When writing the above post, I thought about the fact that I am not using a native camera, but a converted camera with ultra-thin sensor glass, and that my side by side test with an M 240 showed more vignetting on the Nikon Z6UT than the M 240. While the vignetting obviously will be less because of the micro lenses on the M sensor, I doubt that the bokeh balls outside the center and depth of field will be different.
MCMXCAD wrote:
I agree completely.. I tested the new lens against cron version 1 yesterday. Unfortunately, cannot post pictures because I got a staff from red dot cameras to model for me. Personally, for me I did not find the lens rendering good enough in comparison with the cron. Ultron 2 did not have sufficient character or pop or 'luminance' as I would like to call it.
Yes I agree there are arguments in favour of the new lens - small size, price, it is sharp enough, etc...
When I considered which 28mm f/2 in M mount to buy, I ruled out the Summicron Asph version 1 for one specific reason: reverse field curvature. When focus bends away from the camera in the corners (like the v1 does on digital cameras), blur outside the central area will be less than with lenses that have a flat plane of focus. For landscape etc. it means less sharpness in the sides and corners too. I saw Ron Schefflers test of the v1 from a football field he did with his M 240, and it shows this, so this applies to (full frame) M cameras as well as all other digital cameras.
With the Ultron II, we get a perfectly flat plane of focus, which will be an important feature for some. For those who mostly shoot people with their 28mm, this won't be important, of course, but for me, the flat plane of focus is a big advantage since I mostly use the 28mm for landscape - and if I shoot people, it is usually groups of people.
When talking about pop and rendering, I don't find the Ultron II lacking. I actually find it quite impressive on those points - at least in the greater central part of the image. As I understand it, image "pop" appears when the subject in focus has good contrast and sharpness while the background is quite blurred. The Ultron II delivers in spades in these two departments. However, I haven't had the chance to test it side by side with another 28mm f/2 yet (in my case, the Summicron Asph II), so maybe other lenses has even more.
If I didn't already own the Summicron Asph II, I wouldn't even consider other lenses than the Ultron II. It's that good to me.
LarsHP wrote:
With the Ultron II, we get a perfectly flat plane of focus, which will be an important feature for some. For those who mostly shoot people with their 28mm, this won't be important, of course, but for me, the flat plane of focus is a big advantage since I mostly use the 28mm for landscape - and if I shoot people, it is usually groups of people.
Across-frame sharpness of groups of people was the biggest problem I had with the Cron v1's 'reverse' field curvature. For landscapes I usually used it well stopped down and it wasn't a significant problem. I assume you're not experiencing this with the Cron v2? When I briefly owned the v2, my copy at least had strong field curvature, to the point I returned it. But I probably had a bad copy. Others, whose opinions I respect, have been very happy with it.
Regarding what you mentioned in the earlier post about the VM28's central hot spot wide open vs. f/2.4: I see the exact same thing with the VM35/1.7 on the M240.
LarsHP wrote:
The bokeh quality in the mirror of the car looks surprisingly smooth. Perhaps it's because it was shot at f/2.8?
It could also be because it's in front of the plane of focus. Some lenses render smoother OOF bokeh behind the plane of focus vs in front. Others are the opposite.
I think the Ultron v2 looks really good if there are not many specular OOF highlights in the background and in the outer third of the image.
The reason my 28mm Summicron-M Asph II is in Wetzlar for service is field curvature which is very visible at f/4. For some reason it wasn't visible at f/2, so at first I didn't discover it, but after taking a few landscape shots at f/4, it became clear that it had this issue. With precise focus at infinity in the center, things in the sides and corners only 5 to 15 meters away would be tack sharp while things in the horizon in each side would be quite blurred.
Hopefully it will be fixed when I get the lens back (in about two weeks from now).
Since you also see the same hot spot behavior with your CV 35mm f/1.7, I probably have to accept that this is how fast, compact lenses behave. I mean: three is a bunch.
rscheffler wrote:
Across-frame sharpness of groups of people was the biggest problem I had with the Cron v1's 'reverse' field curvature. For landscapes I usually used it well stopped down and it wasn't a significant problem. I assume you're not experiencing this with the Cron v2? When I briefly owned the v2, my copy at least had strong field curvature, to the point I returned it. But I probably had a bad copy. Others, whose opinions I respect, have been very happy with it.
Regarding what you mentioned in the earlier post about the VM28's central hot spot wide open vs. f/2.4: I see the exact same thing with the VM35/1.7 on the M240....Show more →
We finally got sunny weather here, and when shooting against the sun, the image stays very high contrast. I don't think I need a hood for this lens!
