These are all shot with Nikon D700 and the Ultron II during the midsummer weekend. Some are JPG:s straigt out of the camera, and some are processed in ACR and PS CS4.
In terms of sharpness, this lens is just as good as the Nikkor 24-70/2.8. The bokeh can sometimes be harsh, but it depends much on how you use it.
I'll post some more in an hour or so.
Edit: The closer you focus, the better the bokeh gets. This is at f/2.
Makten wrote:
These are all shot with Nikon D700 and the Ultron II during the midsummer weekend. Some are JPG:s straigt out of the camera, and some are processed in ACR and PS CS4.
Gary Clennan wrote:
Nice pics! I think I have seen you use that beer model in a previous thread....
That's right! It's a friend of mine that shares the interest in photo and beer.
Another shot, after several beers. Wide open. This is somewhere inbetween the good and the bad bokeh distance. I think it's quite funky, and I like it.
I just did a little bokeh test with the Ultron. Not very scientific, but you'll get the idea. The bokeh is nice and smooth at short distance, but needs some stopping down when focusing farther away.
I bought my 40 ultron a few months ago new from robert white in the UK. There is no doubt that the ultron is a really great little lens. However! using a lens has to be a good experience as well as a good performer. There is no doubt that the position of the aperture ring grip is in the wrong place and the ring itself is very close to the camera body making it for me (although small and nice and light) an awkward lens to use.
I did a brick wall test https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/766539/0#7014203 with a lot of my lenses recently on a boring day and the outright winner for IQ and corners was the Sumi 50 f2, combined with a decent built in hood and the feel of real quality.
So what I did in the end was to carry the 50 and purchase a mint Contax 35 2.8. I wouldn`t say that the Contax 35 is sharper than the Ultron but it sure is nicer and more ergonomic to use. They both have a different way of writing the image and I would say that the Ultron has a slightly more modern look to the images while the Contax 35 has that classic Contax look. Either one give great images though and in the end it comes down to pleasure of use for me.
dave chilvers wrote:
I bought my 40 ultron a few months ago new from robert white in the UK. There is no doubt that the ultron is a really great little lens. However! using a lens has to be a good experience as well as a good performer. There is no doubt that the position of the aperture ring grip is in the wrong place and the ring itself is very close to the camera body making it for me (although small and nice and light) an awkward lens to use.
I did a brick wall test https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/766539/0#7014203 with a lot of my lenses recently on a boring day and the outright winner for IQ and corners was the Sumi 50 f2, combined with a decent built in hood and the feel of real quality.
So what I did in the end was to carry the 50 and purchase a mint Contax 35 2.8. I wouldn`t say that the Contax 35 is sharper than the Ultron but it sure is nicer and more ergonomic to use. They both have a different way of writing the image and I would say that the Ultron has a slightly more modern look to the images while the Contax 35 has that classic Contax look. Either one give great images though and in the end it comes down to pleasure of use for me....Show more →
Note the handling issues with the Ultron are because it has fairly standard Nikon ergonomics aside from the thin rubber focus ring (which is smaller than similar sized Nikon lenses in order to allow a better set of focus markings). If you don't mind most Nikon lenses, you'll be fine with the Ultron.
Note the handling issues with the Ultron are because it has fairly standard Nikon ergonomics aside from the thin rubber focus ring (which is smaller than similar sized Nikon lenses in order to allow a better set of focus markings). If you don't mind most Nikon lenses, you'll be fine with the Ultron.
mawz
Sorry, I can`t agree! I only have one Nikon lens left in my arsenal which is a 55mm 2.8 micro so have to go by memory for other focal lengths that I`ve owned.
This Nikon lens has a RAISED aperture ring that is very heavily notched/ indented or what ever the correct term is, this covers the complete circumference apart from the bunnie ears that is also a good anchor point to grab in a hurry. Next to this is a metal ribbed ring that is still raised but not quite as much as the aperture ring and allows part of your focussing digit to slide around and act as a guide to keep you clear of the focus tube. Your fingers go straight to the aperture ring and don`t touch the focus ring till you want to.
Where as the Ultron has it`s aperure ring at the same(more or less) circumference as the next fixed ring and the focus ring. The ribbing doesn`t cover the whole circumference of the aperture ring which sees you scrabbling for grip at times and because everything is so thin and compact it doesn`t just come as natural to grab and turn, you find yourself having to think more about what you are doing rather than (like most well designed lenses) it becoming second nature.
The focus ring on the ULtron having a raised rubber grip towards the front is superb for fine focus and control but (I suppose it`s the nature of a pancake lens) the distance between the raised focus ring section and the camera body is shallow and as most of us use the forefinger and thumb to focus or change aperture you find that your thumb (when you apply light pressure) spreads out and touches both aperture and raised section of the focus ring let alone the metal section of the focus ring that lies below any sized digit.
OK, a long explanation and it wasn`t made to put anyone down but to inform would be purchasers that they need to make sure there is a sale or return policy where they buy one from because I can`t remember over 40 years of photography (other than some M series Leica lenses) that has a handling glitch quite like the Ultron.
On the other hand my granddaughters seem to be able to handle the lens better than me but their fingers are 12 year old dainty digits whereas mine are fairly average mans hands.( still quite nimble but still man sized)
I'm comparing directly to the 50/1.8 Series E, which is pretty much identical in size to the 40 Ultron. Other than using wider ribbing on the aperture ring and a very slightly raised (but unlabelled) ring between the aperture and focus rings the design is just about identical to the Ultron. In fact I find the Ultron handles a bit better because of the extra distance between the aperture ring and the rubber focusing grip. The early series E's all lack the fixed ring above the aperture ring.
dave chilvers wrote:
There is no doubt that the position of the aperture ring grip is in the wrong place and the ring itself is very close to the camera body making it for me (although small and nice and light) an awkward lens to use.
