New Zeiss or used M?

[Big John]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

Just choosing 35mm lens for SL - looking at new Zeiss distagon 1.4 or used 35mm summicron. Used M lens looks to be around £200 more.

 

Thoughts? Thanks.

[Advertisement]

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

[JohnnySeven]

You cant go wrong with either.  I have a 35m zeiss and love it.  I also have several summs and love them as well.  Id say get a zeiss now, when you find a great deal on a used Leica add it your collection.  This is how it begins...

Edited November 18, 2017 by JohnnySeven

[jaapv]

I think that, on the SL, the Zeiss would appeal to me as first choice. The test shots I took with it (on an M9) have a very appealing clarity that should go well with the SL sensor and the size, that is an objection on the M, will not be any problem on the SL

[Steve McGarrett]

In my opinion, go for ZM Distagon, unless bigger size is really a deal-breaker for you (and with the SL, I doubt it...)

[gotium]

Unless you mind the size, the zm 1.4 is unbeatable for image quality

[Big John]

Thanks everyone. One reason I am looking at a manual lens (to go with my 24-90) is to have reduced size and weight. That said, I have tried Voigtlander lenses (1.7 Ultron) and they almost feel too small! The distagon looks ideal.

 

Will look for Black Friday deals!

 

Thanks everyone.

[microview]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After using my Zeiss yesterday I started wondering is any Leica 35 (excluding the FLE) might be preferable and offer decent weight saving. But looking at the images I realised it would be hard to match its resolution not to  mention the enjoyable handling properties. Weight on an SL would be like a mouse on an elephant  .

[Abram]

I had the ZM 35 Distagon and I found it to be probably one of the "best" lenses I've ever used. I was super impressed with its optical quality. That being said, on an M body I was put off by the size of it. It wasn't too heavy or anything but it definitely was a bit large to handle. (Though manageable and far from impossible.)

 

That being said, I think it is actually the perfect size for the SL body, and I would enthusiastically have kept that lens if I had the SL personally. I ultimately switched to the 35 FLE which I still think is a bit large but I can work with it.

 

Go for the Zeiss on the SL you won't be disappointed.

[exile]

Used M.

[SilentShutter]

Size don´t matter !  Go for the Zeiss !

[Ko.Fe.]

 not to  mention the enjoyable handling properties...

 

Try to quickly change aperture from f2.8 to f11 with one finger on any Zeiss ZM or focus it quickly with gloves. Do it not for one day, but for few weeks...

Leica 35 M lenses are build for quick fiddling on M. But Zeiss is for the process of handling, indeed.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Ko.Fe.

[Big John]

Hi everyone,

 

Short update - after trying the Zeiss 35/1.4 and reading the comments above, I went for it. It arrived yesterday but I have to wait until Xmas to get it (!). So I don’t get any issues on Christmas morning can I check how I will need to set it up with the SL - will I need to choose a lens profile?

 

Thanks.

[Big John]

Hi guys,

 

just asking if I need to match the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM to any Leica lens profile to use it with SL?

 

Thanks.

[anickpick]

I see no need to assign any lens profile to the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM on the SL.

It has nice colors and very low distortion.

Coding it as 35Lux for example will make it worse in terms of distortion correction (coding it as 28Lux would be slightly better).

[Steve McGarrett]

Zeiss says that best profiles for 35 Distagon are Summicron 28 and Elmarit 28 Asph ones.

However, the lens shows very little need of coding, so you can just leave it alone... it's up to you.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Steve McGarrett

[Big John]

Thanks guys. First non Leica lens for me so will try it without any coding.

[Herr Barnack]

Zeiss lenses are outstanding in terms of image quality and are more affordable than Leica M lenses.  The differences between the M and ZM lenses in terms of resolution, contrast, overall image quality, etc. would most likely be lost on the vast majority of people, including photographers. 

 

That having been said, I am still leery of mixing M and ZM lenses in my kit due to the different rendering each line of lenses produce in the final print version of an image (yes, I am a bit OCD about my prints).

[Tailwagger]

just asking if I need to match the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM to any Leica lens profile to use it with SL?

 

I run the Zeiss uncoded on the Ms, but do find it worthwhile on occasion to apply the profile in LR on the back end, particularly if shooting wide open.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Big John]

Hi guys,

 

Well Santa bought me the 35/1.4 and it has breathed a huge new life into my SL. I have only used my SL with the 24-90 and wanted something lighter in weight. When I tried M lenses, Voigtlander and Zeiss ZM on an SL in stores, it never really felt right - note I am only talking about handling and ergonomics. What I have learned after 48 hrs with my new Zeiss distagon is that handling can only be assessed after a period of time having the set-up in your hands.......as opposed to 10 mins in a shop!

 

Anyway - this is my first M mount lens, hence my questions above. It defaulted to Lux 35 when mounted on the SL, and initial images look ok. I have changed the selection to ‘auto’ and will see if I see much difference.

 

Can anyone give me a brief explanation of what coding actually does pls? Thanks.

[Ko.Fe.]

Camera reads the lens code and applies in camera corrections to have picture as nice as possible. Leica knows only about Leica made 35 1.4. Corrections applied to wrong lens might lead to wrong results. 

If you let it know about focal length and maximum aperture, it is also useful.