As Fred Miranda already has demonstrated on a Leica M camera, the sharpness wide open in the extreme corners is nothing short of spectacular. Luckily this is also the case with my Nikon Z6UT (Kolari Ultra Thin modded) camera. Perhaps not as perfect as on a M10-R, I can't tell since I have no direct comparison, but still nothing short of impressive. Wow!
LarsHP wrote:
When I considered which 28mm f/2 in M mount to buy, I ruled out the Summicron Asph version 1 for one specific reason: reverse field curvature. When focus bends away from the camera in the corners (like the v1 does on digital cameras), blur outside the central area will be less than with lenses that have a flat plane of focus. For landscape etc. it means less sharpness in the sides and corners too. I saw Ron Schefflers test of the v1 from a football field he did with his M 240, and it shows this, so this applies to (full frame) M cameras as well as all other digital cameras.
With the Ultron II, we get a perfectly flat plane of focus, which will be an important feature for some. For those who mostly shoot people with their 28mm, this won't be important, of course, but for me, the flat plane of focus is a big advantage since I mostly use the 28mm for landscape - and if I shoot people, it is usually groups of people.
When talking about pop and rendering, I don't find the Ultron II lacking. I actually find it quite impressive on those points - at least in the greater central part of the image. As I understand it, image "pop" appears when the subject in focus has good contrast and sharpness while the background is quite blurred. The Ultron II delivers in spades in these two departments. However, I haven't had the chance to test it side by side with another 28mm f/2 yet (in my case, the Summicron Asph II), so maybe other lenses has even more.
If I didn't already own the Summicron Asph II, I wouldn't even consider other lenses than the Ultron II. It's that good to me....Show more →
Glad it works out well for you. My conditions are exactly opposite more often than not. I like to photograph my family and landscapes very rarely if I visit someplace on a holiday. I will still keep an eye on this post as generally interested in new gear.
I believe the pop is not always when the background is blurred. I found that out after buying ZM sonnar 50/1.5. That gives pop even at longer distances when the background may not be blurred. Some of the Otus lenses have that behaviour too where you get separation of different planes of focus.
Also, there are Fuji lenses for example, where background might be blurred but rendering very flat.
MCMXCAD wrote:
I believe the pop is not always when the background is blurred. I found that out after buying ZM sonnar 50/1.5. That gives pop even at longer distances when the background may not be blurred. Some of the Otus lenses have that behaviour too where you get separation of different planes of focus.
Also, there are Fuji lenses for example, where background might be blurred but rendering very flat.
Worth mentioning the 28 cron samples I posted, if you zoom in and pixel peep the outline of the subject, there's a subtle hint of halo around which isn't from sharpening artifacts, somehow the lens is able to produce that extra bit of separation. I've seen plenty of long lenses able to achieve that, but for a wide angle, it's pretty rare I think.
I bet that halo is spherical aberration, which isn't unique among wide angle lenses. The 7Artisans 28mm f/1.4 has this too, but in terms of "pop" it's not even close to the Ultron II. The Ultron II has spherical aberration in the out of focus areas, but not in the zone of focus.
In fact, I would argue that any kind of optical aberration at the point of focus will degrade "pop" and 3D rendering.
jeffersoncasey wrote:
Worth mentioning the 28 cron samples I posted, if you zoom in and pixel peep the outline of the subject, there's a subtle hint of halo around which isn't from sharpening artifacts, somehow the lens is able to produce that extra bit of separation. I've seen plenty of long lenses able to achieve that, but for a wide angle, it's pretty rare I think.
LarsHP wrote:
The reason my 28mm Summicron-M Asph II is in Wetzlar for service is field curvature which is very visible at f/4. For some reason it wasn't visible at f/2, so at first I didn't discover it, but after taking a few landscape shots at f/4, it became clear that it had this issue. With precise focus at infinity in the center, things in the sides and corners only 5 to 15 meters away would be tack sharp while things in the horizon in each side would be quite blurred.
That is exactly what I saw with the Cron v2 I briefly owned. Edge sharpness was disappointing around f/4-5.6 and never got great at f/8. Field flatness was better than the v1 when wide open. I shot the same scenes with the VM35/1.7 and it was so much noticeably better across the frame than the v2. The 28 Cron v1 was fine for landscapes stopped down to f/4 or more.
