Vogtlander 35mm f1.7 VM vs Zeiss 35mm f2 ZM ?

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Can anyone who has had both contrast (no pun intended) and compare ?

 

thanks

 

[Advertisement]

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

[jdlaing]

Been a number of years since I had the Zeiss.

 

I have and use the Voigtlaander now an like it very much.

Very sharp, clean and smooth images.

Excellent build quality.

 

If I remember correctly, I sold off the Zeiss as it was too clinical and I never got along with it.

[colonel]

Been a number of years since I had the Zeiss.

 

I have and use the Voigtlaander now an like it very much.

Very sharp, clean and smooth images.

Excellent build quality.

 

If I remember correctly, I sold off the Zeiss as it was too clinical and I never got along with it.

 

thanks

both have their "family" feel no doubt

how did you find f2 on the Zeiss ? I read it has a sharp contrast and resolution drop compared to the rest of the range but this might not be true ?

[jdlaing]

thanks

both have their "family" feel no doubt

how did you find f2 on the Zeiss ? I read it has a sharp contrast and resolution drop compared to the rest of the range but this might not be true ?

That’s what I remember. I just never got on too well with Zeiss.

[TomB_tx]

My Zeiss f2 has been fine, once I had DAG recalibrate the focus. When it was new I also was a bit disappointed wide open, but once DAG adjusted it has the best perceived sharpness (resolution and contrast) of any of my 35s. That said, I prefer using my 2.5 Summarit as it is about equal, but nicer size and handling.

[james.liam]

My Zeiss f2 has been fine, once I had DAG recalibrate the focus. When it was new I also was a bit disappointed wide open, but once DAG adjusted it has the best perceived sharpness (resolution and contrast) of any of my 35s. That said, I prefer using my 2.5 Summarit as it is about equal, but nicer size and handling.

IIRC, the ZM 35/2 is optimized for f/2.8, so it focus shifts at its widest aperture just like the 50/1.5. That’s why the adjustment made a big difference.

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

IIRC, the ZM 35/2 is optimized for f/2.8, so it focus shifts at its widest aperture just like the 50/1.5. That’s why the adjustment made a big difference.

 

that's very interesting

I never knew that !!

[Ko.Fe.]

Zeiss ZM lenses shares the same focus and aperture ring design. Unfortunately, VM lenses are all over the board. Some are very handy, some are like lens in question.

For some of us, despite great, if not ideal, optical performance, its focus ring with sharp cuts is no go. It was made to copy original 50 1.5 lens made seventeen years ago, but not to modern and functional design of 35mm RF lens. Which even Zeiss ZM is barely on (IMO).

If only they could make it as VM 35 2.5 and 35 1.4, just similar to VM 28 2, which in not small lens just as 35 1.7 VM is.

Well, just normal focus ring with tab at the same current lens body will do.

I would jump back to 35 1.7 and 50 1.5 VM. No focus shifts, sharp wide open and not flat in rendering. Both are not only fine on digital, but rending nicely on bw film and darkroom prints. Probably best in price/results lenses I used for M. But handling is no go for me and some other photogs I know.

[cp995]

I'm a 35mm user and thought about the Zeiss Biogon f2 and a Summicron 35 (except v1) too.

Decided finally to go with the new Ultron 1.7/35mm, as it is sharp at f1.7 and has a really great bokeh, which is rare to find with 35mm lenses.

Better than the Biogon 2/35 -  and the Summicron's are well known for a (to be polite) "neutral" bokeh at best ...

Edited March 29, 2018 by cp995

[jdlaing]

I'm a 35mm user and thought about the Zeiss Biogon f2 and a Summicron 35 (except v1) too.

Decided finally to go with the new Ultron 1.7/35mm, as it is sharp at f1.7 and has a really great bokeh, which is rare to find with 35mm lenses.

Better than the Biogon 2/35 -  and the Summicron's are well known for a (to be polite) "neutral" bokeh at best ...

They did do a nice job with the Ultron. Makes up for all the boo boos in the past. My favorite lens.

[Rob L]

The Ultron is a great lens from wide open and it works well on mirrorless too. Very nearly as good as the Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 Distagon, but much smaller and cheaper. The Zeiss ZM 35 f/2.0 is also a great lens but suffers from spherical aberration (glow) wide open.

[chris_livsey]

Is there a consensus on the best coding, from the menu, for the Ultron on the digital series?

 

I am spoilt as my 50mm f1.5 Sonnar has been coded with "proper" pits but tempted by the Ultron, I sold the Zeiss Distagon f1.4 which, although unbelievably sharp, was just too large, heavy and unbalanced on the body  (particularly on M2 film series) for my taste as a daily user and too expensive, as a none Leica lens, to keep as an occasional use lens.

[jdlaing]

Is there a consensus on the best coding, from the menu, for the Ultron on the digital series?

 

I am spoilt as my 50mm f1.5 Sonnar has been coded with "proper" pits but tempted by the Ultron, I sold the Zeiss Distagon f1.4 which, although unbelievably sharp, was just too large, heavy and unbalanced on the body  (particularly on M2 film series) for my taste as a daily user and too expensive, as a none Leica lens, to keep as an occasional use lens.

I set mine to 35 Summilux Asph. And it works very well.

[Mark II]

he Zeiss ZM 35 f/2.0 is also a great lens but suffers from spherical aberration (glow) wide open.

This was the main problem that I had with my ZM 2/35. The glow is sufficient to soften the image, yet not enough to give any true character (for example, a vintage look). It is really a lens that begs to be shot at f4 or narrower, where it is ultra-sharp and well behaved. The non-existent distortion is its real strength, making it arguably the “best 35mm M lens for architectural shots.

 

The nice thing with Leica is that there is a lot of choice in the 35mm focal length, both current production and vintage. But the first step in choosing a lens is to understand what you want to use it for, as no one lens is going to be “best” on all possible criteria.