Voigtlander 40mm Ultron or Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI-S for a Nikon F2?

I have a Nikon F2 that I use with the Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI-S lens. Wondering if the 40mm Voigtlander f/2 Ultron is any better. I notice there is a pancake version (SL II) and a heavier SL IIS f/2 Ultron.

 

Anyone with experience with these? The Nikkor is OK but doesn't seem to hold grey scale quite as well as Leica M lenses, something of course to be expected. If the Voigtlander is somewhere in between, I was thinking it might be worth a try. Love using the F2, so I'd like to get the best out of it.

 

Thanks in advance…

"The Nikkor is OK but doesn't seem to hold grey scale quite as well as Leica M lenses...."

 

- You could increase exposure and cut development slightly to reduce the Nikkor's contrast to that of a Leitz lens.

I have never owned the Nikkor 35mm but own the Voigtlander 40mm pancake and it is one of those lenses I will never part with. I use it routinely with my FE. Previously, I used it with my digital Nikon (DX) cameras and in a non-scientific test I found it to be far sharper wide open than a nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D I had kicking around. By f/5.6 they were both excellent. The Voigtlander's build quality is outstanding.

 

I love the 40mm angle of view too.

Edited November 9, 2017 by pablo_escobar

I own both and use them on a F3, the 35mm for mountain hiking and the 40mm for street photography (makes the F3HP look like a Leica M...). Very happy with both, the 40 is quite sharp. 40mm is also a good multipurpose choice.