Zeiss 35mm f2 vs Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 ii

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

hi

I want a 35mm for a new camera but want to stick to a slightly stricter budget then the Leica options.

Both the Zeiss and CV seem to get excellent write ups.

Forgetting for a moment about the fact that the CV goes brighter I wonder what the difference in sharpness at f2, and general colour and contrast is ?

 

Has anyone had both and can comment ?

 

Many thanks

[richfx]

I have the Zeiss 35mm Biogon T 2.8 and owned the Voigtlander 35mm Nokton 1.2 (version 1). They are very different lenses in terms of size, weight and performance. Really an apples to oranges comparison. The Zeiss is a stellar everyday lens; the Voigander a special purpose low light beast in terms of weight and dimensions, with compromises in terms of image quality (due to its price and therefore its size). The Zeiss has tremendous IQ, colors (although a bit cool) and 3D pop. My Voigtlander was more subdued and softer.

Edited December 15, 2014 by rcerick

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[james.liam]

hi

I want a 35mm for a new camera but want to stick to a slightly stricter budget then the Leica options.

 

Many thanks

 

As an aside, note that the remaining 35 Summarit (2.5) are selling at considerable discount, not too far off from a new CV 1,1/35 or ZM 2/35.

[rscheffler]

What camera will you use it on?

 

If a digital Leica M, then my answer will be different... If on a sony a7 series camera, I would suggest the Voigtlander because the ZM has pretty substantial edge smearing with distant scenes where focus is at or near infinity.

 

On a Leica digital M, the ZM is more consistently sharp across the frame, with good edge detail discernible already at f/2, though wide open this lens does have a fair amount of SA type glow that masks some of this detail. Vignetting is also stronger because the CV is already stopped down a bit from wide open.

 

At f/2, the CV has better central sharpness and contrast, but edges are weaker. Things even up centrally between f/2.8-4. At f/4 the ZM is sharper across the frame and the CV takes a while to catch up at the edges.

 

The CV also has greater distortion.

 

Note that my comments above are based on observations from images shot of distant scenes. Performance may be different at closer distances.

 

I only tested one copy of each lens, so not sure how representative they are overall. If you'd like to see the full-rez Leica M240 test shots from each, I've put them temporarily on Google Drive here. I can't promise that these will stay online indefinitely.

 

They were made as a reference standard as part of my comparison test of RF lenses on the Sony a7S, which I've posted here. Also, the ZM was shot uncoded and therefore likely has a touch of edge color cast and maybe a bit more vignetting than had it been coded. Also, these files were converted in LR5 from DNG with just the basic LR settings. WB was set at one value for all of the lenses tested on the camera, which will give an idea of how each varies in subtleties of cool/warm and tint.

Edited December 15, 2014 by rscheffler

[uhoh7]

I have the Zeiss 35mm Biogon T 2.8 and owned the Voigtlander 35mm Nokton 1.2 (version 1). They are very different lenses in terms of size, weight and performance. Really an apples to oranges comparison. The Zeiss is a stellar everyday lens; the Voigander a special purpose low light beast in terms of weight and dimensions, with compromises in terms of image quality (due to its price and therefore its size). The Zeiss has tremendous IQ, colors (although a bit cool) and 3D pop. My Voigtlander was more subdued and softer.

 

I can't agree here with the characterization of the CV.

 

I have the CV 35/1.2 v1 and the ZM35/2

 

Almost certainly the CV is sharper at f/2 and I would be surprised if it's not a wash at f/8.

 

I love both lenses. The ZM is a superb technical landscape lens with less distortion than any 35 made. The CV has utterly distinct personality, and is highly under-rated as an all around lens, mostly because it's not used as such, due to the weight.

 

Little House in Hailey by unoh7, which is which?

 

L1024944 by unoh7, which is which?

Edited December 15, 2014 by uhoh7

[uhoh7]

again which is which?

 

DSC02568-2 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

L1021447 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

Another note with the CV, there is no evidence V2 is "better" except it does focus closer. V1 was discontinued because the glass became to expensive to source, not because of "flaws".

 

In terms of handling, the ZM 35/2, of course, is far far superior. But the CV, IMHO, is world class at any aperture.

 

Bottom line, if you are shooting a M body, 35mm is a feast. The ZM35/2, CV 35/1.2, and the ZM 35/2.8 are top flight 35s, each very distinct, each fantastic, as of course are many of the Leica lenses.

Edited December 15, 2014 by uhoh7

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But which one would you choose with only one ?

[colonel]

again which is which?

 

I'd say the second picture in both posts is the CV ???

 

My reasoning is the first ones seem more precise but the second seem more ethereal

[uhoh7]

I'd say the second picture in both posts is the CV ???

 

My reasoning is the first ones seem more precise but the second seem more ethereal

 

Actually, and don't feel bad, but the second in both is the zeiss. If Idid not own the lenses would have probably got it wrong too LOL

 

You really help me make my point, the CV is not widely understood, and the lack of charts for any CV lens does not help.

