I'm slightly confused by the rather invective start of the verdict ("The Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2 SL II is certainly a cute lens and such pancake lenses are generally "hip" at the moment. It does stop here though.") that doesn't match either the performance figures or the rating (3* to 3½* for optics is a great result for a pancake, a fullframe one at that).
So what's the problem? The very tame max. magnification? (sure, this lens is probably more useful for low-light street photography than the WA closeup shallow DOF work - especially since it's not really wide - but that kind of stuff is also popular) Or the boken issue? Sure it's not stellar but it's a harsh example in testing conditions, and I'm not sure it's going to matter much given the true intended application of this lens (see above). With the max. magnification of 1:7 you're not likely to be using this lens for isolating small-ish subjects with lots of background blown out of focus...
It may just be that my nerd self has reared up its head again tho. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
So what's the problem? The very tame max. magnification? (sure, this lens is probably more useful for low-light street photography than the WA closeup shallow DOF work - especially since it's not really wide - but that kind of stuff is also popular) Or the boken issue? Sure it's not stellar but it's a harsh example in testing conditions, and I'm not sure it's going to matter much given the true intended application of this lens (see above). With the max. magnification of 1:7 you're not likely to be using this lens for isolating small-ish subjects with lots of background blown out of focus...
It may just be that my nerd self has reared up its head again tho. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />