RoamingScott wrote:
There's a whole rabbit hole of "other" 40s, but trying to limit it to 40/2 to protect my sanity. Everyone wants to know about the Nok when they come into Z, so this is more about "what else should you consider?".
Why not throw the Sigma Cine 40/2.5 in while we're at it?
Isn't the Nokton already f1.2 I haven't been using it as much lately, but your samples are making me want to take it out for a spin. It really does have such a nice rendering. I totally understand needing to cut the comparisons at some point. I do believe thouhg that the Sigma 40mm f1.4 photo lens and 40mm t2.5 Cine lens are the same optical design, just in different housings.
I am convinced, that it beats them all:
- central sharpness
- corner sharpness
- LOCA correction
- LACA correction
- much less Vignetting
- and yes, top weight as well 😉
I have the Sigma 40mm f1.4 F, Nokton f1.2m, and Nikon 40mm f2.
My experience, without doing side by side testing, is that. The Sigma beats them all optically, but is so large I only take it out when I know I am going to take advantage of wide open. The Nikon is extremely convenient with its size, weight, and AF, so it's almost always in my bag in case I need a lowish light lens. The Voigtlander is my favorite to use when I don't need maximum sharpness wide open (it's quite sharp by f4) and have time for MF.
ISO1600 wrote:
I gotta say, the Ultron does look so good
Agree. Right behind it is Nokton f1.2, Septon, then TTA, and finally the Nikon f2, which has the worst background separation. That's what I see in these samples. I'm most curious to see how they compares in landscape shots with f8.
The variance doesn’t shock me, I’ve seen similar across brands Just curious though, did you check the images to see if auto WB metered the same? I have seen what I suspect to be vignette slightly shift WB.
RoamingScott wrote:
I explain this in the first post.
AdaptedLenses wrote:
The variance doesn’t shock me, I’ve seen similar across brands Just curious though, did you check the images to see if auto WB metered the same? I have seen what I suspect to be vignette slightly shift WB.
Yeah, they are 100% different kelvin values. Some lenses do meter warmer or cooler based on how heavy the aperture is for sure.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Great job with the testing, Scott. I really value these kinds of comparisons.
Thanks Fred.
I was interested to see if any of these lenses other than the Ultron exhibit a distinct flare ring, inspired by the rainbow ring you were seeing on your 35 Classic.
I have gotten quite used to pulling it out of the Ultron on demand wide open, and you can see here in similar conditions and settings it just wasn't happening on the Septon (just getting a purple ghost orb). I could only get just a bit out of the Nokton as well (above the sun).
The TTA exhibits a green ghosting blob and the Nikon really does nothing except bloom, which is pretty impressive.
RoamingScott wrote:
Thanks Fred. I was interested seeing the rainbow ring you got out of the Septon on E mount. I'm having a very hard time getting anything like that out of this on Z. EDIT: now i can't find those pics, maybe I was conflating with another Voigt you reviewed?
I have gotten quite used to pulling it out of the Ultron on demand wide open, and you can see here in similar conditions and settings it just wasn't happening on the Septon (just getting a purple ghost orb). I could only get just a bit out of the Nokton as well (above the sun).
The TTA exhibits a green ghosting blob and the Nikon really does nothing except bloom, which is pretty impressive.
I thought showing CA at f/2 would be interesting to see in motion (how the CA blooms in real time, etc) so I captured the live view, zoomed way in for maximum visibility.
Septon - tons of green fringing, purple fringing isn't as egregious.
Nokton - the worst fringing of the group, unsurprisingly, even stopped down to f/2
Ultron - Volumetrically similar to the Ultron, though the green fringing takes on a slightly more yellow cast. Might be just me, but the purple fringing seems just slightly less than the Septon due to this color cast.
TTA - Emerges as the victor here with the least amount of fringing at f/2, and what fringing does manifest is held in sharper shapes than the others. I think part of this is simply that the TTA is a wider FOV and fringing appears smaller as a result in the viewfinder.
Nikon - Intense green fringing, intense blooms around the fringes, and more intense purples than anything but the Nokton.
This is a cool comparison. Thank you. I own the Nikon version, purely because it was cheap, though I’ve wanted a Nokton for a while (ever since it came out for E mount).
It’s interesting that Voigtländer considers it worthwhile releasing so many 40mm lenses but I’m not complaining! Hopefully it’s a successful strategy for them.
Near focus with mixed lighting, and some trees near frame's edge at f/4. Septon still has way too much fringing going on for my liking at f/4, and it seems pretty obvious by now that its optical design was gimped to pull off the short length. As I mentioned in my the video post, the Ultron's flaring takes on a more neutral blue instead of purple and tends to blend into the sky better.
The TTA is showing some guitar pick bokeh even at f/4 in the upper right, and the Nikon has pulled away from the TTA for once here thanks to a bit of stopping down.
The Ultron has my favorite rendering here, despite a bit more fringing than the Nokton. We can see it and the Septon still metering SO much warmer by default and it's interesting to note that the Ultron is the "brightest" of the bunch at f/4 by varying margins, but letting in 2/3rds of a stop more light than the Septon. Wild! The Septon vignette continues to be a self inflicted wound.
We're at f/8 at a midrange focal distance (Dean headstone).
Septon is STILL fringing at f/8 in the corners. Nokton seems to have a deeper focal plane than the Ultron, which I found interesting (background leaves seem softer on the Ultron, even headstone slightly behind focal plane are softer). TTA and Nikon both performing just fine by f/8, though the TTA has a deeper focal plane than the Nikon (likely due to the wider FOV).
Last example today, back at f/4. The Septon is still struggling the most across the frame, the Nokton is winning in pure resolution and contrast, the Ultron is balancing softer edges with just a slight dip in center sharpness to the Nok.
The TTA is showing a bit more vignette here than the Nikon, and the Nikon comes away with the more even exposure.
I think this photo is the best yet in showing the difference between the Nokton and Ultron in terms of native distortion. Open in new tabs and flip between them to see what I mean.
Overall, the Ultron here wins for me yet again...the best blend of edge to edge sharpness and lack of vignette continue to be the theme for this little guy.
RoamingScott wrote:
We're at f/8 at a midrange focal distance (Dean headstone).
Septon is STILL fringing at f/8 in the corners. Nokton seems to have a deeper focal plane than the Ultron, which I found interesting (background leaves seem softer on the Ultron, even headstone slightly behind focal plane are softer). TTA and Nikon both performing just fine by f/8, though the TTA has a deeper focal plane than the Nikon (likely due to the wider FOV).
Scott, thanks for next examples. Nokton is my favorite so far. How far was Dean's headstone? Looks to me about 7m? I'm most looking forward to examples with the focus set on further distances - several dozen meters and before infinity at f8 - 11, for classic landscape shots.
Thanks for all these comparisons! I can see why you like the Ultron. With my collection of Z, F, and M-mount lenses, I'm starting to see a pattern of mirrorless lenses sacrificing optical quality (most noticeably with vignetting) to achieve smaller size.
Renes60 wrote:
Scott, thanks for next examples. Nokton is my favorite so far. How far was Dean's headstone? Looks to me about 7m? I'm most looking forward to examples with the focus set on further distances - several dozen meters and before infinity at f8 - 11, for classic landscape shots. f
I'd say it was about 10m away. It'll be a bit before shots like what you're looking for, my neck of the woods is VERY flat and shots like that aren't easy to come by.
RoamingScott wrote:
I'd say it was about 10m away. It'll be a bit before shots like what you're looking for, my neck of the woods is VERY flat and shots like that aren't easy to come by.
No problem, I'll wait, and I appreciate what you've done so far.
