So much praise for the 28mm Ultron II.
Makes me curious, if there is any expertise, how this lovely lens would behave on a Nikon Z7 with unmodified sensor via a suitable adaptor?
Thanks in advance, any relevant information much appreciated!
contrelamontre wrote:
So much praise for the 28mm Ultron II.
Makes me curious, if there is any expertise, how this lovely lens would behave on a Nikon Z7 with unmodified sensor via a suitable adaptor?
...
The 2/28 Ultron II is a tiny gem. The Z 7 (unmodified) is one of the better kept secrets in Adaptland...
Just make sure the adapter registration is spot-on, or as close as possible, shim if necessary.
mapgraphs wrote:
Just make sure the adapter registration is spot-on, or as close as possible, shim if necessary.
The lens is unit focus, so it isn't overly relevant unless you rely on a more accurate distance scale / infinity hard stop.
Imho in most cases not worth to shim, unlike lenses with internal focus/floating elements.
I have adapters that are shimmed and adapters that aren't. If I want to use the lens as it was designed to be used, I use it on a shimmed adapter, but that's just me...
mapgraphs wrote:
I have adapters that are shimmed and adapters that aren't. If I want to use the lens as it was designed to be used, I use it on a shimmed adapter, but that's just me...
I will repeat myself here: for the optical performance of unit focus lenses the correct length of the adapter is absolutely irrelevant.
You are still using the lens "as it was designed to be used".
BastianK wrote:
I will repeat myself here: for the optical performance of unit focus lenses the correct length of the adapter is absolutely irrelevant.
You are still using the lens "as it was designed to be used".
...unless you want to use scale or zone focus.
Which is why all my adapters are shimmed (except a couple that didn't need it)
mapgraphs wrote:
The 2/28 Ultron II is a tiny gem. The Z 7 (unmodified) is one of the better kept secrets in Adaptland...
Just make sure the adapter registration is spot-on, or as close as possible, shim if necessary.
The Z7 unmodified in my experience is not without its problems for adapted lenses including the VCM 28 f/2 II, either with or without a shimmed adapter.
Hardly. The 2/28mm Ultron II performs on the Z 7 as it does on my M-240. I've been using LTM/M mount lenses on the Z 7 since December 2018, but, I'm not the expert...
Yes Bastian. We hear you.
Feb 18, 2022 at 10:27 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
mapgraphs wrote:
Hardly. The 2/28mm Ultron II performs on the Z 7 as it does on my M-240. I've been using LTM/M mount lenses on the Z 7 since December 2018, but, I'm not the expert...
Yes Bastian. We hear you.
I am just reporting my experience and I have had a Z7 for over 2 years and the Voigtlander 28 f/2 II was one of the few lenses I bought new from soon after it was released. I also have a Leica M10. In my experience the VCM 28 f/2 II performs much better on my Leica M10 than on my Nikon Z7. We have had these discussions before mapgraphs. I think our experience is different because we shoot in different ways. I often shoot at or near wide open often at closer distances and I see the effect of the thicker sensor glass of the Nikon Z7. Perhaps the way you shoot you do not, but please don't challenge my experience by saying things like "hardly." We can have different experiences and apparently we do,.
mapgraphs wrote:
Hardly. The 2/28mm Ultron II performs on the Z 7 as it does on my M-240. I've been using LTM/M mount lenses on the Z 7 since December 2018, but, I'm not the expert...
Yes Bastian. We hear you.
I would very much doubt that the lens performs equally on a stock Z7 as it does on the M-240 as my understanding is the sensor stack thickness of the Z7 is about 2.3mm, not 1.1mm as reported by Kolari Vision (that figure did not include the total sensor stack thickness). So, unless you are using the lens stopped down to about f5.6 or smaller, I would not expect the lens to perform as well as on an M-body. If like an Ultra Thin sensor stack thickness of around 1.1mm of a Z7 or a Sony body (as an example my Kolari Vision UT sensor modified A7rII) then the lens should perform close to an M body. This was confirmed by Fred when he had compared his Kolari Vision UT sensor modified A7rII that he has since sold with his M10R.
