35 Summilux FLE v. Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZM

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Build quality felt excellent, I don't think that would be a consideration for one lens over the other. If I were to obtain a fast 35 I would go for the Zeiss.

 

In any case, the 35 FLE is no great shakes when it comes to build quality IMO. It's perfectly fine but doesn't feel like a £3,500 lens to me and it certainly lacks the finesse of the wider Summiluxes like the 21 and 24. As I've stated elsewhere on this subject, if I didn't already own the Summilux I can't imagine buying it in preference to the new Zeiss 35 but, equally, as I have the Summilux I see no reason to change to the Zeiss. Having bought all manner of Leica's modern 35mm lenses over the years (including the Summicron ASPH on three different occasions) my considered opinion is that, all factors taken into account, the Summicron is the lens I'd buy (for the fourth time:D) if I had to buy a 35 again. The 35 Summicron, not the Summilux (or other pretenders), is the quintessential M lens IMO.

[Advertisement]

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

[colonel]

In any case, the 35 FLE is no great shakes when it comes to build quality IMO. It's perfectly fine but doesn't feel like a £3,500 lens to me and it certainly lacks the finesse of the wider Summiluxes like the 21 and 24. As I've stated elsewhere on this subject, if I didn't already own the Summilux I can't imagine buying it in preference to the new Zeiss 35 but, equally, as I have the Summilux I see no reason to change to the Zeiss. Having bought all manner of Leica's modern 35mm lenses over the years (including the Summicron ASPH on three different occasions) my considered opinion is that, all factors taken into account, the Summicron is the lens I'd buy (for the fourth time:D) if I had to buy a 35 again. The 35 Summicron, not the Summilux (or other pretenders), is the quintessential M lens IMO.

 

 

I am interested in what you think makes the Summicron the quintessential choice over the Summilux ?

 

Just to throw another spanner in the works but to say IMHO the Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 II is another strong candidate for someone's 35mm weapon of choice

Edited January 15, 2015 by colonel

[wattsy]

I am interested in what you think makes the Summicron the quintessential choice over the Summilux ?

 

I suppose it is the balance between size, image quality and how it feels on the camera (which I guess is largely a function of the former). I've bought and sold this lens so many times but, even now, find myself getting drawn back to it (mainly on ergonomic grounds). In addition to the Summilux I also have the Summarit but, whilst I like the latter for its size, I've never really been struck by the "look" (nor do I like the 0.8m minimum focussing distance which is surprisingly limiting on occasions).

 

I find I tend to use a Leica in two ways. I'm either using it in a 'serious' way when I have specific photographic objectives in mind and I don't mind the size of lenses and hoods or having multiple bodies (I'll probably also be carrying a tripod and filters, etc.) or I have it in my bag and use it for visual sketches, personal snaps and so on. In the latter scenario I favour a small lens, usually a 35mm or (sometimes of late) a 28mm.

[jaapv]

In any case, the 35 FLE is no great shakes when it comes to build quality IMO. It's perfectly fine but doesn't feel like a £3,500 lens to me and it certainly lacks the finesse of the wider Summiluxes like the 21 and 24. As I've stated elsewhere on this subject, if I didn't already own the Summilux I can't imagine buying it in preference to the new Zeiss 35 but, equally, as I have the Summilux I see no reason to change to the Zeiss. Having bought all manner of Leica's modern 35mm lenses over the years (including the Summicron ASPH on three different occasions) my considered opinion is that, all factors taken into account, the Summicron is the lens I'd buy (for the fourth time:D) if I had to buy a 35 again. The 35 Summicron, not the Summilux (or other pretenders), is the quintessential M lens IMO.

 

I could not agree more. In low light I certainly prefer the Summicron , perversely

[GFML]

Just in case you're interested, my friend Ray Larose wrote down his thoughts on the new Zeiss on his blog. It's tested on film, so don't expect extremely detailed 100% crop discussion. More like an overall impression you can get when shooting about one month with this lens. In the end it all comes down to the point that the FLE and the Distagon are the best to get with F/1.4 and maybe the Voigtländer F/1.2 as a different and faster option. If you have the money and want the smaller size there seems to be only the FLE. If you can live with the bigger (but still a lot smaller than an SLR lens) size, like the rendering and maybe use it on the slightly bigger digital Leicas you'll get great performance for less than half the price and although this sounds cheap, 2000€ is still premium!

 

Here's the link: Review of the Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 1.4/35 ZM | ray larose

 

Cheers, Martin

[lct]

In low light I certainly prefer the Summicron , perversely

+1... provided i don't need more light somewhat expectedly. Summiluxes have never had competitors at f/1.4 among sharp 35s of their size and Zeiss will not change that before long if they follow their current route IMHO.

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I could not agree more. In low light I certainly prefer the Summicron , perversely

 

That's a perplexing observation. Care to elaborate?

 

Personally, I shoot the Summicron ASPH on an MM; love the rendering [but not the slight focus shift but I tend to stick to f/2 when I use it] and don't often encounter an issue with paucity of light.

