Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Voigtlander 40mm f2 and Nikon D800?  (Read 6617 times)

AFairley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Voigtlander 40mm f2 and Nikon D800?
« on: September 21, 2012, 08:02:09 pm »

Anyone have experience or comments with this combination?  Anything else in the 35mm-40mm range in the same price range as the Voigtlander worth considering (though 40mm does seem to be my go-to focal length)?  Typical use would be urban landscape, usually at f5.6 or f8.

Thanks.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2012, 05:59:35 pm by AFairley »
Logged

HarperPhotos

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1309
    • http://www.harperphoto.com
Re: Voigtlander 40mm f2 and Nikon 800?
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2012, 04:02:14 pm »

Hello,

Its not on a D800 but it might help.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/712-voigtlander40f2ff

Cheers

Simon
Logged
Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand

photodan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
Re: Voigtlander 40mm f2 and Nikon 800?
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2012, 04:22:31 pm »

I rented this lens and some 35mm focal length lenses for use on my D800E, for landscapes. I found it inferior to the Zeiss 35mm f/2 and the f/1.4 in sharpness outside the central area.  And inferior in color and contrast.  I tried the Nikon 35/1.4G and it was great in the center but inferior in sharpness outside the central region and much worse than the Zeiss lenses. The 40mm ultron may have been a bit better. The Nikon could have been a bad sample, and for that matter the Ultron as well. The Nikon 35mm/f2 autofocus lens is a dog unless stopped down to at least f/8. BTW the Zeiss 1.4 is not that sharp/contrasty in the conventional sense until stopped down to f/5.6 or so.

To put things in perspective having just one sample of each lens is somewhat of an iffy proposition. And, my assessment was done pixel peeping at 100% on a monitor. I didn't do test prints.

I ended up purchasing the Zeiss 35mm/f2. Bokeh is not quite as nice as the Zeiss 1.4 but I found it better in uniform sharpness at the wider f-stops, much lighter, and cheaper in price.  That being said I'm downsizing to mirror-less and my DSLR equipment is almost all gonzo now.   

"What the World Needs Now", besides love, per the famous song, are smaller lenses that are of the highest quality - fit to make full use of the high megapixel cameras.  Why the h_ll Nikon hasn't come out with an updated 35mm/2 autofocus lens that would fit the bill is beyond me. Surely a lens with xlnt bokeh, high sharpness across the field w/o having to stop down to f/8, state-of-the art design and coatings, is beyond me. Is the difference in bokeh and background blur between f/1.4 and f/2 so great that it warrants huge heavy very expensive lenses?  Apparently so, since so many people buy them. Now I hear Zeiss is coming out with high performance lenses in 2013. However it doesn't seem like a 35mm is among them. I wonder how heavy and huge and expensive they'll be.

My recommendation would be to rent some lenses and try for yourself (I rented from lensrentals). A lot of this is personal preference and the small size of the Ultron and basic decent performance and price might outweigh pixel peeping differences.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up