Voigt ultron SL II/IIs 40/2, Vs Nikkor pancake 50/1.8; IQ ?

[alentine]

Hello,
Could not decide!
1. Voigtlander ultron 40mm f/2 SL II, has:
Aspherical element.
Pancake type.
Close range focussing is separate, accessory hood and lens.
2. Voigtlander ultron 40mm f/2 SL IIs, has:
Aspherical element.
Ultra-High refractive glass.
NOT Pancake type.
Close range focussing is integrated within the lens.
3. Nikon Nikkor AIs 50mm f/1.8 Pancake is:
Pancake of course.
Best 50mm built by Nikon.
.
Preferring smaller lenses but not over optical performance.
But, still do not know which one has the best image quality?
Regards.

 

[alentine]

...
Ultra-High refractive glass.
...

Voigtlander web page does not confirm that:
https://www.voigtlaender.de/lenses/sl/40-mm-12-0-ultron-slll-s/?lang=en
Cameraquest does not mention that:
https://www.cameraquest.com/Voigt_SL2.htm
Adorama lens overview does not mention that:
https://www.adorama.com/r/vt402nks-reviews
Only B&H mentioning that:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1360683-REG/voigtlander_ba229j_ultron_40mm_f_2_sl.html

 

[BradS]

I very seriously doubt that you or anybody could tell the differnce between the these lenses looking at 11x14 prints.
Personally I'd go with the Nikon.
1. it is one of the sharpest lenses Nikon made
2. It is widely available at very reasonable prices
3. It is a genuine Nikon !
4. It is very compact and light weight
5. Did I mention it is way less expensive then the others?

Get any one you can or want to and use it.

 

[John Koehrer]

There's a mechanical quality difference between the Series E pancake and the Nikkor in that the
Series E has a Resin focusing helical and Nikkor is metal. I have read on the interweb*
that the optics are the same.

*If it's on the internet it has to be true.

 

[Huss]

https://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/40mm-f2.htm

As much as people like to bag on him, his review provides actual direct comparisons with Nikon lenses etc

"With those caveats, the 40mm f/2 SL-II is among the sharpest lenses I've used on a Nikon. As shown above, it's sharper than Nikon's sharpest fixed normal lenses.
Due to its superior aspherical optical design, the Voigtländer 40/2 is sharp and contrasty even wide-open, while Nikon's last-millenium spherical fixed-lens designs are often less contrasty wide open, and blurrier in the corners.
As you saw above, this darn Voigtländer is decades ahead of Nikon; even at f/2 in the corner of FX it's sharp and clear at high magnification.
Under even more stringent test conditions it it a tiny bit less contrasty at f/2 in the far corners, but still easily superior to anything from Nikon.
Criminy, it's worlds ahead of LEICA's 1973 40mm f/2 SUMMICRON-C, and seems as good as LEICA's newest 35mm f/2 SUMMICRON-M ASPH, even though I haven't shot them on the same camera."

I have the Voigtlander and it really is fantastic. The Nikon is almost as good, but much much cheaper. Have I actually noticed any difference in output? No because I never looked for it because they both make most excellent images.

 

[George Mann]

Modern lenses tend to have too much sharpness and contrast, while often tending to be cold and sterile at the same time. I much prefer my Nikkor H.C. Auto 50mm f/2.

 

[film_man]

I have used the 40/2 SL II for 3 years both on Nikon and Canon EF mount. I don't know how the Nikkor stacks up but the 40/2 was one of the sharpest lenses I've used. It focuses very close so you can do some close-ups, it works really well for portraits and you can make it work both as a 35mm and a 50mm depending on subject matter and distance. The build was great, the focus really smooth and I can highly recommend it if you're in the market for a standard high quality lens. The bokeh is a bit nervous at times but I like it. Wide open you get a bit of vignetting which combined with the high contrast and punchy colours it produces makes for great portraits. I rate the 40/2 a lot higher than the 50/1.8 D and G Nikkors (which I found a bit muddy and low contrast in the f/1.8-2.8 range).

 

[Pioneer]

I don't shoot Nikon, or rather I shoot a Nikon F once in a very long while, but my Voigtlander Ultron 40/2 in Pentax mount is a very, very good lens. I use it on my LX, usually with Adox CMS20 for landscapes or other images where I intend to enlarge big or crop a section out of the middle and enlarge that. Never been disappointed with the lenses performance.

Of course that doesn't help in comparison with that Nikkor 50/1.8 you are referencing but I think it is safe to say that the Voigtlander will not disappoint.

