Jump to content

35 Summilux FLE v. Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZM


LD_50

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3) Image quality is excellent, and the corner sharpness at 1.4 is really something else! These Zeiss lenses seem to have a very even plane of focus, which makes them highly desirable for landscape shooters

 

Interesting. My only reservation about my 35 Summilux is that I find the curved plane of focus not ideal for my landscapes (in fact it is downright weird, almost unpredictably so) so this Zeiss lens has a certain amount of appeal in that capacity. That said, I can't see myself owning two F1.4 35mm lenses and I don't want to sell the Leica lens.:)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest edition of the BJP plopped through the letter box today and there is a one page (half page of text) review. Mostly very positive, focus shift is "a non-issue", flare is "extremely well-controlled". Downside is the size and weight (6og heavier) plus a comment about a "slight harshness in the way the lens draws". Upside is the price - half of what the Summilux costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion, as an owner of neither lens :D, is that I could not and would not own the FLE based on its bokeh. It is amongst the worst, if not the worst of any Leica lens to my eyes. I was interested in this lens before it was released. I thought it would compliment my 24 lux perfectly. Until I saw the bokeh. Some shots looked fine - even lovely - but others showed extremely nervous bokeh that jarred my eyes. Just awful. I just would not want to own a lens that is a bokeh lottery.

 

So I bought a CV 35mm f1.2 II. As for QC, the naysayers are right: you do get more variation with CV lenses, but my impression is that there is far less with this lens than other CVs, like the 21 and 25mm P lenses. My sample does not focus quite to infinity (where I will never use it wide open), but a few stops down DOF covers the issue, but I kept it. Why? Because the optical performance absolutely blew me away. I know the infinity adjustment will be easy to remedy when it is eventually serviced and for landscapes, I never focus at infinity and shoot wide open i.e. it isn't an issue for me (actual focus point is spot on, wide open, on my Monochrom). I just could not send this lens back in case the next copy was any less delightful.

 

From the samples I have seen the ZM has much nicer bokeh than the FLE, but it draws with clinical precision that does not enormously appeal to me. The CV 35 f1.2 II, at least in B&W as I use it on my MM, is simply beautiful. Always. Oh, and as said, at f2 it is tack sharp across the frame, yet also gentle. What a rare combination. At f1.2 it is sharp as you like on centre and only slightly less at the edges. This is the most beautiful M lens I own, bar none and irrespective of price. I still think that if you can bear the weight, this is the fast 35mm to own. Just add a Summarit-M and you are all set.

 

I should add that I only shoot B&W.

Edited by batmobile
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the most beautiful M lens I own, bar none and irrespective of price. I still think that if you can bear the weight, this is the fast 35mm to own. Just add a Summarit-M and you are all set.

 

Sounds like a great lens though I'd caution about the "just add a Summarit" advice. My 35 Summarit is possibly my most used lens (certainly in the sense that it sits on my camera the most, even if I don't take so many photos with it) because I prefer the ergonomics of it. However, I can't say that it wows me in the way that my 35 Summilux and 28 Summicron can (the latter only on film) or 35 Summicron did (before I foolishly sold it). If I rolled the dice (yet again) I'd probably buy another 35 Summicron but I'm a bit tired of buying and selling stuff and think my time is now better spent on taking photographs. :)

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...

 

So I bought a CV 35mm f1.2 II. As for QC, the naysayers are right: you do get more variation with CV lenses, but my impression is that there is far less with this lens than other CVs, like the 21 and 25mm P lenses. My sample does not focus quite to infinity (where I will never use it wide open), but a few stops down DOF covers the issue, but I kept it. Why? Because the optical performance absolutely blew me away. I know the infinity adjustment will be easy to remedy when it is eventually serviced and for landscapes, I never focus at infinity and shoot wide open i.e. it isn't an issue for me (actual focus point is spot on, wide open, on my Monochrom). I just could not send this lens back in case the next copy was any less delightful.

 

From the samples I have seen the ZM has much nicer bokeh than the FLE, but it draws with clinical precision that does not enormously appeal to me. The CV 35 f1.2 II, at least in B&W as I use it on my MM, is simply beautiful. Always. Oh, and as said, at f2 it is tack sharp across the frame, yet also gentle. What a rare combination. At f1.2 it is sharp as you like on centre and only slightly less at the edges. This is the most beautiful M lens I own, bar none and irrespective of price. I still think that if you can bear the weight, this is the fast 35mm to own. Just add a Summarit-M and you are all set.

 

I should add that I only shoot B&W.