I posted my findings on LUF and got mixed feedback. Some said their v2 copy was excellent. A few members sent me full-rez sample images and I saw the same problematic field curvature in many of those.
Hopefully Leica can fix your lens! I didn't have confidence they could and ended up returning the lens instead of waiting 1-2 months for Leica US to maybe fix it.
This is also why I bought the 28mm Ultron II. If the Summicron-M Asph II isn't much better when I get it back, than when I sent it in for service, I will conclude that this is just how the lens is, sell it, and keep the 28mm Ultron II.
It's the second time I have sent the 'cron in for service to get the sharpness right, so if two factory visits isn't enough, I will assume that this is how the lens behaves, but I did read someone saying he got his sample aligned, so I do hope it will work out.
rscheffler wrote:
That is exactly what I saw with the Cron v2 I briefly owned. Edge sharpness was disappointing around f/4-5.6 and never got great at f/8. Field flatness was better than the v1 when wide open. I shot the same scenes with the VM35/1.7 and it was so much noticeably better across the frame than the v2. The 28 Cron v1 was fine for landscapes stopped down to f/4 or more.
I posted my findings on LUF and got mixed feedback. Some said their v2 copy was excellent. A few members sent me full-rez sample images and I saw the same problematic field curvature in many of those.
Hopefully Leica can fix your lens! I didn't have confidence they could and ended up returning the lens instead of waiting 1-2 months for Leica US to maybe fix it....Show more →
When scrutinizing fine-adjusted infinity shots wide open with my Z6UT, I can find a very slight regular field curvature. It isn't visible unless I push focus slightly beyond infinity and then go a tiny bit back to perfect focus and take a shot. Then, when pixel peeping on the computer, I can see that the foreground will be less sharp in the center of the image, while the sides will be sharper.
Sorry to repeat myself, but I am just so impressed with the infinity sharpness across the whole frame wide open. Good sharpness in the center is common, but when you add that there is no mid-zone dip, and we get usable corners @ f/2, then I just say wow! This is just eye-watering performance to me - and at that price: $899!
I read pretty a lot of the tread but I did not understand some parts, I would like to get this lens to use on a Sony A7C and maybe later on when I will find a good deal I will get a Leica M240 but right now I would use it on A7C
I can get a deal on v1 used of this lens for about Hal of the price, but from the photo that I see here v2 seems much sharper. Can't find any direct comparison.
al404 wrote:
I read pretty a lot of the tread but I did not understand some parts, I would like to get this lens to use on a Sony A7C and maybe later on when I will find a good deal I will get a Leica M240 but right now I would use it on A7C
I can get a deal on v1 used of this lens for about Hal of the price, but from the photo that I see here v2 seems much sharper. Can't find any direct comparison. ...Show more →
My A7C is not modified at all, it's a standard version. So far I haven't acquired any sensor cover modifications for any of my cameras. I think the lens is pretty decent corner-to-corner on my A7C when stopped down to f5.6 and further even though it should work even better on Leica M cameras and others with thinner sensor covers.
@Juha Kannisto thanks a lot for the feedback I saw you gallery and the results is already very good for me.
If I will find a deal on Leica M240 in the future I will maybe get it but I'm not in a rush Leica M
al404 wrote:
@Juha Kannisto@ thanks a lot for the feedback I saw you gallery and the results is already very good for me.
If I will find a deal on Leica M240 in the future I will maybe get it but I'm not in a rush Leica M
Thanks! I personally like rangefinder lenses a lot but I'm not keen on getting any Leica digital M camera due to the very expensive prices and because there are several downsides to them in my view. I much prefer using an EVF over rangefinder focusing mechanism, IBIS is nice to have etc. I also don't have any Leica lenses and all my RF glass is Japanese, mostly CV and several Japanese legacy brands.
In my view Sony A7C and Sigma fp are pretty close to ideal small cameras for use with rangefinder lenses except for the fact that the sensor covers are thicker than on digital M and not all RF lenses will work great with them... I might get a 2nd A7C with a sensor cover glass modification some day but so far I'm not in any rush and my current rangefinder glass selection works well enough on these cameras + I also have many native E-mount CV lenses.
al404 wrote:
I read pretty a lot of the tread but I did not understand some parts, I would like to get this lens to use on a Sony A7C and maybe later on when I will find a good deal I will get a Leica M240 but right now I would use it on A7C
I can get a deal on v1 used of this lens for about Hal of the price, but from the photo that I see here v2 seems much sharper. Can't find any direct comparison. ...Show more →