 

[PGillin]

If you have the money or are more of a 35mm shooter than a 50mm shooter the Voigt is an excellent choice. If budget is a concern the Nikon is good enough that you won't regret it.
In side-by-side comparisons you'll notice the difference, but as another poster said, in real-world 11x14 prints it would probably be tough to tell.
If build quality is a concern then I would recommend looking for the AI-s Nikkor 50 1.8 over the series E. I've had two of the E, and though both have served me well they definitely don't feel as nice as Nikkor manual lenses.

If I was wealthy I'd buy the Voigtlander just for the hood...
(referring, of course, to the round, bayonet-fit hood with a rectangular cut-out)

 

[alentine]

I very seriously doubt that you or anybody could tell the differnce between the these lenses looking at 11x14 prints.
Personally I'd go with the Nikon.
1. it is one of the sharpest lenses Nikon made
2. It is widely available at very reasonable prices
3. It is a genuine Nikon !
4. It is very compact and light weight
5. Did I mention it is way less expensive then the others?
Get any one you can or want to and use it.

Hello Brad,
Thanks for your organized advice.
The prices this time are high and wide range up to $100-190 for the really mint nikkors. Still less than half the price of voigtlander $450-500.
Thanks.

 

[alentine]

There's a mechanical quality difference between the Series E pancake and the Nikkor in that the
Series E has a Resin focusing helical and Nikkor is metal. I have read on the interweb*
that the optics are the same.

*If it's on the internet it has to be true.

Thanks John,
Another difference from the interweb*, lol,
is the coating, the nikkor is MC while E version is unicoated or uncoated! Not sure though!
Regards.

 

[alentine]

https://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/40mm-f2.htm

As much as people like to bag on him, his review provides actual direct comparisons with Nikon lenses etc

"With those caveats, the 40mm f/2 SL-II is among the sharpest lenses I've used on a Nikon. As shown above, it's sharper than Nikon's sharpest fixed normal lenses.
Due to its superior aspherical optical design, the Voigtländer 40/2 is sharp and contrasty even wide-open, while Nikon's last-millenium spherical fixed-lens designs are often less contrasty wide open, and blurrier in the corners.
As you saw above, this darn Voigtländer is decades ahead of Nikon; even at f/2 in the corner of FX it's sharp and clear at high magnification.
Under even more stringent test conditions it it a tiny bit less contrasty at f/2 in the far corners, but still easily superior to anything from Nikon.
Criminy, it's worlds ahead of LEICA's 1973 40mm f/2 SUMMICRON-C, and seems as good as LEICA's newest 35mm f/2 SUMMICRON-M ASPH, even though I haven't shot them on the same camera."

I have the Voigtlander and it really is fantastic. The Nikon is almost as good, but much much cheaper. Have I actually noticed any difference in output? No because I never looked for it because they both make most excellent images.

Hello Huss,
Thanks indeed for the link.
I wish Ken provided another photo comparison at f/4 or f/5.6 for each lens.
He only compared voigt ultron 40/2, nikon 35/2 afd, nikon 45/2.8 P and nikon 50/1.8 afd non-pancake, at max f/no each lens in the corners.
All lenses could show the same performance when stopped down 2 f/stops, while the price difference can be 2.5X or higher between voigt ultron and any other lens in the same test.
He also did not include the nikkor pancake, but can be comparable with nikon 50/1.8 afd non-pancake, I think!
Whatever, he showed a valid data that gives important info about ultron performance.
Thanks Huss.

 

[BradS]

Thanks John,
Another difference from the interweb*, lol,
is the coating, the nikkor is MC while E version is unicoated or uncoated! Not sure though!
Regards.

I have a 50/1.8 AIS Nikkor that I bought new in 2003 and have, over the years, had a couple of the series E 50/1.8. They are both excellent performers and I'm pretty sure that they both have Nikon's multi-coating. It seems like one ought to be able to find a good used 50/1.8 AIS Nikkor for $50 or less and a series E for around $25 (?). The older (and some say, superior) 50/2 Nikkor is widely available for $50 or less. Given the price difference between a good used Nikkor and a new Voigtlander, it just doesn't make any sense at all to me to even consider a new Voigtlander - unless one just has to have a brand new lens.

 

[PGillin]

Thanks John,
Another difference from the interweb*, lol,
is the coating, the nikkor is MC while E version is unicoated or uncoated! Not sure though!
Regards.

