Jump to content

Help choosing a 35mm lens for my M10-P


nuc001

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Summicron ASPH does have a look of its own, and I did favor it @ ƒ/2. But it was introduced 25 years ago, and along with the 41 year-old 50 Summicron, pretty long in the tooth (despite the recent minor tweak of the 35 Summicron). Buying a new 35 Summicron ASPH?? Not the wisest move unless you find one at a great discount.

These two FL's are the bread and butter for any camera make so the only conclusion I can arrive at is that a major revision of both will arrive simultaneous with the M10R.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dennis said:

Do you think it doesn't worth the price a brand new one? 

No.
I suggest subscribing to reidreviews.com to see his comparisons. He’s an artist and not a technician so the comparisons are practical rather than purely technical. The 35 Summicron is no longer the best out there.

In fact, the Zeiss 2,8/35 performs the best of all the lenses tested (aside from the very large 1,4/35), if you can live without a stop. However, at the moment and from samples I have seen, the best 2/35 seems to be the new Voigtlander

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

42 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Do you think it doesn't worth the price a brand new one? 

Not addressed to me so apologies for chiming in. I'd buy a Leica lens if it ticks any of these boxes which would make the premium worthwhile: Top image quality and size for that focal length+aperture or rendering preference. Leica has always produced top-quality optics in relatively compact sizes - take the 35FLE for example, or the 50APO. Even the 28lux. They may not be class leading (any more?) but are certainly more compact than the competition and have great image quality. Alternatively, it is rendering preference because choosing a Noctilux f1 or a 35lux pre-asph for example isn't about choosing the best lens you can get for the money but for the look.

For the 35Cron Asph new, it is still a reliable and proven performer. But as James mentioned, it is getting a bit dated and not a lens I'd recommend to buy new. Competition is more stiff now at that price point. I'd rather pay that money for a 35 1.4 Zeiss because it is the best 35mm M mount lens in terms of image quality. Additionally, it is quite difficult to argue against the 35 f2 Voigtlander Asph which is even smaller and performs just as well. I am also indifferent about its rendering. But hey, it's a Leica, so if that premium is worthwhile on that basis you're definitely not alone!

1 hour ago, danieldouloslee said:

@James.liam - wouldn't it be safe to say that the 50 Summicron has already been updated with the APO?

They are at very different price points though. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, danieldouloslee said:

@James.liam - wouldn't it be safe to say that the 50 Summicron has already been updated with the APO?

No. The APO is a unique design expression, like the Noctilux and with a specific purpose in mind.
The standard 50 Summicron is still irreplaceable and essential. A successor to the present model is inevitable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, james.liam said:

The Summicron ASPH does have a look of its own, and I did favor it @ ƒ/2. But it was introduced 25 years ago, and along with the 41 year-old 50 Summicron, pretty long in the tooth (despite the recent minor tweak of the 35 Summicron). Buying a new 35 Summicron ASPH?? Not the wisest move unless you find one at a great discount.

The newest version (11673-4) was introduced in 2016, with among other things 11 aperture blades instead of 8, improved exterior design, and I think also some optical changes. Anyway, there wasn’t much to improve in this already great lens.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, the Summicron 35/2 asph could well live as long as the Summicron 50/2 non apo. I have a coded Summicron 35/2 asph v1 together with the little Ultron 35/2 which has no "asph" engraving BTW but it has one aspherical element (pic). The Ultron is very sharp indeed but it's bokeh is rather sharp too so the Summicron asph v1 remains my favorite 35/2 so far. I mean on digital Ms as i prefer the smaller size of the Ultron on the digital CL. FWIW.

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 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, james.liam said:

However, at the moment and from samples I have seen, the best 2/35 seems to be the new Voigtlander. 

😱... Interesting

10 hours ago, chasdfg said:

isn't about choosing the best lens you can get for the money but for the look.

Correct. We all need to test them all, and choose our favorite 🙂

10 hours ago, chasdfg said:

But as James mentioned, it is getting a bit dated and not a lens I'd recommend to buy new

Got it.

10 hours ago, chasdfg said:

a 35 1.4 Zeiss because it is the best 35mm M mount lens in terms of image quality.

Beside the big size and weight, everyone are saying that!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, here goes the million-dollar question. Choosing ONLY one lens, many of you would bring a 35FLE on a desert island. It looks like it's the wonder of the Leica lens. Why? At the same time, many of you are saying that the 35 1.4 Zeiss has the best commitment/performance. 


$2,300 for the Zeiss Distagon T vs. $5,900 for the 35 FLE ... I'm kind of confused. A Leica lens in a Leica camera looks better? Is the value on a long term basis more? Is it just a status quo?
The reason why I'm asking you many questions in because I'm based in Mexico where there are not Leica stores or authorized stores, everyone in my state is using DSLR, haha, and I can't see, compare, try out, etc.... So you guys are my only hope to understand better the whole scenarios 🙏

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Dennis said:

So, here goes the million-dollar question. Choosing ONLY one lens, many of you would bring a 35FLE on a desert island. It looks like it's the wonder of the Leica lens. Why? At the same time, many of you are saying that the 35 1.4 Zeiss has the best commitment/performance. 

I must be in the minority then :eek:. I like much my 35/1.4 FLE in low light when i need sharp results but it is more bulky than the 35/2 asph of course and its bokeh is sharper. Otherwise i have no experience with the ZM 35/1.4 because it is as big as a 90mm M lens so i would simply not use it on a rangefinder or another compact camera. Remains the 35/2 asph, it has its flaws and qualities but it is the better compromise to me. Besides the Ultron 35/2, i like much the ZM 35/2.8 too so if you don't need f/2 you should be happy with it as it is a lens with no significant flaw aside from a bit of vignetting. Beware that it is very contrasty though.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Dennis said:

So, here goes the million-dollar question. Choosing ONLY one lens, many of you would bring a 35FLE on a desert island. It looks like it's the wonder of the Leica lens. Why? At the same time, many of you are saying that the 35 1.4 Zeiss has the best commitment/performance. 


$2,300 for the Zeiss Distagon T vs. $5,900 for the 35 FLE ... I'm kind of confused. A Leica lens in a Leica camera looks better? Is the value on a long term basis more? Is it just a status quo?
The reason why I'm asking you many questions in because I'm based in Mexico where there are not Leica stores or authorized stores, everyone in my state is using DSLR, haha, and I can't see, compare, try out, etc.... So you guys are my only hope to understand better the whole scenarios 🙏

For handling, weight, ergonomics and image rendering...Desert Isle...my choice would be the 35 FLE. And they're about $4500 second-hand. You should check with Popflash in Los Angeles. He carries top quality stuff and ships to Mexico.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dennis said:

So, here goes the million-dollar question. Choosing ONLY one lens, many of you would bring a 35FLE on a desert island. It looks like it's the wonder of the Leica lens. Why? At the same time, many of you are saying that the 35 1.4 Zeiss has the best commitment/performance. 


$2,300 for the Zeiss Distagon T vs. $5,900 for the 35 FLE ... I'm kind of confused. A Leica lens in a Leica camera looks better? Is the value on a long term basis more? Is it just a status quo?
The reason why I'm asking you many questions in because I'm based in Mexico where there are not Leica stores or authorized stores, everyone in my state is using DSLR, haha, and I can't see, compare, try out, etc.... So you guys are my only hope to understand better the whole scenarios 🙏

I buy most of my lenses used, so the price difference is less great. There's a lot of value in the used market and you might even make some money out of it if you sell eventually. If you buy either used, both should hold their value in the long term. Unless it's a special edition or kept in mint condition you're unlikely to see the lens value go up over the years anyway.

The only reason why I picked a Zeiss 35 1.4 up second hand was purely out of curiosity because I love the 35mm focal length. I never intended to sell the 35FLE even if I preferred the Zeiss for whatever reason (side track regarding desert island lenses...I might actually take a 35lux pre-FLE). Image quality wise it does outperform the 35FLE in terms of sharpness and is more flare resistant than the 35FLE. Without hood it is only slightly taller than the 35FLE with hood and only slightly heavier. I always have to shoot my 35FLE with hood as my copy flares. Honestly I had no real issues with the size, focus nub instead of tab and the aperture stops being at 1/3 values instead of 1/2 stop. I dare say the Zeiss was actually better built than my 35FLE - the focus ring was more damped and the aperture ring had more firm clicks.

