Juha Kannisto wrote:
I received my Septon 40/2 (E) today as expected. Have to work today and the weather is bad as well, so I will shoot some shareable samples later this weekend. Saturday and Sunday seem to have some decent weather based on latest forecast (Friday weather looks bad).
I tried my separately purchased accessory hood LH-90IIS which is actually for F-Mount CV 90mm F2.8 SL IIs lens on the Septon and looks like a great fit if someone wants a more streamlined / simpler dome hood for this lens. I believe this LH-90IIS is pretty much identical (except for the label text) with the discontinued LH-40N Screw-In Lens Hood that was for an older version of CV Ultron 40/2 F-mount lens (and therefore I believe it should be fully suitable for a 40mm lens too) even though the focal lengths are very different.
LH-90IIS comes with a 39mm Voigtländer plastic cap that fits in the opening. The 39mm cap is actually slightly too big to fit on the Septon's native hood's opening. I didn't see any additional vignetting on a couple of test shots with the Septon at home with this LH-90IIS accessory hood....Show more →
The included hood appears to be made of two glued-together parts. The top section lets you attach filters and the original cap, but it also adds to the overall length. It would have been great if Cosina had made these two parts detachable, so you could use the shortest possible hood (about half the length) at the cost of losing the ability to attach the cap or filters.
I really like what CV did here--great to see dinky size with decent speed, some character with a handy MFD, strong flare resistance and fantastic ergo. I am sure I will try one at some point.
What is confusing to me is the FC on this. The CV 35/2 Ultron, which also covers FF, has better resolution distribution across the frame from the center to outer midzone WO with a lack of FC. It's even small than this. And I believe 35mm's are typically trickier to engineer than 40mm's. I wonder why CV has this FC on this lens.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
What is confusing to me is the FC on this. The CV 35/2 Ultron, which also covers FF, has better resolution distribution across the frame from the center to outer midzone WO with a lack of FC. It's even small than this. And I believe 35mm's are typically trickier to engineer than 40mm's. I wonder why CV has this FC on this lens.
Thoughts?
Because its a very different design from the ultron. I also assumed it was some modification of the ultron but its quite different.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I really like what CV did here--great to see dinky size with decent speed, some character with a handy MFD, strong flare resistance and fantastic ergo. I am sure I will try one at some point.
What is confusing to me is the FC on this. The CV 35/2 Ultron, which also covers FF, has better resolution distribution across the frame from the center to outer midzone WO with a lack of FC. It's even small than this. And I believe 35mm's are typically trickier to engineer than 40mm's. I wonder why CV has this FC on this lens.
Thoughts?
l'll take a look through my older tests, but I believe the Ultron also shows a wavy field curvature pattern.
The Voigtlander 40/2 Septon performs similarly overall, though it delivers higher resolution and contrast at the center, which is impressive considering how strong the Ultron already is in that area. Mid-field and corner performance between the two are actually quite comparable.
Regarding Juha's suggestion, I will be testing the more compact LH-90IIS and LH-40N "52mm" screw-in hoods with the CV 40/2 Septon. It's nice to have a few options for an even more compact setup, although the included hood is already great imo.
Fred Miranda wrote:
l'll take a look through my older tests, but I believe the Ultron also shows a wavy field curvature pattern.
The Voigtlander 40/2 Septon performs similarly overall, though it delivers higher resolution and contrast at the center, which is impressive considering how strong the Ultron already is in that area. Mid-field and corner performance between the two are actually quite comparable.
Hmm...interesting. I'd be curious to hear what you dig up. I have never noticed one, at least at the distances I shoot at. It's not functionally bothersome to me, or not severe enough to be.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Hmm...interesting. I'd be curious to hear what you dig up. I have never noticed one, at least at the distances I shoot at. It's not functionally bothersome to me, or not severe enough to be.
