I don’t believe it will behave in any particular way on Nikon versus Sony. I’m just curious to try it amongst other Nikon options.
Jonas B wrote:
And yet you have one (unless sold recently?).
OK, then you may belong to a group of photographers believing this particular lens will act very differently when used with a Nikon camera. Well, we don't know yet, you might be lucky, at least partially.
I'm sure it performs better than the Nikon 40mm f/2 Z in some areas (wide open contrast, likely...maybe coatings), but from what I'm seeing, not enough of an improvement to make up for the cost difference.
Jman13 wrote:
I'm sure it performs better than the Nikon 40mm f/2 Z in some areas (wide open contrast, likely...maybe coatings), but from what I'm seeing, not enough of an improvement to make up for the cost difference.
I'm not sure about anything, nor would I suggest anyone be until we see it in hand
Nor do I think that someone is making a decision to get one or the other of those two lenses. Voigts are typically a compliment to an AF lens, not a replacement.
I'm adding this to complement my Sony 40/2.5 G, CV 40/1.2 SE, CV 40/2.8 (version for Sony with helicoid adapter), CV 40/2.8 (regular VM), Kistar 40/2.4 (E-mount), Minolta M-Rokkor 40/2, MS-Optics H-Prot 40/6.3... The most actively used ones in the past couple of years have been 40/1.2, 40/2.4, 40/6.3.
I'm quite happy with everything I've seen from this lens so far and expect to enjoy it a lot but have to wait for 1 more week for my own copy to arrive, which is not too long now
I am definitely getting one, the Nokton 40mm f1.2 didnt impress me and is a bit larger and heavier than i would like and I only seemed to like the images from that lens when stopped down to at least 5.6, this one seems to hit the spot.
bijosn wrote:
I am definitely getting one, the Nokton 40mm f1.2 didnt impress me and is a bit larger and heavier than i would like and I only seemed to like the images from that lens when stopped down to at least 5.6, this one seems to hit the spot.
That's a quite strange conclusion. If you were not impressed by the 1.2, why would you be OK with the pancake when it seems worse in every aspect from f/2 and on?
Edit: Except for size and weight then of course.
-------------
Personally I'd be more interested if it was more uniform across the frame and had smoother bokeh, at the expense of pure sharpness. A little bit of spherical aberration glow wide open is mostly nice IMO. Mid zone dip at infinity and funky bokeh, not so much.
Jonas B wrote:
A direct comparison... That would be for the sake of it then. The bar image was enough, I don't need more from this lens to know I'm not interested.
I agree that the bar image is an example of how the outer frame will at least at times be less than optimal for this lens, but that is generally true for all small lenses. If you make a lens small there are going to be compromises and you usually see them in the outer frame. The questions to me are exactly what are those compromises, which I think will take some experience with broader use of the lens to fully understand, and how much do those compromises bother you and is the small size worth those sacrifices. That is going to be a very subjective decision. From the early examples, I think I have a sense of the compromises but would love to see broader testing and more examples. For me I doubt very much that I would find the tradeoff for small size worth the compromises, but I am trying to keep an open mind. For others the small size might be totally worth it.
I am not surprised Juha is getting the lens. He seems to love both 40mm lenses and small lenses, so this is right up his alley. I share an appreciation for 40mm lenses, but I don't need or really even want a lens quite this small--although I appreciate small lenses at least some of the time. I have very large hands, however, and when a lens gets this small I find it hard to use--that is my complaint with my Voigtlander 27 f/2 for Fuji, which is even smaller--so the subjective part of the decision (is the tradeoff of small size vs. the compromise worth it) I think is going to be very different for different people.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I'm adding this to complement my Sony 40/2.5 G, CV 40/1.2 SE, CV 40/2.8 (version for Sony with helicoid adapter), CV 40/2.8 (regular VM), Kistar 40/2.4 (E-mount), Minolta M-Rokkor 40/2, MS-Optics H-Prot 40/6.3... The most actively used ones in the past couple of years have been 40/1.2, 40/2.4, 40/6.3
I'm glad I'm not the only one with a glut of 40mm glass that thinks the Septon might still slot in for some usefulness
Jonas B wrote:
A direct comparison... That would be for the sake of it then. The bar image was enough, I don't need more from this lens to know I'm not interested.
and then
Steve Spencer wrote:
[I agree that the bar image is an example of how the outer frame will at least at times be less than optimal for this lens, but that is generally true for all small lenses. If you make a lens small [...]