I've heard that the Series E is single coated throughout, multi-coated on the front element and single coated internally, or multi coated throughout from various sources. It may have even changed during the production run, I don't know.
It certainly is not uncoated, though. Even a cursory inspection of the lens will tell you this. I believe the version I previously owned was more of an amber coating, like pre-AI nikkors, while my current version looks to be multicoated. Both were good performers. Someone more knowledgeable may be able to school us both on the specifics.

Keep in mind, Voigtlander was marketing single-coating as a feature on some lenses...
(Not that I have anything against voigtlander or single coating, but an interesting aside given the subject at hand)

 

[alentine]

I have a 50/1.8 AIS Nikkor that I bought new in 2003 and have, over the years, had a couple of the series E 50/1.8. They are both excellent performers and I'm pretty sure that they both have Nikon's multi-coating. It seems like one ought to be able to find a good used 50/1.8 AIS Nikkor for $50 or less and a series E for around $25 (?). The older (and some say, superior) 50/2 Nikkor is widely available for $50 or less. Given the price difference between a good used Nikkor and a new Voigtlander, it just doesn't make any sense at all to me to even consider a new Voigtlander - unless one just has to have a brand new lens.

Hello Brad and thank you very much for the follow up.
Could not find prices of around $50. May be a well used, but was searching for a good looking pancake nikkor to set on a good looking fm3a.
That prices could be a year or two before.
Not considering the E version BTW. It does not looks good on fm3a.
I have searched ebay more than enough, probably.
Prices for mint lenses starts at just above $100!
Mainly determined by how the seller value lens, then by the condition of the lens.
US version of the lens is more in ebay market, and JP version of the lens is not necessarily pricier.
Good number of mint looking samples has some defects like haziness, cloudiness or fungus as some sellers stated inside the text of lens description that starts always with Exc++++ condition.
Agree with you, with the most expensive pancake nikkor I’ve found considered, a 2.6X to 5X price difference is not justifiable.
BTW, the previous latest iteration of pancake ultron(SL IIn) on ebay is much more expensive than the current version(non-pancake) SL IIs at b&h.
Could not understand voigt strategy on renewing the lens with bigger version!
Anyway, I don’t think the decision is as hard as when I started this thread.
Best regards.

 

[alentine]

Modern lenses tend to have too much sharpness and contrast, while often tending to be cold and sterile at the same time. I much prefer my Nikkor H.C. Auto 50mm f/2.

Thanks George for sharing your information.
Also, I do not like "sterile" photos!
But, I think the ultron at f/2-f/2.8 should retain some residual imperfections(aberrations) for a 11X14 print, to make it not "sterile", though do not know for sure.
Ultron is not the latest asph/ed leica or zeiss, that's for sure.
Nikkors pancake are definitely not "sterile"! though excellent performer.
I read that the best nikkor at f/2 is nikkor 50/1.2, but do not know if the pancake is included or not!?
I know the differences in performance could be just marginal but for the sake of money wise comparisons with the ultron.
Thanks George.

 

[alentine]

If you have the money or are more of a 35mm shooter than a 50mm shooter the Voigt is an excellent choice. If budget is a concern the Nikon is good enough that you won't regret it.
In side-by-side comparisons you'll notice the difference, but as another poster said, in real-world 11x14 prints it would probably be tough to tell.
If build quality is a concern then I would recommend looking for the AI-s Nikkor 50 1.8 over the series E. I've had two of the E, and though both have served me well they definitely don't feel as nice as Nikkor manual lenses.
If I was wealthy I'd buy the Voigtlander just for the hood...
(referring, of course, to the round, bayonet-fit hood with a rectangular cut-out)

PGillin thanks very much for your thorough post and follow up.

 

[alentine]

... I use it on my LX, usually with Adox CMS20 for landscapes ...

Pioneer thanks indeed for insightful post.
Wish to see examples of CMS20 landscapes on 35mm format.
Thanks.

 

[alentine]

I have used the 40/2 SL II for 3 years both on Nikon and Canon EF mount. I don't know how the Nikkor stacks up but the 40/2 was one of the sharpest lenses I've used. It focuses very close so you can do some close-ups, it works really well for portraits and you can make it work both as a 35mm and a 50mm depending on subject matter and distance. The build was great, the focus really smooth and I can highly recommend it if you're in the market for a standard high quality lens. The bokeh is a bit nervous at times but I like it. Wide open you get a bit of vignetting which combined with the high contrast and punchy colours it produces makes for great portraits. I rate the 40/2 a lot higher than the 50/1.8 D and G Nikkors (which I found a bit muddy and low contrast in the f/1.8-2.8 range).

A thorough and deep review film_man.
Thanks indeed.