mawz wrote:
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....Show more →
Thanks for your reply! I haven't been looking very long, but the few 40mm 'Cron-C or Rokkors I've seen have been commanding as much or more than the Ultron new. Patience is a virtue, I guess!
Just out of interest today, good weather with even sun throughout I went to a local church where i knew the main side would be evenly lit, lots of fine detail and a quiet place with no disturbance. The reason was to pit the Ultron 40 up against the Contax 35 2.8 and to see if it were worth persevering with the Ultron and fit some rubber blobs to the aperture ring as we discussed.
Tripod and live view focussing with a loupe. Central area very very close to call with perhaps the ultimate ( and I mean real pixel peeping) central definition to the Ultron.
Edges and corners easily goes to the Contax, no need to pixel peep. So I`ll plod on with the Contax that has the same colour balance as my other Contax wides.
Of course, those buying the Ultron for wide open shallow DOF shots won`t notice the difference in the corners anyway and at the end of the day isn`t the F2 Ultron really leaning more towards shallow DOF?
(various F stops used but scrutinised more in the mid apertures where I use the lenses)
Whilst there I moved back and stuck the Leica Sumi 50 on and yes, it was the better of both the other lenses (no surprises there then) and then I moved back even further and used my 100 3.5 Contax! what a lens I thought my 70-200 f4 IS was good
Whilst out in the big wild world with a tripod ( unusual for me) I set up my 500D and stuck the 35 2.8, 40 f2 and 100 3.5 on and proved that the 500D needs every bit of help it can get from lenses (now i know why my 10-22 seemed a bit lacking on it.)
For those of us that are really picky then the 500D IMHO just has too tight a pixel pitch and is a bridge too far. OK maybe for general stuff and for light travel and maybe printing to certain sizes but when you want a client to wow at an image on screen full size the 500D doesn`t cut the bacon IMHO. It`s a great camera for sure but there is that hint of digital mushyness in fine detail that I never saw with my 450D.
dave chilvers wrote:
Of course, those buying the Ultron for wide open shallow DOF shots won`t notice the difference in the corners anyway and at the end of the day isn`t the F2 Ultron really leaning more towards shallow DOF?
Nah, not for me. I just like the FL because it "fits my eye" and I like the Ultron for both shallow DOF and distant work well stopped down. It's very versatile and still very small. That's the whole thing for me. It doesn't have to be so darn good optically for anything (even if it is), as long as it's quite good for everything.
For shallow DOF exclusivly, I'd rather choose something else that is longer or shorter (or faster). The Ultron is sort of a replacement for my now sold Nikkor 35/1.4, which I didn't get along with really.
I prefer the Ultron in every way. It's a lens that I can use as my only one (at least for the moment) without missing the ones I left at home.
Makten wrote:
Nah, not for me. I just like the FL because it "fits my eye" and I like the Ultron for both shallow DOF and distant work well stopped down. It's very versatile and still very small. That's the whole thing for me. It doesn't have to be so darn good optically for anything (even if it is), as long as it's quite good for everything.
For shallow DOF exclusivly, I'd rather choose something else that is longer or shorter (or faster). The Ultron is sort of a replacement for my now sold Nikkor 35/1.4, which I didn't get along with really.
I prefer the Ultron in every way. It's a lens that I can use as my only one (at least for the moment) without missing the ones I left at home....Show more →
Well! it is actually a fine lens resolution wise and to be quite honest the focal length is probably almost ideal as a take anywhere lens. I really like the way the focus is geared to pop in and out of focus which can only help being MF for us. What I did notice today was when changing 35 to 40 I could easily put the Ultron in my back trouser pocket a thing that you just can`t do with the contax lens when it has a hood on. It would have been a lot easier to choose the 35 if the IQ was better over the full frame but as i said( my copy) of the Ultron just has the edge in the central area.
My tests were with the 5D2 which is my most used camera now and it balances just right. I find on the 1dsmk3 it`s a little bit like the tail wagging the dog
Actually, when you take into consideration the size of the Voigt and the F2 aperture it`s quite a little marvel really.
I thought my 70-200 f4 IS was good