The thing about this type of field curvature is that in real-world shooting, you barely notice it. If you focus on your subject in the mid-field, it will be sharp. It mostly shows up in strict resolution and contrast tests where you focus on the center and evaluate mid-field and corners without accounting for the natural curve of the field. This is different from actual mid-field resolution dips, where even if you focus directly on that area, it won't deliver strong resolution wide open. That's not the case with the Septon or Ultron, though many other lenses, especially faster ones do suffer from this.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The thing about this type of field curvature is that in real-world shooting, you barely notice it. If you focus on your subject in the mid-field, it will be sharp. It mostly shows up in strict resolution and contrast tests where you focus on the center and evaluate mid-field and corners without accounting for the natural curve of the field. This is different from actual mid-field resolution dips, where even if you focus directly on that area, it won't deliver strong resolution wide open. That's not the case with the Septon or Ultron, though many other lenses, especially faster ones do suffer from this....Show more →
You had me curious. There is indeed a tiny midzone dip WO, at least at 6 and 18 feet (the distances I checked). But also like you said, it's so small, even looking at heavy crops from a 42mp sensor it's a bit hard to see. The center and corners do look a bit ahead of the outter midzone. This is taken on a modded a7r2.
I am aware of lenses that simply don't have the resolution even if you focus in the midzone (looking at you CV 28/1.5) versus those with the FC that bend the plane of focus.
Given how minute the drop is on the CV 35/2 Ultorn, and you say the 40/2 Septon is even less, I'd have zero issues with the Septon's FC.
Today we had some very nice weather after a few cloudy and rainy days and I took my new Septon 40/2 out for a first real walkaround shoot (on my Sony A7CII) at Asagaya area. I really enjoyed the shooting experience with the lens and the results are also very pleasing to my eye. I like the bokeh rendering as well as the sharpness and the overall (slightly old school) character that the lens has. There's definitely some fringing on cables against the bright sky on some shots, but I'm not very sensitive to it and I didn't do anything to remove it.
I used the accessory hood LH-90IIS today instead of the native Septon hood. Everything was shot at f2 or f5.6 (my go-to aperture when I want to get best corner-to-corner sharpness with this lens). I used electronic shutter almost all the time, might have taken just a couple of shots with EFCS + anti-flicker to avoid any banding from artificial lights. I exported the shots from Raw with C1 Pro and applied my favorite filmic preset (no other processing at all). I didn't remove any vignetting (and I have vignetting comp set to off on camera).
It seems that C1 Pro decided to rename the lens as Batis 2/40 CF in EXIF. Argh...
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Today we had some very nice weather after a few cloudy and rainy days and I took my new Septon 40/2 out for a first real walkaround shoot (on my Sony A7CII) at Asagaya area. I really enjoyed the shooting experience with the lens and the results are also very pleasing to my eye. I like the bokeh rendering as well as the sharpness and the overall (slightly old school) character that the lens has. There's definitely some fringing on cables against the bright sky on some shots, but I'm not very sensitive to it and I didn't do anything to remove it.
I used the accessory hood LH-90IIS today instead of the native Septon hood. Everything was shot at f2 or f5.6 (my go-to aperture when I want to get best corner-to-corner sharpness with this lens). I used electronic shutter almost all the time, might have taken just a couple of shots with EFCS + anti-flicker to avoid any banding from artificial lights. I exported the shots from Raw with C1 Pro and applied my favorite filmic preset (no other processing at all). I didn't remove any vignetting (and I have vignetting comp set to off on camera).
It seems that C1 Pro decided to rename the lens as Batis 2/40 CF in EXIF. Argh...
Great lens for walking the streets of Tokyo, Juha. Nice to hear the LH-90IIS does not introduce any additional vignetting, that's a pleasant surprise. I'll be testing both Cosina 52mm '40 and 90' hoods today as well.
Even in very high contrast scenes, I'm not seeing much fringing in your images. What stands out instead is a high-contrast, highly detailed lens with noticeable vignetting wide open (though less than the TTArtisan), and a painterly rendering.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Great lens for walking the streets of Tokyo, Juha. Nice to hear the LH-90IIS does not introduce any additional vignetting, that's a pleasant surprise. I'll be testing both Cosina 52mm '40 and 90' hoods today as well.
