A fast 35mm partner for my ZM 2.8/35

[Dennis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, astrostl said:

The CV 35/1.2 III is plenty sharp in the center at 1.2/1.4 for me

awesome, it's good to know. I saw some really bad result wide open, or at least not as I was expecting. But at f1.2 the CV, is not as sharp as the Biogon 2.8 at any f/stop, Right? You say sharp because it's acceptably sharp at 1.2 ? 

2 hours ago, Archiver said:

I have a CV 35/1.2 v1 (original version) and I tried the Zeiss 35/1.4 in a shop, and was frankly wowed by the performance of the Zeiss wide open.

Many people think that the Zeiss 1.4 is the best 35mm out there for m mount, even better than the FLE... I read many times here. The big cons, weight and size. But if one is willing to live with that, oh yeah. You have the best 35mm out there. 

 

[Dennis]

2 minutes ago, cboy said:

To the OP. What are you going to shoot wide open in the streets for visual storytelling purposes??? Street portraits? Night scenes?

Thank you. I know, it's not easy to focus at these kind of f/stops. But let's say it would be to shoot at night, always using available light. But with calm, nothing so fast and furious as standard street photography by day at f/8, you know what I mean? So, I would need to spend more time and carefulness to focus properly and great amazing shots.

With 1.4 I'm fine too, it's no mandatory 1.2. Until when I left the posts months ago, I was between CV 40 1.2 and 35 Ultron 1.7 .... But no obsessed by the size of the lens, I decided reconsidering the 35mm 1.2 III.

I would love to consider also the 35mm Zeiss 1.4, but two things I don't like. I don't need a permanent 35 super fast to use always. I can keep doing like this: to use my Biogon 2.8 most of the time, and a 1.2 for example when it's necessary.

Price and size. Can a CV 35 give me same or similar than a 35 Zeiss?  If so, Zeiss is too pricey for my budget.

Focus knob. I don't like it. I prefer nothing, or complete lens tab. But small like this, it's not helpful at least for me to use it for zone focusing. 

[Dennis]

I didn't include this on my original list: https://www.voigtlaender.de/lenses/vm/35-mm-11-4-nokton-classic/?lang=en 

It would be a perfect size for me. Focus tab (it's working for me). And fast with 1.4. But the problem is the performance. It does not work very well with an M10, right? It would be more adequate for film than for digital.

 

[lct]

32 minutes ago, Dennis said:

I didn't include this on my original list: https://www.voigtlaender.de/lenses/vm/35-mm-11-4-nokton-classic/?lang=en 

It would be a perfect size for me. Focus tab (it's working for me). And fast with 1.4. But the problem is the performance. It does not work very well with an M10, right? It would be more adequate for film than for digital.

No no it is made for digital i believe. Not very sharp at f/1.4 though but not soft either. Bit busy bokeh too but could be worse and no significant focus shift AFAIK. I have no experience with it though. You may wish to ask our colleague adan who bought one if i'm not wrong. 

[Archiver]

6 hours ago, Dennis said:

Many people think that the Zeiss 1.4 is the best 35mm out there for m mount, even better than the FLE... I read many times here. The big cons, weight and size. But if one is willing to live with that, oh yeah. You have the best 35mm out there.

I've considered trading in my Nokton f1.2 v1 for a secondhand Zeiss f1.4 if one turns up. In Australia, the Zeiss is about AUD$3700, which is kind of nuts. It sometimes comes up for around AUD$2000 secondhand, so if I traded in my Nokton, I'd pay much less for it. But I'm not fond of selling lenses if I can help it, especially lenses that I like.

[Archiver]

6 hours ago, Dennis said:

I didn't include this on my original list: https://www.voigtlaender.de/lenses/vm/35-mm-11-4-nokton-classic/?lang=en 

It would be a perfect size for me. Focus tab (it's working for me). And fast with 1.4. But the problem is the performance. It does not work very well with an M10, right? It would be more adequate for film than for digital.

