RoamingScott wrote:
“Video hardware bulk” thanks for the belly laugh.
The additional processing needs of video require more energy creating more heat. Mostly, the chassis needs to be bigger to dissipate the heat. It also means bigger batteries.
Google "Nikon overheating." Every model Z has entries (except for the Z9, which simply has the scale to keep things cool - enough). All the Panasonic hybrids and most of the little "cinema" cameras, like the Canon R5C have fans inside. Heat is a problem
The only other Nikon camera with no listings is the Zf, most likely becuase no one uses it for video.
Even the Zf's lesser, but significant video capability adds size and weight - bulk - to the design.
freaklikeme wrote:
@Fred Miranda have you put it on your Kolari mod to see if there are big differences in performance?
Yes, I tried the Voigtlander 40mm f/2 Septon VM on my Sony A7CR with the Kolari thin sensor modification, and the results were not great. The field curvature in the mid-field becomes more pronounced and the lens does not perform optimally at infinity.
While it can still be used on the modified thin sensor body, it performs optimally on the stock Sony sensor as expected. This is somewhat unusual, though. With native E-mount lenses, the Kolari sensor typically amplifies field curvature as well, but instead of bending it outward it tends to bend it inward, which can actually help the rendering. For example, the TTArtisan 40mm f/2 performs better on the Kolari sensor because its natural outward field curvature becomes more neutral, resulting in improved rendering, for instance the out of focus corners remain out of focus and soft.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, I tried the Voigtlander 40mm f/2 Septon VM on my Sony A7CR with the Kolari thin sensor modification, and the results were not great. The field curvature in the mid-field becomes more pronounced and the lens does not perform optimally at infinity.
While it can still be used on the modified thin sensor body, it performs optimally on the stock Sony sensor as expected. This is somewhat unusual, though. With native E-mount lenses, the Kolari sensor typically amplifies field curvature as well, but instead of bending it outward it tends to bend it inward, which can actually help the rendering. For example, the TTArtisan 40mm f/2 performs better on the Kolari sensor because its natural outward field curvature becomes more neutral, resulting in improved rendering, for instance the out of focus corners remain out of focus and soft....Show more →
Thanks, Fred. It's not a surprise, but I appreciate you killing my curiosity. I hadn't heard that about the TTA 40/2, but I'm not shocked. I just ran through trying out a trio of Chinese 14/2.8s (TTA, 7A, and Pergear), all e-mount, and all seemingly designed for different sensor stacks. The TTA was bad on my stock a1, got better on the UT modded rII, but was at its best (which still wasn't great) on my bare-sensored mono rII. The 7A was at its best on the Kolari mod. The Pergear was shockingly good for the money on the a1, decent on the Kolari mod stopped down a bit, and bad on the mono.
bijosn wrote:
They mention in their video that the septon name was given because they added 1 element to the ultron design. It looks like a modification of the ultron for mirrorless lenses.
&t=77s
@ 1:02 minutes
Just correcting myself, maybe the translation from japanese to english was incorrect but it seems the difference between the ultron and septon is not just one element. The septon seems to inherit a general design from the ultron but almost every element has a different shape and the location of the aspherical element is different, i assume that the rendering would also be a bit different looking at this.
Ultron with 5 groups, 6 elements:
Septon with 6 groups, 7 elements (and 1 extra aperture blade):
One thing I've not been able to verify is if the Ultron's optical design changed at all between the pancake SL II and the not-pancake, more modern SL IIs. I'm inclined to think it did given that the MFD changed rather dramatically between the two, as well as being nearly twice as large.
It'd be more appropriate to compare the Septon to the pancake SL II IMO, though it's likely the Septon falls right between them in utility.
Mar 09, 2026 at 09:46 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
RoamingScott wrote:
One thing I've not been able to verify is if the Ultron's optical design changed at all between the pancake SL II and the not-pancake, more modern SL IIs. I'm inclined to think it did given that the MFD changed rather dramatically between the two, as well as being nearly twice as large.
It'd be more appropriate to compare the Septon to the pancake SL II IMO, though it's likely the Septon falls right between them in utility.
It doesn't look like the optical design has changed. Camera quest, which is usually very accurate for Voigtlander lenses as they are the US distributor for them has the optical design for the SL II (the 200g pancake with the further focus distance) here:
Steve Spencer wrote:
It doesn't look like the optical design has changed. Camera quest, which is usually very accurate for Voigtlander lenses as they are the US distributor for them has the optical design for the SL II (the 200g pancake with the further focus distance) here:
Guess the size difference is to accommodate the longer focus throw then. I see there's a formula chart of the non-N variety, which I assume applies to the Nikon version as well.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
All discontinued versions of Ultron 40mm can be found on Cosina's Archives and the optical design does look unchanged across generations.
I used the CV 40 mm f2 SL11 pancake for years on the Canon 5D11 with a Maxwell screen. I loved it for its form factor and its character, and it made the 5D11 a different beast. I often wished I could just have a lens that size and FL for my Sony A7r1V.
I ended up getting the Nokton 40mm f1.2 (the smalker one, only 52mm long) for the Sony, and put up with its size. I soon realised how much better the Nokton is at f2 than the than the 40mm f2 SL2 wide open - easily sharper centrally, and better out to the edges, with for me, an even more pleasing bokeh.
This Septon wide open looks good against the Nokton at f2, at infinity. I''d like to see how it is at portrait distances against the same lens. If it is a good as it is at infinity, then I'm sure it will be a very strong replacement for the DSLR 40/2.
Very nice report from Map Camera, generally speaking very attractive render but on some shots it's a bit funky. Especially the shots at f/2.5 (See example below). Still looks like a very good mix of modern optics and vintage charm.
Mar 11, 2026 at 05:16 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Alan Parker wrote:
Very nice report from Map Camera, generally speaking very attractive render but on some shots it's a bit funky. Especially the shots at f/2.5 (See example below). Still looks like a very good mix of modern optics and vintage charm.
That shot is a very nice example. If it were mine, I would crop it (or alternatively composed it differently), but it you crop out the busyness at the far end of the bar it could be a really nice shot.
I continue to doubt how pleasing the Septon's overall rendering will prove to be against its counterparts based on these early examples. In particular, I'm not crazy at all about those bokeh shapes in that bar picture on the far right...
RoamingScott wrote:
I continue to doubt how pleasing the Septon's overall rendering will prove to be against its counterparts based on these early examples. In particular, I'm not crazy at all about those bokeh shapes in that bar picture on the far right... [...]
Parts of that has already been demonstrated, no? We have the midfield dip, the nervous bokeh at middle distances, the crazy crescent comet style highlight bokeh balls (not only in the far corner). So, I'm out.
I'm sure a lot of people will love the lens and I hope it performs well for them and also with regards to other parameters yet to be presented in Fred's review..
Jonas B wrote:
Parts of that has already been demonstrated, no? We have the midfield dip, the nervous bokeh at middle distances, the crazy crescent comet style highlight bokeh balls (not only in the far corner). So, I'm out.
I'm sure a lot of people will love the lens and I hope it performs well for them and also with regards to other parameters yet to be presented in Fred's review..
Yes, there is growing evidence that major sacrifices were made to achieve pancake status, but all of these examples have been on Sony cameras, which I'm not at all interested in
RoamingScott wrote:
Yes, there is growing evidence that major sacrifices were made to achieve pancake status, but all of these examples have been on Sony cameras, which I'm not at all interested in
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.