 

I largely agree about the CV 35mm f1.2 ii. Mine also does not appear to quite make it to infinity but my landscapes turn out fine. It must be a design issue as near focus is perfect and my other (Leica lenses) are tack on with my M240

 

rgds

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
the zeiss looks like a great lens but I do wonder about the wobble that is said to appear after a few years on some zeiss lenses. I don't know the actual stats here

 

there are other questions:

1. the build

2. the draw

3. the focus throw

4. the size

 

also the results are not a slam dunk. looking at the DXOMARK tests it seems that the sFLE is better in the centre wide open, although I think here the results are all so close

 

Zeiss

web_zeisszm_fig4-bbee6.jpg

 

Leica FLE

web_zeisszm_fig5-d15b2.jpg

 

I would be tempted to buy the zeiss but need to see more pictures. the 35mm FLE still blows me away. if they were the same price I would definitely still go for the FLE (for my taste) but at the retail price the zeiss is very tempting.

 

I don't speak french, but I'm guessing that the graph is depicting sharpness across the frame at various apertures? Which would mean the Zeiss has corner to corner sharpness from f4 up and the Leica does not until f8. That is exceptional for a 35mm and is quite a trouncing in sharpness, we can assume that the top of the graph is the limitation of the Leica M's sensor and on future bodies in the coming years and decades the Zeiss will shine even better.

However sharpness aside I've never been a fan of Zeiss's warm/yellow colour cast, Leica lenses do a much better job at preserving true to life colour.

Edited by Mornnb
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what's the conclusion?

 

Both these lenses are excellent, wide open. The image differences are subtle, mainly concerning flatness of field of view (where the Distagon wins, but that may be less important as fast lenses tend not to be used for taking flat objects, face on). This is probably a compromise resulting from making the FLE compact.

 

So if size is important and money no object, the FLE is the answer. If you don't care about the size / viewfinder blockage (because you focus on the screen or e-viewfinder) then the Distagon is at least as good, and half the price. If future Leicas allow screen / e-viewfinder focusing outside the central spot, the unpredictability of the FLE's field of focus may be less of an in issue. Tim Ashley's analysis Tim Ashley Photography | Leica M 240 with 35mm F1.4 FLE - some observations is instructive.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I recently faced just this choice and opted for the 35 Lux FLE, mainly on its ergonomic advantages compared to the Zeiss. The FLE handles like an f/2 lens, but of course opens to a very high quality f/1.4.

 

Since buying this lens I rarely use anything else.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I feel that size of the lens is quite a big factor, and the main reason driving me towards the lux 35 FLE. I'm by no means convinced by the usual "myth" about leica lenses and their (clearly not) unmatched optical quality. What draws me to the Leica lenses, (apart from the focusing tab), is that they usually seem to represent the best balance between 1st-class optical quality and compactness. That, is no small feat to achieve. And when I don't feel bothered by the size and weight of my camera gear, I'd happily reach for my canon with the likes of sigma art 35 or 70-200mm IS. 

 

I have been torn between the several fast 35mm choices, the CV 35 1.4, CV 35 1.2 II, the ZM 35 1.4, and the Lux 35 FLE. In the end, after experiencing the CV 35 1.2 II and the (although a bit different) CV 40 1.4, I went for the Lux 35 FLE, and I'm a happy owner of this lens now. 

 

I used to be intensely interested in the new ZM 35 1.4, until I got a better sense of its dimensions. The width of it is actually OK, but what I don't like at all is its length, matching that of the CV 35 1.2 II. which was really the reason that I let go the (otherwise very nice) CV 1.2 II in the end. 

 

While the ZM 35 1.4 is a tad longer than the CV 35 1.2 II, the FLE is quite a bit shorter if you use it without the hood, which makes it just a little bit longer than the cron 35 ASPH. This, combined with optical quality that is nearly as good as the ZM 35 1.4, became the deal maker for me. 

Edited by Rus
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

:)  :)    Any lens has some amount of vignetting. Some wide-aperture lenses even quite a lot. Simply look at the data sheets if you do not believe me.

E.G. the Apo Macro Elmarit-R 100 is THE perfect lens, highest quality at all apertures at all distances. But it has some vignetting like ALL lenses.

You can call yourself very lucky if this is the only fault a lens has !    :)  :)  :)

 

Maybe you do not care - but that is another story. And I agree in the R 4/280 the vignetting is small. So you can find exceptions ...

 

See Diglloyd about the Zeiss lens:  http://diglloyd.com/prem/s/LEICA/LeicaM9/lens-ZeissZM-35f1_4-vignetting.html   So not my imagination.

The wiki has the data for the Leica lens.

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...