 

If I could only own one, it would be the zeiss. But the funny thing is I would sell the zeiss before I sold the CV!! That's because I have other small 35s. The CV is indispensable with the M9 in my opinion, not because you always want it on the camera, but because it can take the M9 where no other lens can:

 

L1023384-2 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

Leica really has no answer to the CV 35/1.2. Not only is it a superspeed lens, but it is a 35mm superspeed, which means it has DOF!! Frankly I would say the CV 35/1.2 is among the 10 or so greatest M lenses of all time, for this reason alone. But it can do reportage unbelievably well:

 

DSC02539 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

Why would the zeiss be my "only lens"? Because I do alot of work in the backcountry, and the CV is too heavy.

Edited December 16, 2014 by uhoh7

[CheshireCat]

Has anyone had both and can comment ?

 

I have both. You can find my comments in this related thread:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/333387-m9-35mm-biogon-f-2-vs.html

[CheshireCat]

Another note with the CV, there is no evidence V2 is "better" except it does focus closer. V1 was discontinued because the glass became to expensive to source, not because of "flaws".

 

Some reviewers say the V2 has a little more contrast and does not render as much the onion rings in the bokeh highlights (i.e. artifacts due to ground aspherical elements).

Nothing that makes me want to upgrade my V1 to V2.

[CheshireCat]

the second in both is the zeiss. If Idid not own the lenses would have probably got it wrong too LOL

 

If you shoot both lenses at f/2, the Zeiss is easily spotted by the "bubble" bokeh.

The CV has a much smoother and pleasant bokeh rendering, which I like much better... although V1 can show "onion rings" on highlights.

[colonel]

Hi uhoh7, LOL

Thanks for the interesting comments

It seems that apart from weight you would have the CV ?

The extra stop and a half is useful (I didn't say but I will be shooting film) and creamy bokeh is good.

However I can't deny how fabulous that shot of the house above is ....

Edited December 16, 2014 by colonel

[uhoh7]

Some reviewers say the V2 has a little more contrast and does not render as much the onion rings in the bokeh highlights (i.e. artifacts due to ground aspherical elements).

Nothing that makes me want to upgrade my V1 to V2.

 

I'm convinced the V1 is superior. Of course I've been wildly wrong a time or two LOL

 

here is the CV WO no post, right out of the M9:

Kate by unoh7, on Flickr

 

more contrast, anyone?

 

Now, while I'm dispelling myths, I was warned repeatedly about the terrible Bokeh of the ZM 35/2:

 

L1012426 by unoh7, ZM 35/2 WO

 

I shoot it wide open all the time on the not to forgiving for bokeh M9 sensor, and I have yet to be displeased. A case could easily be made that the ZM 35/2 is the best 35 available, bar none, for CCD Leicas. I believe it was JaKo at FM who found it was the best performing 35 at f/11+, which is actually a very big deal. I find it good at f/11, though the 28 cron is even better (I consider it the best lens i own).

Edited December 16, 2014 by uhoh7

[uhoh7]

And others will tell you the ZM 35/2 is too big. Here it is next to the 21SEM:

DSC04451 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

Did you ever hear anyone say the SEM 21 was too big?

 

On the M9, the zeiss is a sick, sick lens:

 

L1012016 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

However, I would not recommend it for the 240. Edward has shown colorshift is problematic on that sensor, and of course you could use cornerfix, but that's way too much of a pain--or LR profile. Obviously on the M8 and MM it's going to kill. For CMOS, the comparison is no contest, you would get the CV, better yet a cron asph.

Edited December 16, 2014 by uhoh7

[rscheffler]

But which one would you choose with only one ?

 

The new ZM 35/1.4.

 

It looks like it will be a very, very strong performer. From what I can glean from the short time I demoed one (sample photos), it should be more consistent across the frame than the CV and without the strong SA glow of the ZM 35/2 wide open.

 

Yes, it's more expensive than both and pretty big. But while it's similar in size to the CV, it's lighter, which I noticed when trying it.

 

It may be 'the' 35mm M mount lens to have for technical image quality where size and cost is not as much of a concern.

Edited December 16, 2014 by rscheffler

[NightSun]

You could summarize the main pros and cons for the mentioned 35mm lenses like this:

 

- Zeiss 35mm f/2: (+) Sharp, Zeiss 3D pop, almost zero distortion, (-) slightly big if compared to Summicron, bokeh not so smooth wide open

 

- Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 (+) Very small, very high contrast and sharp rendering at all apertures, (-) I would say none, except for being slow

 

- CV 35 mm f/1.2 (+) fastest 35m lens, capable of possibly the best compromise in low-light shooting with a Leica M, and a very distinct rendering, (-) size

 

I only have the latter two and in my opinion they complement each other very well. Zeiss 35/2.8 is a wonderful, lightweight walk-around lens in daylight conditions and then I reach for the CV, if I'm in need of sucking more light or want to have very shallow DOF. However, If I could have only one, then probably I would go for a Zeiss 35mm f/2.

[colonel]

Thanks for all the advice.

 

I have decided to go with a Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 ii second hand.

The reviews are fantastic and I love the pictures I see on flickr and other sites with this lens.

 

Perhaps I will try the Zeiss options at a later date as I always get itchy feet

Edited December 17, 2014 by colonel

[Doc Henry]

Harold ,why not Summicron 1971 (V3) or 1979 (V4) on your M7 ?

Best

Henry

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[colonel]

Harold ,why not Summicron 1971 (V3) or 1979 (V4) on your M7 ?

Best

Henry

 

Good point

A mixture of the f1.2, build, novelty, sharpness and desire to try some non-Leica lenses for once

 

Best Rgds