Sample 8, f2, focused on seawall, same lighting as above. I was curious how some foreground bokeh would render on diagonals. Also some more distant text on which to judge sharpness near the edges.
I look forward to seeing more samples. So far, my thoughts are:
1. As much as I like the small size of the Septon, and it looks perfect on a ZF, I don't think I would be happy with the IQ, for how I would want to use it.
2. I definitely need to use my Nokton more.
3. The Ultron performs better than I thought it would, but add on the FTZ, and I feel like I might as well just use my Nokton. There is definitely some magic in that lens.
4. I should try using my Nikon 40mm f2 more for general purposes photography. I am probably undervaluing it currently, thinking of it mainly as a compact and lightweight lens in case I need low light performance.
Thanks again for putting together these comparisons!
Sample 9 and 10, f2 and f4 respectively. I have seen chatter about some feeling that the Septon is sharper in the center than the Ultron, and I don't find that to be the case...they are virtually indistinguishable from a center sharpness perspective, but they render the edges quite differently (along with having different CA characteristics). The bloominess of the TTA and Nikon at f2 is always a little bothersome, and is deeply impactful on sharpness for closer subjects. I have been impressed with the Nokton outside of its habit of badly fringing, overall it has one of the more balanced vignettes of these 5, rarely leading to hotspots or mis-exposed highlights due to vignette.
Regarding handling, the Septon is constantly annoying and feels too small to have adequate control surfaces. I feel like I'm always holding a part that is rotating, and in that regard, appreciate the bigger barrel of the Nokton and the FTZ on the Ultron.
Thanks Scott for these samples. These are also what most convince me about the Nokton. I suspect they would be just as great with a 24MP sensor and f/11. If I decide on 40mm it will definitely be my choice.
DWOfPaul wrote:
I look forward to seeing more samples. So far, my thoughts are:
1. As much as I like the small size of the Septon, and it looks perfect on a ZF, I don't think I would be happy with the IQ, for how I would want to use it.
2. I definitely need to use my Nokton more.
3. The Ultron performs better than I thought it would, but add on the FTZ, and I feel like I might as well just use my Nokton. There is definitely some magic in that lens.
4. I should try using my Nikon 40mm f2 more for general purposes photography. I am probably undervaluing it currently, thinking of it mainly as a compact and lightweight lens in case I need low light performance.
Thanks again for putting together these comparisons! ...Show more →
On point 3, it's been most interesting comparing the Nok and Ult, given that they are roughly the same size once the Ultron is adapted. You gain the aperture ring functionality on the Nok, but you get better contrast and less vignette on the Ultron. Overall the Ultron is sharper at most apertures, though not by a ton.
If you were in the market for a single 40, the Nok is compelling. If you're like me and want a 40 for a film Nikon, there's very little reason not to just adapt the Ult to Z and share it between cameras. It not only "hangs" with the big boys, it IS the big boy in several ways.
This was the harshest stress test I've managed to get for CA so far, all shots at f2.0
It was also interesting here how differently all of the lenses metered and white balanced, with the normally warmer Ultron being SUPER warm. You can also very clearly see how the fringing on the Ultron is almost yellow where it's green in all the rest.
We can see lots of streaking in specular highlights in the Septon around the bricks at frame's edge. The Nok controls these well, and they appear as almost mouse cursor shapes on the Ultron. The TTA returns to streaks and the Nikon renders them in amorphous blobs.
This sample is in HARSH light at f8 with a focus point on the top floor of the distance tower building. The TTA is absent because it missed focus despite showing confirmation and I didn't catch it in the field.
This type of scene is the Nikon's bread and butter and where it really shines.
The Septon is STILL struggling outside of the center even at f8, while the Nokton and Ultron have reached their best. The Ultron shows a bit more foreground bokeh than the Nokton at f8, with the Nok having the overall deepest DOF and sharpest image across the frame. The Nikon holds its own just fine here.
Here's a pretty harsh lighting scenario at f4. Remember, we have all profile correction turned off here, and this is the first time the Ultron's curvature has reared its head in this dramatic of a way. The others play pretty nice, but that straight drain cover at the bottom of the frame is a smiley face on the Ultron. Easily fixed with a RAW file in LR, but something to think about if wanting JPEG output.
This is also another good example of just how wacky Voigtlander bokeh can be in speculars, taking on the odd comet shape in the Septon. The Nok shows off the "donut" ringing on its bokeh, while the Ultron turns into gumdrops. The TTA and Nikon hold it together the best here.
A sharpness/diffraction test at f10 on the distant clock face.
The Nokton is the runaway winner here for deep sharpness through all distances between camera and subject. All other lenses show significant softening in the foreground text. That said, the Ultron is still extremely good in all other areas short of the foreground text, and it's a sliding scale of other deficiencies in the other lenses with the TTA being the clear overall loser.
