Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, Urushi said:

What about the Voigtlander 35mm F1.4 II? This new version supposedly has improved optics and maybe less barrel distortion? For the price I really like this lens and being able to have 1.4f might be fun. If the lens is bad though I may just go for the 35mm f2 ultron.

I definitely appreciate Leica lenses. The only one I have a 50mm F2.8 Elmar-M in silver chrome. It looks pretty and is fun to use but it isn't that much better than my other M mount lenses from Zeiss and Voigtlander.

I have both the vI & vII 35 1.4, and while vII has significantly less focus shift, the distortion looks about the same. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also the very small Canon ltm 35 f2. It's an excellent lens and very inexpensive (£300-400?). Only drawbacks are a tendency to flare and slightly flimsy build compared to Leica. I was very happy with mine until I got the Summilux pre-asph. In fact I still use it sometimes, especially on my M9.

Edited by Musotographer
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you everyone for the replies. There are a lot of options to consider.

A couple of follow up questions.

1. If I go the C Biogon route then I would have 35mm and 50mm f2.8. Is f2.8 enough? I suppose I need to experiment with ISO on my camera.

2. If I wanted a pre-asph 35mm cron where would be the best place to look? I don't mind spending a little extra to buy from a reputable source.

3. I am still considering the Voigtlanders 1.4 Nokton MC II and the f2.0 Ultron asph...they have great character...the 1.4 in particular has flaws that I have never really had to deal with. If I use Capture One Pro 12 can I make a profile that will fix barrel distortion or is it more complicated than that?

4. For the price of a pre-asph 35mm cron I could have the C Biogon and 1.4 Nokton...would this be better or is it just GAS?...I know I shouldn't buy a ton of lenses, especially for a camera I am new to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, low325 said:

The cbiogon is a serious contender. The “drawbacks” of it being f2.8 are minuscule. 

As minuscule as the difference between 3200 and 6400 iso ;). Not a problem when shooting in good light of course :cool:.

1 hour ago, Urushi said:

1. If I go the C Biogon route then I would have 35mm and 50mm f2.8. Is f2.8 enough?

Depends if you like shallow DoF. If so, you may need f/1.4 or at least f/2 on 35mm lenses. Otherwise it is not much of a problem on clean cameras like my Sony A7s mod but definitely too slow for indoor pics on both my M240 and digital CL. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Urushi said:

I have read that the 40mm 1.4 Nokton is better (less distortion) than the 35mm...

Too much focus shift on the copy i've used i'm afraid. It is not a problem on mirrorless cameras though. BTW distortion is quite reasonable and easy to adjust in PP on the CV 40/1.4 IIRC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Urushi said:

What about the Voigtlander 35mm F1.4 II? This new version supposedly has improved optics and maybe less barrel distortion? For the price I really like this lens and being able to have 1.4f might be fun. If the lens is bad though I may just go for the 35mm f2 ultron.

I definitely appreciate Leica lenses. The only one I have a 50mm F2.8 Elmar-M in silver chrome. It looks pretty and is fun to use but it isn't that much better than my other M mount lenses from Zeiss and Voigtlander.

I doubt it is any improvements with II, but less focus shift. It is as small as the lens it is copy of, Summilux 35 1.4 ELC.  Ultron is even more tiny and the only downside of it I see so far is ugly bokeh at f2. Both 1.4 and 2 have ugly bokeh wide open, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, james.liam said:

You didn’t but implied this

no i didn't  :rolleyes:

and it doesn't command a premium either...it's significantly less expensive than a Summicron v4

seems you're one of the forum's foot-trippers, a form of online bullying

Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked up a Voigtlander 35 f2 a couple of days ago for this same reason (my other 35 is the CV 35 1.2 ii - beast of a lens). I’m really liking everything about it so far. I didn’t think I’d care for the vintage look or the focus lever, but I find the focus lever to be very easy to use over a tab, I haven’t noticed the vignette wide open, but then I like vignette anyway and always add my own. Few shots in my Flickr stream from today with the CV 35 f2, I’ve added vignette to all of these, most are shot wide open - which the 240 interprets as f2.4... 

 

Bokeh sample...

 

Edited by robsonj
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing the photos robsonj!

I think I have given up on the sub f2 lenses for now.

I think I am down to the f2 Ultron and BACK to the f2.8 C Biogon.

I like the physical looks of the Ultron better and I imagine the haptics are superior as well but I haven't read enough reviews of the Ultron. I do also like that the Ultron uses 39mm filters which I already own my Elmar M lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An old screw 35mm f3.5 Summaron.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by Pyrogallol
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a very quick comparison at f2 with the Ultron 35/2 Asph & Summicron 35/2 Asph:

Ultron 35/2:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Summicron 35/2 Asph:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Urushi said:

Thanks for sharing the photos robsonj!

I think I have given up on the sub f2 lenses for now.

I think I am down to the f2 Ultron and BACK to the f2.8 C Biogon.

I like the physical looks of the Ultron better and I imagine the haptics are superior as well but I haven't read enough reviews of the Ultron. I do also like that the Ultron uses 39mm filters which I already own my Elmar M lens.

There is not much out there to read that I could find, everyone goes straight for the 35 1.4 II. But I think that lens still suffers from focus issues a little and distortion. The ultron is very well corrrcted. I do think the ultron is voigtlanders answer to a poor mans Summicron, I’m hoping they’ll release a 50mm f2 in the same style. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...