Anyone out there have any experience with the Ultron 40mm f/2 on a 5D or 1Ds2? I am considering one (presumably Nikon mount) as a walkaround lens; I like my 50mm Summicron but I get the feeling the Ultron is significantly smaller.

The Ultron is very small and an excellent performer. I use mine on DX and 35mm film in Nikon-land. There's very little out there which can match its size/performance ratio in a similar focal length.

the Ultron should not be too much smaller. For use on a 5D, since you already have the highly-touted 50cron, i wouldn't bother. Go for a smaller 'cake, like the Pentax 40/2.8.

I use my Ultron with a few different Nikon bodies and it is a very nice little gem.

I agree with ISO1600, the Ultron is not a lot smaller than the Summicron, and the SMC Pentax-M 40/2.8 is a lot smaller - so is the Contax Carl Zeiss Tessar 45/2.8. I have the Zeiss, and it's very nice.

Edit: correct error in table, Ultron is 25mm long, not 30mm as in original posting - thanks to mawz for pointing out the error.

If you are just looking for light weight then you might consider the CYZ 50mm f/1.7 it is 195 grams or about the same weight as the Ultron which weighs in at 200 grams (Jim's weight listed above I believe includes the close-up lens). The summicron is 290 grams, so either of these are noticeably but not hugely lighter than the 'cron. The Olympus that brainiac recommends is lighter yet. It weighs 140 grams--not as light as the f/2.8 lenses from Pentax or CYZ, but then again it is f/2. I hope this helps.

Thanks, everyone. I'm thinking mostly about size, not weight. The Pentax and CZ are nice and small, but I could really use the extra stop. f/2 and tiny would be perfect. (Well, f/1.4 and tiny would be even better, but not realistic.) Perhaps I should revisit the Oly.... Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Oly a pretty inexpensive lens back in the day that happens to be pricy now because of supply and demand?

Greg Feldman wrote:
.... Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Oly a pretty inexpensive lens back in the day that happens to be pricy now because of supply and demand?

It's mostly because of people like Richard, and soon maybe you as well.

Greg Feldman wrote:
.... Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Oly a pretty inexpensive lens back in the day that happens to be pricy now because of supply and demand?

It was cheap, yes, under $100 new. Priced between the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 back in the day.

jcolwell wrote:
I agree with ISO1600, the Ultron is not a lot smaller than the Summicron, and the SMC Pentax-M 40/2.8 is a lot smaller - so is the Contax Carl Zeiss Tessar 45/2.8. I have the Zeiss, and it's very nice.



That table is incorrect, the Ultron is 25mm long, not 30 (They obviously measured with the hood rather than without). The Ultron greatly outperforms either the Zeiss 45 or the Pentax 40 at wide apertures, is a stop faster and offers 1:4 magnification with the included closeup ring. Unless you really want a Tessar or something native in Contax mount, I wouldn't bother with either of the f2.8 'cakes.

Thanks mawz, I just corrected the table.

Has anyone compared the Ultron 40/2 with its sister 58/1.4? I have the latter and I'm so impressed with the colors and bokeh that I'm thinking of replacing my 35/1.4 (Nikon) with the Ultron instead.

the 40 and 58 are two totally different lenses.

the 58 is amazing, and i think the 40 is completely boring other than its small size and CPU chip.

Richard, i really wish you would stop touting the Oly40 so much. If there was more interest in pancakes, you would have turned it into the Distagon of 'cakes by now, or pulled a "Yates" and had people hacking tehm up to almost reach inf. on their EF bodies.
Yes, the Oly is great, but no, it is not affordable or realistic for most people wanting a pancake.

I'm curious how many times that image of the Oly 40 has been posted.

Seriously tho, it is a pretty neat little lens.

JonasY wrote:
Has anyone compared the Ultron 40/2 with its sister 58/1.4? I have the latter and I'm so impressed with the colors and bokeh that I'm thinking of replacing my 35/1.4 (Nikon) with the Ultron instead.

I own both. Love both (And also own and love the Nikkor 35/1.4). But they're quite different in character.

Colour is very similar, bokeh on both is similar but the 58 is smoother. But the 40 is quite sharp wide open all across the frame and just keeps getting sharper, the 58 is softer wide open (although quite sharp for f1.4) and sharpens up until performance is similar by f4-5.6. The 40 is a better landscape lens, the 58's a better people lens. Both are VERY competent for most uses though.

The 40's also rather different than the 35/1.4, since it's sharp across the frame wide-open rather than being very sharp in the centre and softer in the corners. It also lacks the curvature of field of the 35.

I find them very complementary lenses. The 35's my really low-light and wide portrait lens, the 40's my general carry normal and the 58's my long-normal low-light and portrait lens.

mawz- if the 35 and 58 were both F2.0 like the 40, then they would almost be the same exact lens. That is where a large part of this difference comes from, except for the fact that the Nikkor is a very old design.

All three of them are excellent lenses though.

My pancake on XSi:

ISO1600 wrote:
mawz- if the 35 and 58 were both F2.0 like the 40, then they would almost be the same exact lens. That is where a large part of this difference comes from, except for the fact that the Nikkor is a very old design.

All three of them are excellent lenses though.

Well except for them being completely different designs with different optical characteristics. The 40 is a 2 aspherical surface design, the 58 and 35 are spherical. The 40 is pretty much a straight Planar design while both the 58 and 35 differ from a standard Planar design. The 58 closely resembles the Rokkor and Noct-Nikkor in basic optical formula. Very different performance across all three wide open and down 1-2 stops. They don't start to perform similarly until 2 stops down from wide open.

alexandre wrote:
My pancake on XSi:

5D +

Ed Sawyer wrote:
Greg Feldman wrote:
.... Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Oly a pretty inexpensive lens back in the day that happens to be pricy now because of supply and demand?

It was cheap, yes, under $100 new. Priced between the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 back in the day.

Actually no. The Olympus OM 40mm F2.0 was priced at $350-$400 street price when it was introduced. Not sure where you are getting the $100 price tag at introduction. The one website that does list prices gives only a ballpark estimate of how much these lenses sold for back in the 80's-90's.
The f2.0 OM lenses were superior to the standard OM lenses - not quite in the same class as say the 50mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.8.

And I feel Richard and his picture actually don't do enough justice for what this lens is really capable of. It does show how small a package it gets you.

It's interesting how owners of this lens never say it's too pricey or not worth it. Use one and maybe then decide what this little jewel is truly capable of.

ISO1600 wrote:
Richard, i really wish you would stop touting the Oly40 so much.

Sorry fellas. Will try to stop. I just love it though. I sold my no. 1 Oly 40 to a bloke I met in a shop the other day. Now I only have one left. Could be time to try an Ultron.

In some reviews the Ultron 40 has less flattering bokeh; is there better or worse among these lenses or do they all suffer a bit because of the pancake design?

I would love a f-mount 38-45 somewhere 1.4-2.0 somewhere prime Don't need pancake though..