I would also admit that there were a number of pictures I shot I couldn't tell which lens took it. They are both modern lenses that do have a different "look" from each other, but they are not as distinct from each other as a Voigtlander 35 1.4 compared to the 35FLE. The Zeiss has..."clarity" so to speak. That's the word that comes to mind when I recall the more memorable images I shot with that lens. 

In the end I sold the Zeiss because there is no reason to keep two high performing workhorse 35 1.4s. The 35FLE is smaller and the image quality is very comparable (in that the Zeiss is better but only slightly and I'd rather the 35FLE size instead).The Zeiss gets criticism for its size as a rangefinder lens, especially when compared to other lenses. In truth I would be happy keeping either lens. On a desert island with the Zeiss as my only lens...I could do worse.

 

(Sorry for long post, just thought I could give you my views as I had both lenses before. You will notice the same comments on the Zeiss, either you love it and don't mind the physical aspect of size, focus bump and 1/3 stop aperture clicks, or that's an absolute no go. If it's a no go then the choice is made for you which makes life easier then)

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

1 hour ago, chasdfg said:

Sorry for long post,

Actually was perfect. Your contribute to my general understanding was awesome. I think I'm starting to understand. Unlike DSLR for example, where due to the AF, if you want to use the same brand, if you a very limited options. With Leica M, you have many many options, different signature styles. And being a minimalist guy, I would love to find the ONE, the 35mm that fits all my needs. For example I like best the Leica lens hoods rather than other brands, and the aesthetics are much better in Leica than the Zeiss or Voigt, IMHO. I use a very few f/stops values (and never in between), so I don't need 1/3 stop aperture clicks. I like the focus tab of the 35 Cron and Lux, but not the focus nub of the Zeiss.

I guess it's complicated to have only one lens that matches all my requirements. I will keep reading, until I'll have time to try out some lenses and make my final choice. Meanwhile, I use my 2.8/35 Zeiss 🙂

By the way, @nuc001 (the OP), what's your decision so far? 🤔

Edited by Dennis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Distagon: as stated before I think this is the sharpest lens in my collection. It is very well made and contrary to other opinions I think it is not so big... yes there is some finder blockage but nothing extreme. When I'm using it I forget about size and other things... it is easy to focus and well made.

Two important things to consider:

 - if you prefer artistic photos I think Leica Lux ASPH 35 is better alternative. Zeiss drawing is beautiful BUT from my experience inferior to Leica (if you prefer Leica look). I think there are two main differences: Leica photos are more vibrant and 3D like, you feel dimensions, on the other hand Zeiss is like 3D objects in 2D enviroment (I know it sounds stupid :-) but I don't know how to better describe it). And Zeiss colors are more  "metallic". You like it or you don't like it.

 - aesthetically Leica lens is beautiful on Leica body. And you will never think again: "I'm wondering how Lux performs in this situation...."

 

If you want to spend less Voigtlander 35 1.2 is a good option.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2020 at 10:57 AM, Dennis said:

So, here goes the million-dollar question. Choosing ONLY one lens, many of you would bring a 35FLE on a desert island. It looks like it's the wonder of the Leica lens. Why? At the same time, many of you are saying that the 35 1.4 Zeiss has the best commitment/performance. 

More to a lens than accutance and MTF graphs. There's near-unanimity for the 35 FLE. The best 35's I ever shot with were the Sigma ART and ZF 2/35. Super lenses and added to a DSLR, 2.5kg and up. After nearly 10 years lugging the beast, the images were wonderful but my shoulders, not so much. Point an M10P and a 35 Summicron or Biogon C at a friend or foe, and the reaction is indifferent or unnoticed altogether. Do the same with A D850and a 24-70 zoom, and well, you know.

Having said that, the ZM 1,4/35 is extraordinary. Technically better than probably every 35mm lens of any mount.

Edited by james.liam
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...