Gear Talk > Lens Talk

Voigtlander 40mm f/2 Ultron Opinions?

(1/5) > >>

Derek of Venango:
Hello and Happy New Year to all.

I have a desire for a "semi-normal" manual focus prime lens. Don't really want 50mm or 35mm. The VC 40mm f/2 Ultron seems interesting as a general purpose lens in an appealing form factor for my D-750. B&H has it on sale for $419 USD.

Is there a reason it doesn't seem to get much love? I can't find much real world use info. I know some here have this lens. Is it sharp enough at the edges for landscape use.

Birna Rørslett:
The reason for the CV 40/2 not being "popular" is probably it falls neither in the wide nor the normal lens category. Thus one either tends to shoot it alone (in a single-lens kit) or combine with for example 20 + 85/90 mm lenses.

My copy which is an SL.2 (ie. with CPU contacts) is nice and sharp. The focusing is very smooth and the lens itself is quite small and inobtrusive.

Airy:
I also got the SL2, not the most recent version with scalloped focus ring.

To me, this lens feels "normal", albeit on the wide side of the "normal" range (subjectively, 40-58mm). Honestly, I am now used to 40-45 (CV, Tamron) and 58 (CV, Noct), which I tend to prefer to 50. 58 is better if portraits are envisaged; 40-45 is better for general purpose shooting. But that's another debate. Back to the matter:

Pros :
size and weight ;
mechanical quality, handling (nice focussing feel !)
sharpness (not as even as many contemporary lenses : the CV 40/2 was not designed for test chart shooters, but for real photographers) ;
color (quite neutral) and contrast ;
the close-up lens.

Cons :
Barrel distortion tends to be conspicuous at all focusing distances  ;
bokeh is so-so : wide open, highlights are rendered as atolls (doughnut plus central dot), for instance ;
flare : on night shots, bright lights tend to be surrounded by halos which may look good, but are artifacts all the same.

Overall : versatile, good IQ, has no equivalent, reasonable price given the features ==> recommended.
Good pairing with e.g. 105/2.5, which is one of my 2-lens travel combinations (the other one being 28 + 58).

Derek of Venango:
Thank you Birna and Airy and for encouraging thoughts.

Guess I was kinda put off by 50mm in the film days. I have no need for portraiture work but have the 70-200/ 2.8 if required :) Plus I have the Zeiss 25/2.8 and expect to add a 20mm prime sooner than later (another story, not decided on Nikon AIS or Zeiss 18 or 21mm.) for true landscape.

Thus, I still see need for a compact walk-around lens as I do some environmental field work for my brother documenting pipeline/wetlands compliance. I have even given thought to a smaller mirror-less such as the Fuji XT-20 with the 23mm f/2 for such work and as an "almost" pocket-able solution (but more absolute $$$). Does the latter make better sense?

Birna Rørslett:
I mainly use the 40/2 as a walk-around lens on my Df. Works nicely. I find the bokeh more than adequate but this will of course depend on lens settings and scene light.

While there is some barrel distortion, I never found it troublesome and only notice it for close shots -- if I care to look for this. Can easily be removed in the RAW software as well.

Having another system for a specific purpose might seem ideal, however, there is a need to carry doubles of everything including lenses, batteries and chargers, and there will always be a slight latency when you switch from one system to the other. Thus I would not recommend the practice in general, but like any other broad statement there will be exceptions and I admittedly have examples of this myself.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page