How are you guys shimming your adapters? It must be a very precise process not to introduce tilt/swing. As Bastian wrote, as far as performance goes, it's not really needed for unit focus lenses.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am just reporting my experience and I have had a Z7 for over 2 years and the Voigtlander 28 f/2 II was one of the few lenses I bought new from soon after it was released. I also have a Leica M10. In my experience the VCM 28 f/2 II performs much better on my Leica M10 than on my Nikon Z7. We have had these discussions before mapgraphs. I think our experience is different because we shoot in different ways. I often shoot at or near wide open often at closer distances and I see the effect of the thicker sensor glass of the Nikon Z7. Perhaps the way you shoot you do not, but please don't challenge my experience by saying things like "hardly." We can have different experiences and apparently we do,....Show more →
One should expect similar performance between Z7 and Sony A7R IV. It's possible the Nikon will do a little better but definitely not the same as the M. The CV 28/2 II does not perform optimally even on the Leica SL2.
Fred Miranda wrote:
How are you guys shimming your adapters? It must be a very precise process not to introduce tilt/swing. As Bastian wrote, as far as performance goes, it's not really needed for unit focus lenses.
I have some very thin foil that I cut in small rectangles and place on four different spots around the adapter. I find I have to be very careful as I glue these on and test and test until I get it the registration distance I want without tilt or swing. It is a major pain in the ass. So, I do not adapt for unit focussing lenses. I don't typically adapt even for floating element/internal focussing designs unless I think the change in registration distance is causing problems. Being able to use floating element designs without concerns is a clear advantage of using a Leica camera for Leica M mount lenses.
Feb 18, 2022 at 11:11 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fred Miranda wrote:
One should expect similar performance between Z7 and Sony A7R IV. It's possible the Nikon will do a little better but definitely not the same as the M. The CV 28/2 II does not perform optimally even on the Leica SL2.
Yes, in my experience my Nikon Z7 and my Sony A7r II performed very similarly with adapted lenses.
That said, if I recall correctly, mapgraphes tends to shoot his lenses at narrower apertures like f/5.6-f/8 and he very well might not see much differences if he uses the lenses that way and the distance scales probably really matter to him if he shoots at those narrow apertures and does a lot of zone focussing. If lenses were used in that way, then differences in sensor glass thickness probably don't matter much and properly shimming adapters for better zone focussing probably matter more.
The outward field curvature exhibited with the 2/28 Ultron II, wide open, shows up on both my M-240 and Z 7. Both cameras exhibit the same effects. The subject distance and distance to midfield and background are the deciding elements in how noticeable it is.
I have a lens with severe inward field curvature that exhibits the so-called Italian Flag effect on the M-240. It's subtle, but there. With a short adapter on my Z 7, there is no trace of the effect. On a A7ii with a very short adapter it's almost possible to get the edges sharp at infinity... Cross testing and testing multiple distances, midfield and near infinity helps sharpen the understanding about what a lens is actually doing... So, I've had three years bouncing around between several bodies, lens wide open, event coverage, landscape, urban, to get a fair appreciation of how a variety of lenses perform. The Z 7 matches my M-240, that's all I have to go on.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I have some very thin foil that I cut in small rectangles and place on four different spots around the adapter. I find I have to be very careful as I glue these on and test and test until I get it the registration distance I want without tilt or swing. It is a major pain in the ass. So, I do not adapt for unit focussing lenses. I don't typically adapt even for floating element/internal focussing designs unless I think the change in registration distance is causing problems. Being able to use floating element designs without concerns is a clear advantage of using a Leica camera for Leica M mount lenses....Show more →
Hi Steve,
Unless I am mistaken much of the issue for floating element M mount lenses adapted to mirrorless cameras (particularly UT sensor modified) can be dealt with at least in large measure when using a Helicoid adapter that offers adjustment for shimming (if desifed). To do this you would first adjust focus to try to account for closer focusing to better position the floating elements prior to adjusting the helicoid and to then fine focus the lens for the final adjustment for closer work.