In my testing, I never shoot the TTA past f8 for this reason.
Haven't had many samples like this, with a distant target (watertower) and middling aperture (f5.6).
All lenses are still struggling with foreground aberration in the branches, with the TTA handling it the best. The Septon is absolutely struggling, with the top left of the frame being purple instead of blue sky.
For the umteenth time, the Nok comes out ahead as the best balanced image from a pure IQ perspective, with the Ultron right on its heels. It seems pretty obvious by now that the TTA is best used on lower megapixel sensors, as it's continually having issues with overall sharpness on the Z9 compared to the others.
Hopefully all of these examples have been illuminating for folks who own one of these but not another and have wondered how they all stack up.
Updated thoughts on all of this after all this testing...
Septon - I dislike every single aspect of this lens. I hate physically using it, the aperture ring is loathsome from a human interface perspective, and the rendering is constantly distracting to me. I end up hyper fixating on the shortcomings of the image rendering instead of the overall image itself, and for me, that's the most damning characteristic a lens can have, especially one that is making you work harder by being manual focus. The small size of the lens is meaningless to me if the images disappoint me so thoroughly.
Nokton - Overall, I ended up liking this lens a lot more than I thought I would, and it has routinely shown that it can be a very balanced lens from f2 and on. I have purposefully not shot examples below f2 for this testing because it's irrelevant to this particular discussion, though its particularities obviously rear their heads quickly as you open it up past f2. It is very much a "two lenses in one" type situation where the Septon simply isn't. Where the Nokton cleans up and becomes a very flat, sharp, and decently contrasty lens, the Septon remains a mess through all situations.
Ultron - My beloved came out of this test relatively unscathed, besting the Nok in some cases, and coming just behind in most others. It has the added benefit of being Nikon DSLR/film camera compatible, but of course you lose the aperture ring functionality. Of the three Voigts in this test, I still prefer the focus throw and user experience of focusing the Ultron the best. I also feel that its curvature adds a bit more life into similarly shot images compared to the Nokton, though that can be edited out of the RAW files if you so choose.
TTA - The nearly-free TTA came out of this battle with some bruises, but at a cost just 33% that of the Voigts, it hangs with the top of the line Japanese glass pretty well in several ways. I don't think it's an ideal lens to use on a high megapixel camera and really starts to shine on 24mp full frame bodies in my experience. The aperture ring and smaller build sets it apart from the Nikon in a big way, and it usually had a nicely balanced exposure with a good amount of contrast.
Nikon - I don't like this lens more now than I ever have, which is to say, it's still one of the very last lenses I'll ever reach for on the way out the door. It's...fine. It's rendering is not as interesting as any of the others, the build quality feels miles worse than all of the others, and it delivers some of the same caveats as the others while offering nothing unique. It has the edge on autofocus speed and accuracy over the TTA, which is to me its biggest selling point between the two.
Thanks again Scott, for the detailed comparisons! Hopefully the companies you are working with will lend you some additional focal lengths to test in the future. A similar 35mm or 50mm comparison would definitely be useful to see.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Thanks again Scott, for the detailed comparisons! Hopefully the companies you are working with will lend you some additional focal lengths to test in the future. A similar 35mm or 50mm comparison would definitely be useful to see.
I have the CV 35/2, Viltrox 35/1.8, Sirui 35/1.4, Nikon Z 35/1.4 and am going to angle for the eventual Viltrox 35/1.4 Pro when it hits Z, with this same idea in mind.
I will leave a 50 for someone more interested to do, for me the 55 EVO has become a no brainer
RoamingScott wrote:
I'd prolly just keep the Nok if I didn't have the FM3A. Totally redundant to have both it and the Ultron when they are so close in performance.
...I also have the Ultron (SLII-S) for my F-mount gear, lol.
Thanks, fun comparison. I've been shooting with different variants of 40mm f/1.2 Nokton almost ten years now. First VM mount adapted, then native Sony versions and now Z mount. And it's still my favourite lens ever and the one that is mostly glued to my Zf when not using 28mm Nokton or Viltrox 85mm EVO - some day to be replaced with 75mm Nokton I hope. I've got 32500 shots so far in my LR catalog taken with 40mm f/1.2 Nokton variants. The almost "medium format" kind of rendering wide open and the great IQ (sharpness, contrast, rendering) stopped down with great sunstars are the winning combo for me. And the size and handling are perfect match for Zf.
Thanks, Scott! I've been thinking about adding a 40 to my kit. My first camera-a Sears Tower 10b (1963)-came with a 40. I took a lot a great photos with that camera.