Even in very high contrast scenes, I'm not seeing much fringing in your images. What stands out instead is a high-contrast, highly detailed lens with noticeable vignetting wide open (though less than the TTArtisan), and a painterly rendering.
Yes, I think I'll enjoy using this lens on Tokyo streets quite often It suits my shooting style very nicely. LH-90IIS is quite nice combo with this lens, and I measured 13g for the combination of LH-90IIS + 39mm hood cap vs. 20g for the original Septon hood + included 52mm cap, so this smaller hood + cap saves some weight too My kitchen scale shows162g for the bare lens.
Im not too impressed with what im seeing from this lens, its small, good color and contrast, well built and sharp but rendering is so so, bokeh/oof is downright ugly and distracting and global rendering "seems" to lack character.
The competition on sony are:
Loxia 35 - a bit more character, probably less sharp wide open, + sun stars from pretty much F2.2, better bokeh but not great either
Sigma 45 - better rendering, slower (F2.8), worse close up and medium distance sharpness at widest aperture, smoother oof rendering, slightly less contrast and saturation
Sony 40G - sharper everywhere, slower (F2.5), more punchy & vibrant rendering, bokeh/oof is a weakness but its better than this septon i would say.
Nokt 40 F1.2 - I dont own this yet but you get a wider aperture F1.2 and better bokeh at equivalent apertures, gentler rendering than the septon. I personally prefer the stronger rendering of this septon and the ultrons.
Thanks Fred and Juha for the detailed reviews and sample pics!
@bijosn, that's a great list. I don't have a 40mm lens and I like what I see from the Septon. It'll be my first manual lens if I buy it. I am also considering a used Batis 40/2 (there are currently two available in my area). But curious about the 40G as well. Not too worried about the bokeh weakness---Adobe's lens blur filter has been getting better and better that I'll use it if I don't like the bokeh/oof. If the 40G is similar to the IQ of my Sony 15/1.4 G (for aps-c), I'll take it.
bijosn wrote:
Im not too impressed with what im seeing from this lens, its small, good color and contrast, well built and sharp but rendering is so so, bokeh/oof is downright ugly and distracting and global rendering "seems" to lack character.
The competition on sony are:
Loxia 35 - a bit more character, probably less sharp wide open, + sun stars from pretty much F2.2, better bokeh but not great either
Sigma 45 - better rendering, slower (F2.8), worse close up and medium distance sharpness at widest aperture, smoother oof rendering, slightly less contrast and saturation
Sony 40G - sharper everywhere, slower (F2.5), more punchy & vibrant rendering, bokeh/oof is a weakness but its better than this septon i would say.
Nokt 40 F1.2 - I dont own this yet but you get a wider aperture F1.2 and better bokeh at equivalent apertures, less of a punchy rendering....Show more →
..and also the Viltrox and TTArtisan recently released lenses. Perhaps a couple more.
I stick to the expensive 40G (sold the TTA40). Review and user samples here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1700698/
Jonas B wrote:
..and also the Viltrox and TTArtisan recently released lenses. Perhaps a couple more.
I stick to the expensive 40G (sold the TTA40). Review and user samples here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1700698/
thanks Jonas!! I think I found my walk-with-a-model in Tokyo lens. It's on sale too.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Didn't you recently say the same thing about the Nokton 1.2 40? What's your definition of character, if I may ask? Please post some example pictures.
Lack of correction or undercorrection that intentionally or unintentionally creates a more appealing rendering. Il, try post some examples tomorrow if i remember.
If "character" is tied to "more appealing rendering," then the term says absolutely nothing, because what is perceived as appealing is extremely subjective. Nevertheless, I'm curious about the examples.
It suits my shooting style very nicely. LH-90IIS is quite nice combo with this lens, and I measured 13g for the combination of LH-90IIS + 39mm hood cap vs. 20g for the original Septon hood + included 52mm cap, so this smaller hood + cap saves some weight too 
