colonel Posted July 20, 2015 Share #1 Posted July 20, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) So for one of my "systems" I have a Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 ii and am very happy with it. It produced beautiful photos and having f1.2 is useful (I shoot film + digital). In terms of disadvantages f1.2 is a bit soft but perfectly usable, f1.4 is not bad really although you can see the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 and Leica 35mm f1.4 are distinctly sharper in the centre. The edges of the Voigtlander are definitely behind the other lenses I have mentioned and don't really sharpen up across the frame until f8, however largely this is not relevant for most of my photos, and the colours and bokeh are lovely. The main drawback is the weight. Compared to other 35mm f1.4 lenses and wider (e.g. DSLRs or the Sony FE 35mm f1.4) of course its very light, and its really not bad, being lighter then the Leica 90mm, 50mm noctilux, etc. However I carry the camera in my right hand and I find its quite noticeable on by wrist, especially compared to other lenses I often use for walkabout, like the Zeiss 50mm f1.5 which weights next to nothing, especially considering the aperture it provides. So, finally getting to my question, I am deciding what to do now. I want to retain the 1.2/1.4 capability but also want something a bit lighter for walkabout. 1. I have thought about getting the Zeiss f2 (250g). Its a lovely lens. A bit glowy at f2 but above that one of the more technically perfect 35mm lenses about and has a lovely draw. So I would use the Zeiss f2 as a walkabout during the day and the Voigtlander during the night or dimly lit indoors. What I would lose is the ability to duck into a cave and have f1.2/f1.4 which does happen occasionally. Note I only carry one lens on walkabout, although happy to take multiple if going to a fixed place, e.g. a function. 2. Replace the Voigtlander with the Zeiss f1.4. This new lens appears to tick all boxes. Its disadvantages are the size which is a bit obtrusive, but not too bad, and the weight. However it does shave almost 90g off the Voigtlander (471g vs 381g) so its still a bit heavy but is an improvement. Note that the price of both a new Zeiss f2 and the value of the Voigtlander are around £200 or more below the Zeiss f1.4, so this is a more expensive option. 3. Adding another £1,000 to the Zeiss f1.4 woudl be the Leica FLE. The main advantage of this over the Zeiss f1.4 is that although its not as sharp as the Zeiss in the edges wide open, I like the rendering just a tiny bit more. Its also another 61g lighter (320g). This seems like a better compromise, but is still heavier then the Zeiss f2 and is a significant financial extra. If I was really convinced this was 100% the right thing to do I might wait some more time to save up. There are of course loads of other good options, for example the excellent 35mm summarit, but on balance I like the above three options the best and am finding deciding between 1 and 2 very difficult. 3 is a bit of an outsider. Any opinions from folk would be most welcome, especially ones that have (or have used) some or all of these lenses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Hi colonel, Take a look here 35mm option: (Zeiss f2+Voigtlander f1.2ii) OR Zeiss f1.4 OR Leica f1.4 FLE. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Leica Frog Posted July 20, 2015 Share #2 Posted July 20, 2015 Leica 35 FLE is the best choice, it's very impressive lens and the price is reasonable now. Good Luck, Leica Frog. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMJ Posted July 20, 2015 Share #3 Posted July 20, 2015 I have Leica 35mm FLE & Zeiss 35mm f1.4. I use a M240. The Zeiss gives better pictures all things equal. In Lightroom 6.1 you can change the lens profile to Zeiss 35mm f1.4 (the only ZM lens profile) & it produces better shots than the Leica using its profile corrections. These are for RAW files. The only downsides are that you need to 6-bit code it (as Leica 35mm f1.4) & that it is a longer lens than the Leica. The image quality with LR 6.1 profiling is as good as the 50mm APO (which I have) but less dry & clinical; it looks more 'organic' but razor sharp. The Leica 35mm FLE is no slouch but the Zeiss just pips it. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toyfel Posted July 20, 2015 Share #4 Posted July 20, 2015 I'd go for option 1). Depending on the camera you use f2 might be fast enough for most if not all uses you have in mind. If it has to be a f1.4 lens, consider a second-hand 1.4/35 Asph (non-FLE). This gets you closer to the Zeiss in terms of price, and its probably also less heavy and smaller. It suffers from focus shift, but you mentioned using the Zeiss 1.5/50 so it seems you are not bothered by that kind of inconvenience. The f1.4/35 pre-asph is even smaller/lighter but quirky wide open. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted July 20, 2015 Share #5 Posted July 20, 2015 My suggestion would be the 35 Summilux. I bought the Zeiss and thought it was wonderful, but the novelty soon wore off and I tired of its sheer weight on the M. By chance Aperture (London) had a silver Summilux FLE probably not even used by the seller(!), so condition perfect. This sample is scarcely if at all surpassed by the Zeiss, which I promptly sold, and the Leica is so much nicer to use.. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted July 20, 2015 Share #6 Posted July 20, 2015 Diglloyd has detailed image comparisons of all of these lenses, if that was what you were after. But since it seems that size/bulk that is important to you, you should probably stick to f/2 lenses. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted July 20, 2015 Share #7 Posted July 20, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) FLE or previous version. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted July 22, 2015 Share #8 Posted July 22, 2015 Why not the Voigtlander 35 1.4? It's compact and a great inexpensive walkabout lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdk Posted July 22, 2015 Share #9 Posted July 22, 2015 I love my Zeiss 35mm/1.4, but also have the 35mm/2.8 C-Biogon for situations where compactness is preferred. Both are spectacular lenses. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted July 22, 2015 Author Share #10 Posted July 22, 2015 I love my Zeiss 35mm/1.4, but also have the 35mm/2.8 C-Biogon for situations where compactness is preferred. Both are spectacular lenses. Which camera are you using the Zeiss on ? Rgds Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted July 22, 2015 Share #11 Posted July 22, 2015 I love my Zeiss 35mm/1.4, but also have the 35mm/2.8 C-Biogon for situations where compactness is preferred. Both are spectacular lenses. Exactly the same here and fully agree with your assessment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ai_Print Posted July 22, 2015 Share #12 Posted July 22, 2015 Leica 35 FLE is the best choice, it's very impressive lens and the price is reasonable now. Good Luck, Leica Frog. LOL, “reasonable” is a bit of a reach but yes, the price has come down so it is a buyer’s market for sure. As for the lens it self, I have rented one for a two week period while my non-FLE asph has a loose front section fixed. It got turned around very fast so I get it back Friday, will be interesting to compare. My thoughts on the 35 FLE are as follows thus far, based on shooting actual paid work with it. Reasons I would get one: 1. I like the hood a lot, small but effective enough, clean look. 2. Sharpness and contrast is excellent, especially closer focus shots. 3. No brainer focusing in terms of compensating for shift, just set it and go. ( although I have a great method for overcoming the shift of my non-FLE ). Reasons why I might pass on it: 1. The focus ring could really do with some form of texture or knurling because it is noticeably stiffer to move than any other Leica M mount lenses I have used, the tab alone does not always cut it. This always seems to be a downside of moving FLE glass around. 2. It’s just a bit too fat, feels like a beer can on the front of my M6 / M240. It’s only a little bigger and heavier than my non-FLE but it feels a lot bigger in actual use. 3. Out of focus rendition. This is not normally something I put at the front of the line in terms of buying a lens or not but so far, in the actual professional photos made, I find it a bit busy and lacking compared to my non-FLE. When shot wide open it gives the effect of being more like F2-2.5. Those are my thoughts on it after just having it for a couple of days and only putting about 800 shots through it thus far. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan.y Posted July 23, 2015 Share #13 Posted July 23, 2015 My ZM 35 1.4 has stronger barrel distortion than my Summilux 35 Asph (non-FLE) 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted July 23, 2015 Share #14 Posted July 23, 2015 My suggestion would be the 35 Summilux. I bought the Zeiss and thought it was wonderful, but the novelty soon wore off and I tired of its sheer weight on the M. By chance Aperture (London) had a silver Summilux FLE probably not even used by the seller(!), so condition perfect. This sample is scarcely if at all surpassed by the Zeiss, which I promptly sold, and the Leica is so much nicer to use.. A brass Summilux FLE is lighter than the Zeiss 1.4? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted July 23, 2015 Share #15 Posted July 23, 2015 A brass Summilux FLE is lighter than the Zeiss 1.4? Most probably, dont know difference in weight against Zeiss but both black and silver Summilux are same construction and same material. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted July 23, 2015 Author Share #16 Posted July 23, 2015 A brass Summilux FLE is lighter than the Zeiss 1.4? Interestingly the silver FLE (there is no brass one) weights the same as the black one as it's also aluminium just anodised silver. So it's 320g. Unlike the silver 35mm summicron and 50mm summilux which are both brass and much heavier. The Zeiss is 381g and the Voigtlander is 471g, so for me the Zeiss is already a significant reduction in weight. The Zeiss f2 is however 240g which I consider featherweight I'm probably going to go for the Zeiss f1.4 ..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted July 23, 2015 Share #17 Posted July 23, 2015 You'll be sorry. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdk Posted July 23, 2015 Share #18 Posted July 23, 2015 Which camera are you using the Zeiss on ? Rgds I have used them on M9-P and M-P digital cameras. The C-Biogon does require some correction for corner color casts with the Adobe DNG Flatfield Plugin for Lightroom (or Cornerfix) and a white target reference image. The Distagon 35mm has no color cast errors on the M-P, but very, very slight ones on the M9-P. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ai_Print Posted July 23, 2015 Share #19 Posted July 23, 2015 Well the 35 FLE is growing on me, I put some clear griptac on the focus ring and it has helped the focus action immensely. I'll probably get one, will decide when my non-FLE comes back tomorrow. By the way, the FLE with a standard B&W regular thickness filter and no caps weighs exactly 338 grams. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted July 23, 2015 Share #20 Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Well the 35 FLE is growing on me, I put some clear griptac on the focus ring and it has helped the focus action immensely. Thanks for that suggestion. I'll give the Griptac a go. Other than the finger tab, the lack of any grip, on the 35 Summilux ASPH FLE focus ring has been my biggest gripe with this lens. It is beyond me why Leica doesn't knurl the focus rings on more of it's lenses. The finger grip certainly has it's uses, particularly for prefocusing, but it would be nice to have the choice (especially with FLE lenses which have a slightly heavier focus action) rather than use dictated by limited options. Edited July 23, 2015 by MarkP 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.