If you make lens small... yes, so it is. I don't know the name of the type of bokeh we towards the short end in the bar image. I have experience from similar type of bokeh though (some Pentax lens, Olympus Pen lenses and a couple more). This is surely partly because of the lens size but not only. Also, not all small lenses suffer from the comet-like bokeh balls.
I think Makten nailed it. Midzone dips are bad. Nice bokeh is possible. Don't mess around.
Some images taken with the Leica Summilux-M 35/1.4 pre-FLE are really beautiful. But, the darn lens couldn't deliver an image being sharp from left to right. So, I sold it. Give me a lens that is reasonably sharp in the center and mid-field. Resolution ability may decline towards the corners, not in the mid field of the image.
For me it is easy, when a lens comes with the bokeh type discussed, and jittery bokeh at medium distances anywhere in the image and a mid-field dip - then it's not a lens for me. YMMW of course.
Sunstar rendering II and Vignetting at infinity distance
Continuing the sunstar rendering test from my previous post (link), I had some perfect clear skies and repeated the test again at sunrise. The results are consistent with what I showed before, but the lens also demonstrated excellent flare control, with no noticeable ghosting or veiling even when the sun was pointed directly at the lens.
This test also shows the amount of vignetting from f/2 through f/22, with no correction applied in post. The vignetting is quite noticeable, but it's worth noting that this is a worst-case scenario since the shot was taken at infinity focus.
Well-formed sunstars start to appear as early as f/2.2 and become well defined at f/2.8 and beyond. At f/2 the sunstars are softer because the blades are fully open, while at the smallest aperture, f/22, they become more chaotic and less attractive. Although I personally prefer well-defined rays, I also liked the look wide open at f/2, even without distinct sunstars.
The series below illustrates the sunstar shape from f/2 to f/22 in one-stop increments. With 10 straight aperture blades, this lens produces 10-point sunstars that remain symmetrical and visually pleasing.
Makten wrote:
That's a quite strange conclusion. If you were not impressed by the 1.2, why would you be OK with the pancake when it seems worse in every aspect from f/2 and on?
Edit: Except for size and weight then of course.
-------------
Personally I'd be more interested if it was more uniform across the frame and had smoother bokeh, at the expense of pure sharpness. A little bit of spherical aberration glow wide open is mostly nice IMO. Mid zone dip at infinity and funky bokeh, not so much.
Ive been wanting the ultron 40mm f2 for a while so seeing a similar native option excites me. Also, Ive been wanting a high quality 40mm pancake manual lens to use with the Nikon ZF. I understand this lens comes with compromises but its compromises I can live with as long as it has other qualities I look for such as sharpness from wide open, center sharpness, strong but balanced color saturation and contrast and a bit of character.
Ive looked at a lot of sample photos taken with the nokton 40 f1.2 and something about the rendering doesn't appeal to me, its a bit too gentle if I can put it like that...its rendering doesn't have a strong signature.
I agree, they could have given this lens more character, better bokeh, a bit of spherical aberration wide open etc. the mid zone dip is the biggest disappointment, I will wait for more reviews before making a final decision.
RoamingScott wrote:
I'm not sure about anything, nor would I suggest anyone be until we see it in hand
Nor do I think that someone is making a decision to get one or the other of those two lenses. Voigts are typically a compliment to an AF lens, not a replacement.
There seem to be a majority that think the Nokton 40mm has a very "strong signature".The review here also indicates that. When I wanted to get one in Z-mount the where sold out everywhere in Europe excpet MPB that had used lenses for high prices, above the new-lens list-price. So I ended up with the APO 35mm
When it comes to this Septon, I'll get one as soon as they are available. One of the top lenses on my CV wish-list was a compact Ultron 40mm replacement. As far as I can se it looks the compromises are acceptable, and it will be great in many situations.
Jepser wrote:
There seem to be a majority that think the Nokton 40mm has a very "strong signature".The review here also indicates that. When I wanted to get one in Z-mount the where sold out everywhere in Europe excpet MPB that had used lenses for high prices, above the new-lens list-price. So I ended up with the APO 35mm
When it comes to this Septon, I'll get one as soon as they are available. One of the top lenses on my CV wish-list was a compact Ultron 40mm replacement. As far as I can se it looks the compromises are acceptable, and it will be great in many situations. ...Show more →
What do you mean by strong signature? the rendering seems to be on the gentler side...the colors tend towards soft pastel like, lacks punch, contrast is average, sharpness looks good.