Edited January 15, 2015 by james.liam

[jaapv]

I like the rendering better, the colour differentiation, the bokeh and the contrast. The difference between 2.0 and 1.4 is not that much as to make much of a difference when exposing anyway. If 1/12th is wobbly 1/25th is unlikely to be much better. I really preferred the Summicron over the Summilux for streetscenes at night and such when I still had both.

 

If I want to do low-light shallow DOF photography I find the 24 Summilux more subtle. I sold the 35 Summilux for it. Between the Summilux 24, Summilux 50 asph and Summicron 35 asph I could not find any rationale to keep it.

 

As for the Monochrom, my preferred 35 is the Zeiss Biogon 35-2.8. And my preferred 50 is a Canon LTM 1.8/50, which I bought for 100 Euro in mint condition.

Edited January 16, 2015 by jaapv

[colonel]

Very interesting

 

I have used two Summicrons and they haven't made a big impression on me although it is a very nice sharp lens. I preferred the rendering and contrast of the Summarit. I also felt the summarit was a tad sharper. I seem to remember a deleted review from Putts that also indicated his preference for the summarit. Additionally the focus throw of the summicron is a bit long for me, I like the shorter throws in Leicas more modern lenses. Lastly the focus shift was annoying, probably the reason of lack of sharpness at certain appertures.

 

I used to have the Summilux and loved the rendering across the range. It of course shines wide open with contrast which is something the MTA charts don't really reflect. Apart from the very neutral and slightly bluish draw of the Summilux I would say the two advantages of the Summilux are the contrast wide open and also slightly more micro-contrast through the range, which I think contributes to the edge in bite and "3D pop" perceived from the Summilux by it's many devotes.

 

Recently I have been beguiled by the Voigtlander 35m f1.2 ii. It's a brand that's a bit looked down on by the Leica elite and indeed I have found their lenses lacking critical sharpness and contrast historically. But this lens (along with the 50mm f1.5 M) is quite special. It is both sharp and contrasty with an ethereal warming rendering. F1.2 and f1.4 are eminently usable but the complete glory kicks in at f2.

 

It was pointed out to me by someone that the new Zeiss 35 1.4 ZM was very similar, and I dismissed this out of hand at the time but now I am not too sure. I have looked at the specifications for both lens and not only are they very similar size and shapes but they both have a 10/7 grouping design. Further investigation reveales that the last 5 groupings look identical and the first two very similar. I can't help shake the feeling that the Zeiss is based on the Voigtlander design with perhaps some tweaking to the front elements and different coatings. Which is why I am anxious to try the Zeiss as I think the Voigtlander is a knock out and one of those rare bargains in the lens world.

 

Rgds

Edited January 16, 2015 by colonel

[jaapv]

The main differences between Zeiss and Voigtlander are the precision and tolerance span of the manufacturing. This result in conssiderable quality differences between individual copies of a given Voigtlander lens (not dissing them, it is reflected in the price difference). Zeiss simply brings more precision and consistency, resulting in better lenses and in lenses that could not be built to the lower tolerances.

Of course, if one builds a more expensive lens, one can afford more expensive glass types and more elaborate coatings as well.

 

I would not be surprised if the drawing boards were the same.

 

In general, one of the fun things of the rangefinder system is that so many "lesser" and old to ancient lenses too can bring lovely results.

We are spoilt for choice.

Edited January 16, 2015 by jaapv

[colonel]

The main differences between Zeiss and Voigtlander are the precision and tolerance span of the manufacturing. This result in conssiderable quality differences between individual copies of a given Voigtlander lens (not dissing them, it is reflected in the price difference). Zeiss simply brings more precision and consistency, resulting in better lenses and in lenses that could not be built to the lower tolerances.

Of course, if one builds a more expensive lens, one can afford more expensive glass types and more elaborate coatings as well.

 

I would not be surprised if the drawing boards were the same.

 

In general, one of the fun things of the rangefinder system is that so many "lesser" and old to ancient lenses too can bring lovely results.

We are spoilt for choice.

 

In the hand and in usage the Voigtlander appears extremely well built and very smooth.

It does not appear to lack against Zeiss and certainly has not historically suffered from the wobble seen in a small but persistent percentage of Zeiss lenses.

 

The sharpness of the results are clear. If Zeiss has used a similar design and substituted better glass for 1 or 2 elements then based on my experience that alone makes the Zeiss very exciting.

[jaapv]

The build quality of Voigtlander lenses in my experience is still as good as it gets.

My repair person, however, tells me that compared to Leica the optics can be a nightmare to repair in case of decentering etc., as the lens elements are often shimmed individually. ( The same for Zeiss).

[pgk]

The 35 Summicron, not the Summilux (or other pretenders), is the quintessential M lens IMO.

Without wishing to argue or derail this thread (actually there is potential pertinent and relevant information to be had here - re size) I would say that IMO the quintessential M lens is the 35mm Summilux (pre-aspheric) v.2. It has all the attributes required.

 

A state of the art design in its day, it cannot be bettered by computerised design utilising the glasses available when it was designed. It is incredibly small and light especially for its aperture - which none of the aspheric designs are and certainly not the Zeiss - big lenses on small cameras are to me an anathema. And its design lasted for 28 years - an extraordinary length of time, unmatched by any Summicron.

 

By today's standards it does not perform at all well wide open, although stopped down is is very acceptable even now. But that is not the point and despite the figures quoted today to support 'the best lens performance', classic lenses such as the pre-aspheric Summilux can still hold up well technically if used with care and to shoot appropriate subject matter. And in all honesty, given the choice between the Zeiss and the pre-Ashperic Summilux, I would go for the Summilux . To me size matters.

[wattsy]

Without wishing to argue or derail this thread (actually there is potential pertinent and relevant information to be had here - re size) I would say that IMO the quintessential M lens is the 35mm Summilux (pre-aspheric) v.2. It has all the attributes required.

 

All fair points but I was arguing for a lens currently listed in the catalogue. To me, the 35 Summicron is the lens I would probably buy if I had to choose only one new lens from the entire range. It's not an easy decision because I'm very keen on my Summilux and the flexibility that it provides being able to shoot with confidence at F1.4 when the light gets low (especially when I am using film) but I don't like how it feels on the camera.

[lct]

[...] the quintessential M lens is the 35mm Summilux (pre-aspheric) v.2. [...]

Great lens indeed. My favorite 35 for soft portraits. Pity it flares that much though. I would love if it worked on my Fuji X-E2 but it is another story.

[pgk]

To me, the 35 Summicron is the lens I would probably buy if I had to choose only one new lens from the entire range.

Its interesting that the 4 smallest lenses are the 28/2.8 asph, the 35 Summicron asph, 35mm Summarit and the 50mm Summarit. These are all superb lenses and show that compact size with high optical quality can still be achieved. Out of them I would agree with you over the Summicron. I have the 35mm pre-FLE Summilux which is (despite focus shift) an excellent lens but whilst certainly not massive (I have the Canon L lens too!) feels bloated relative to its predecessor.

 

Its interesting that there has been a discussion over film and digital M body sizes and whilst I am happy with the M8/9 sizes, I do think that Leica need to concentrate a wee bit more on containing 'bloat' and moving back to their historic essentials. I could see a 'traditional' range of small, light and ergonomic lenses selling well these days.

[james.liam]

In the hand and in usage the Voigtlander appears extremely well built and very smooth.

It does not appear to lack against Zeiss

 

The build quality of Voigtlander lenses in my experience is still as good as it gets.

 

My only experience with Voigtländers was with their SLR lenses. I used to use the APO trio of the 90, 125 Makro and 180. All truly exemplary, but especially the 125 which became my all-time favorite lens on a D700 (at one time, I must have had twenty AIS and AF to compare to). The build wasn't quite at the level of the old Nikkor AIS lenses but the optical performance exceeded them all or even newer, more modern AF Nikkors at the comparable focal length (to my eye, these AF Nikkors were comparatively dull & boring).

Edited January 16, 2015 by james.liam

[rscheffler]

I own the CV35/1.2II and its focusing ring slips, meaning the position of the focusing scale is no longer accurate with actual focusing distance. Depending on how it slips, sometimes it can prevent infinity focus, other times it will focus beyond infinity... It's a hassle, though I haven't been bothered to find someone to fix it yet. Maybe once I receive the ZM and decide I want to sell the CV...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[gyoung]

35mm has been my favourite 'fov' ever since I got my first 35mm camera with interchangeable lenses, and I can remember the delight as I projected the first Kodachromes shot with the 8 element 35 Summicron on my M3 when I got it, compared to other 35s I had before.

Over 35 years later I bought an asph 35 Summicron after I acquired an M6ttl, I have used many 35mm lenses over the years (and own 8 in all now) and this asph Summicron is the first I have come across that is 'better' than my old one, and then only really in terms of sharpness at wider apertures. They both have a way of rendering tones and colours more pleasing to me than any other 35mm lens I have used.

The real trauma of coping with the digital age is that it isn't quite the undisputed champion that it is on film, and coming to terms with the idea that nearly 50% of my pics might be taken with something other than a 35mm Summicron!

 

Gerry

[horosu]

So, I went the other day to my local distributor and they have received a Zeiss DISTAGON 35/1.4.

 

My impressions so far:

 

1) Build quality is excellent, very high. The lens feels smooth and good in my hands.

2) Size is a concern: it is almost twice as long as the Summilux FLE, but it felt similarly heavy (390 vz 320 gr, if I'm not mistaken). Very well balanced on the M240.

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

3) Handling:good but not perfect. I can focus on-the-fly much quicker with the FLE than with this lens. The focusing-tab and the smoother focusing of the FLE is the clear winner here.

 

I very much considered purchasing this, however, as I shoot no landscapes or studio-shots, the FLE is preferable, at least for me, for people and street photography. So, for the time being, I abstained :-)