Rich
Feb 18, 2022 at 11:20 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
mapgraphs wrote:
The outward field curvature exhibited with the 2/28 Ultron II, wide open, shows up on both my M-240 and Z 7. Both cameras exhibit the same effects. The subject distance and distance to midfield and background are the deciding elements in how noticeable it is.
I have a lens with severe inward field curvature that exhibits the so-called Italian Flag effect on the M-240. It's subtle, but there. With a short adapter on my Z 7, there is no trace of the effect. On a A7ii with a very short adapter it's almost possible to get the edges sharp at infinity... Cross testing and testing multiple distances, midfield and near infinity helps sharpen the understanding about what a lens is actually doing... So, I've had three years bouncing around between several bodies, lens wide open, event coverage, landscape, urban, to get a fair appreciation of how a variety of lenses perform. The Z 7 matches my M-240, that's all I have to go on. ...Show more →
In my experience especially at wider apertures the outward field curvature is way more problematic on my Z7 than on my Leica M10. It is not a subtle or small difference in my experience.
Feb 18, 2022 at 11:21 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Unless I am mistaken much of the issue for floating element M mount lenses adapted to mirrorless cameras (particularly UT sensor modified) can be dealt with at least in large measure when using a Helicoid adapter that offers adjustment for shimming (if desifed). To do this you would first adjust focus to try to account for closer focusing to better position the floating elements prior to adjusting the helicoid and to then fine focus the lens for the final adjustment for closer work.
Rich
Yes, Rich some helicoid adapters make changing the registration distance a lot easier. I have a Hawk's adapter for Sony and that is way easier than using the fold method, but it still takes a lot of testing and ideally if I am adjusting the registration distance I want to keep the adapter with the lens and the helicoid adapters aren't cheap, so getting one for each lens can add up quickly.
mapgraphs wrote:
The outward field curvature exhibited with the 2/28 Ultron II, wide open, shows up on both my M-240 and Z 7. Both cameras exhibit the same effects. The subject distance and distance to midfield and background are the deciding elements in how noticeable it is.
I have a lens with severe inward field curvature that exhibits the so-called Italian Flag effect on the M-240. It's subtle, but there. With a short adapter on my Z 7, there is no trace of the effect. On a A7ii with a very short adapter it's almost possible to get the edges sharp at infinity... Cross testing and testing multiple distances, midfield and near infinity helps sharpen the understanding about what a lens is actually doing... So, I've had three years bouncing around between several bodies, lens wide open, event coverage, landscape, urban, to get a fair appreciation of how a variety of lenses perform. The Z 7 matches my M-240, that's all I have to go on. ...Show more →
I have never noted any outward curvature of my VC 28mm f2 Ultron II VM before, but I almost never use the lens wide open. I stop the lens down for my applications to normally f4 to f11.
Rich
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, Rich some helicoid adapters make changing the registration distance a lot easier. I have a Hawk's adapter for Sony and that is way easier than using the fold method, but it still takes a lot of testing and ideally if I am adjusting the registration distance I want to keep the adapter with the lens and the helicoid adapters aren't cheap, so getting one for each lens can add up quickly.
Hi Steve,
I only have the one Hawk's Factory V5 Helicoid that I use occassionally for closer focus and I believe my only M-mount lens with Floating elements is my Zeiss 35mm f1.4 Distagon ZM. For the 35mm f1.4 ZM I just "wing it" a little to move the floating elements and shoot away; but I would still normally be adjusting my f stop to probably at least f5.6 or so for DOF so that probably hides some of my error. For my other lenses lacking the floating elements I just share the same Helicoid.