Note that this is not a problem when using it on Nikon cameras, since the lens has a CPU and the aperture can (must?) be controlled from the camera.
Makten wrote:
Note that this is not a problem when using it on Nikon cameras, since the lens has a CPU and the aperture can (must?) be controlled from the camera.
Makten wrote:
Note that this is not a problem when using it on Nikon cameras, since the lens has a CPU and the aperture can (must?) be controlled from the camera.
Depends on the Nikon camera, the ones which support AI metering also support use of an aperture ring.
I'm comparing directly to the 50/1.8 Series E, which is pretty much identical in size to the 40 Ultron. Other than using wider ribbing on the aperture ring and a very slightly raised (but unlabelled) ring between the aperture and focus rings the design is just about identical to the Ultron. In fact I find the Ultron handles a bit better because of the extra distance between the aperture ring and the rubber focusing grip. The early series E's all lack the fixed ring above the aperture ring.
I fully agree that the rubbered focus ring is sweet, no doubt about it but I find I`m forever rechecking to make sure I haven`t moved the focus ring after stopping down and that slight raise (as small as it might be) can make a hell of a lot of difference when you are shooting from just feel.
Actually I set the lens up on my 5D2 along with a Nikon 55 in sequence and passed the camera to my wife who struggled to set the aperture on the ULtron. Maybe not a fair test but she found the ring on the 55 straight away. Having said all that she ( being probably the fairest person I know, which is annoying at times;-) did say that I have perhaps hands that are on the large side of normal so maybe that isn`t helping. It is a lens that will probably see some use on my infrared 450D or 500D when I want to travel light which is a shame because I know just how well it performs on my 5D2/1dsmk3 which IMHO is no mean feat.
So! absolutely no problems with IQ and a test shot into the light saw no flare or Ca what so ever around tree branches.
Maybe I`ll do what someone else suggested on a previous thread! put some form of self adhesive rubber around the aperture ring so that it holds the fingers clear of the focus tube and also gives you something to aim for by feel.
dave chilvers wrote:
I fully agree that the rubbered focus ring is sweet, no doubt about it but I find I`m forever rechecking to make sure I haven`t moved the focus ring after stopping down and that slight raise (as small as it might be) can make a hell of a lot of difference when you are shooting from just feel.
Actually I set the lens up on my 5D2 along with a Nikon 55 in sequence and passed the camera to my wife who struggled to set the aperture on the ULtron. Maybe not a fair test but she found the ring on the 55 straight away. Having said all that she ( being probably the fairest person I know, which is annoying at times;-) did say that I have perhaps hands that are on the large side of normal so maybe that isn`t helping. It is a lens that will probably see some use on my infrared 450D or 500D when I want to travel light which is a shame because I know just how well it performs on my 5D2/1dsmk3 which IMHO is no mean feat.
So! absolutely no problems with IQ and a test shot into the light saw no flare or Ca what so ever around tree branches.
Maybe I`ll do what someone else suggested on a previous thread! put some form of self adhesive rubber around the aperture ring so that it holds the fingers clear of the focus tube and also gives you something to aim for by feel....Show more →
I know a few people have put self-adhesive nubs on the 40/2's aperture ring.
I'm considering the 40mm Ultron for the Panasonic G1. I'm also considering the 40mm Nokton f1.4 (Leica M-mount). I already have the Panny 4/3 to m4/3 adapter, so a Nikon or Pentax to 4/3 adapter would be cheaper than the Leica M to m4/3. However, the image quality and characteristics of these lenses are what's most important.
Does anyone have experience with both? I'd love to have a usable f1.4, but might prefer whichever lens has better corners at f2.8. BTW, I already use a Canon 50mm F1.4 on the G1; while it's not a huge difference, the 40mm focal length is more appealing to me (80mm equiv rather than 100mm), and I'm hopeful for better corners at wider apertures.
Final question -- other than the electricals (useless to me) is there any difference between the Sl and the SL-II?
I'm considering the 40mm Ultron for the Panasonic G1. I'm also considering the 40mm Nokton f1.4 (Leica M-mount). I already have the Panny 4/3 to m4/3 adapter, so a Nikon or Pentax to 4/3 adapter would be cheaper than the Leica M to m4/3. However, the image quality and characteristics of these lenses are what's most important.
Does anyone have experience with both? I'd love to have a usable f1.4, but might prefer whichever lens has better corners at f2.8. BTW, I already use a Canon 50mm F1.4 on the G1; while it's not a huge difference, the 40mm focal length is more appealing to me (80mm equiv rather than 100mm), and I'm hopeful for better corners at wider apertures.
Final question -- other than the electricals (useless to me) is there any difference between the Sl and the SL-II?...Show more →
The Ultron is sharp edge-to-edge on the G1 even wide open. Reportedly the Nokton is rather low-contrast wide-open but improves by f2, I haven't had a chance to try it yet but am considering it for size reasons as it is a fair bit smaller than the Ultron/adapter/MA1 combo. You might also want to consider the tiny M-Rokkor or Summicron-C 40/2 which is also a good performer and costs a similar amount.
The SL version of the Ultron is cosmetically different and includes a different hood design. I'd get the SLII if you are planning on using it in combination with RF lenses since it can take 39mm filters and lenscaps with the hood mounted (without the hood both versions take 52mm filters). The SLII is also much more common.
