there would be very little discussion about so-called bokeh - because there wouldn't be any! Pin hole cameras likewise don't have bokeh, because the light travelling through their very small apertures doesn't behave in the same way as when travelling through a hole which is (for example) 25mm or so in diameter as is typical with a modern fast lens.

 

I'm glad to get that one off my chest!

<p>I own the CV 40 SL II together with the Nikkor 50 1.8 AI "close focus" and the Zeiss ZF 50 1.4 and disagree about your considerations. The CV 40 looks more "correct" to me than both the other lenses for CA and bokeh and at f/2 badly outresolves the Nikkor and is on par with the Zeiss. The object shape is magnificiently designed by the CV, which is as clean as the Zeiss, with the best bokeh among normals I have seen (not that great all over). This was seen on both the D700 and on FM/FM3a using Velvia scanned at 5400 dpi. The contrast is slightly inferior to that of the Zeiss (no normal lens, including Leica's, is brilliant as the ZF from f/2 onward), but the detail is there even in the shadows.<br>

Resolution is far best appreciated on scanned files.<br>

Stopped down at f/8 all these lenses look very similar, but the Nikkor has the lowest distortion ond no appreciable CA and becomes the preferred lens after a necessary 81A (or A2) color correction, especially for large photo stitching.<br>

Indoor, the focus feeling is better with the CV, due to the greater DOF. Images taken at f/2.8-4 are really impressive.<br>

I believe that sharpness is a subjective matter and, for a fair comparison, should be splitted up in several sub-properties, useful in different environments (e.g. resolution and shade details on big enlargements, distortion and CA when stopped down on a tripod, etc...).<br>

Sincerely<br>

Elio Di Claudio</p>

<p>I have the Ultron II, (2) Nikkor 50mm/1.4 (non AI), Nikkor 50mm/1.8 AIS, Nikkor 50mm/2 (non AI). The Ultron is the preferred lens for travel, street, built like a tank. Just wish it had that extra stop.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4211552852_2c3e4a887a.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /></p>