I have had the v1 of this lens for about 11 years. It works great with film and on the M9, so I can only assume it is fine with the M10. Some say the bokeh is busy, but I either don't see it, or don't mind. In some ways, the bokeh of the f1.2 is smoother and almost too smooth, it's hard to describe. The bokeh of the f1.4 has enough definition to provide texture. From what I've read, the Nokton f1.4 was intended to emulate the look of the Leica pre-aspheric Summilux.

Actually, my favourite bokeh and overall rendering in the Voigtlander 35's is the Ultron 35mm f1.7 LTM. This discontinued version has a minimum distance of 90cm, and is prone to internal haze over time. But the rendering is really organic, it's sharp with very little glow wide open, and creates lovely sunstars when stopped down.

Some 35mm f1.4 images on the M9:

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!

M9 + CV35/1.4 - Kaiseki by Archiver, on Flickr

M9 + CV35/1.4 - Shimbashi Restaurant by Archiver, on Flickr

M9 + CV35/1.4 - Tower Calling Gundam by Archiver, on Flickr

M9 + CV35/1.4 - Tokyo Taxi by Archiver, on Flickr

M9 - Shades of Breakfast by Archiver, on Flickr

And a couple from the 35mm f1.2 v1: If the v3 is considerably better, it will be a great lens.

M9 - The Faceless by Archiver, on Flickr

M9 - Knockdown by Archiver, on Flickr

Edited August 19, 2020 by Archiver

[Dr No]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It sounds like you are asking for a lot within your criteria; fast sharp and cheap.

Sharpness is overrated. It doesn't reflect as bad photography and mostly people don't even see the difference. All the lenses discussed are plenty sharp. The 35mm 1.2 CV III is a nice lens. Actually, if you can find a Version I it has particularly nice rendering and colouring and much cheaper on somewhere like ebay.

 

[Dennis]

3 hours ago, Dr No said:

t sounds like you are asking for a lot within your criteria; fast sharp and cheap.

haha yes I know, just asking 🙂 I never tried any other 35mm that is not mine, that's why I ask a lot 🤷‍♂️ But all your tips and advices are always great!

3 hours ago, Archiver said:

From what I've read, the Nokton f1.4 was intended to emulate the look of the Leica pre-aspheric Summilux.

Interesting. 

3 hours ago, Archiver said:

Actually, my favourite bokeh and overall rendering in the Voigtlander 35's is the Ultron 35mm f1.7 LTM

Is this lens similar to this one? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1182782-REG/voigtlander_ba327b_vm_35mm_f_1_7_ultron.html

It's not so fast as others 35mm, but everyone say is very sharp.

 

[astrostl]

The most-helpful site for me on agonizing comparisons has definitely been Phillip Reeve. Specifically: the CV Ultron 35/1.7 review, the ZEISS Distagon 35/1.4 review, the CV Nokton 35/1.2 III review, and their 35mm Comparison (inc. the Ultron, Distagon, and Leica 35/1.4 FLE). They are first and foremost evaluating things on Sony FE bodies, but it doesn't concern me so much as all the lenses have an equally disadvantaged playing field (thick sensor stacks mitigated by filters).

These also have cross-referenceable crop shots, but I'd stress to myself as much as others that crops are not common viewing reality. 99% of my own image viewing is performed on a 5k iMac, but even on a device of that quality I'm not actually jumping into magnification levels. And from my tool-assisted (astigmatism eyeglasses) viewing, I'd be damned pressed to tell a functional difference between any of them at the same aperture.

In the comments of the 35/1.2 review someone asks about the VM 1.7 vs the ZM 1.4 vs the VM 1.2 III and the author says this: "All great lenses on an M-mount camera.
Would get the one you are still willing to carry and if that is not an issue to you the one where you like the bokeh most. I would probably get the 1.2/35 now, greatly balanced lens." For this context I'd now tend to agree, and it also happens to perfectly align with your budget.

I do have a VM 35/1.7 on the way and will probably get a ZM 35/2 just to complete my non-Leica quality 35 menagerie, but I'm a bit nuts. A big driver for me has been aesthetics and ergonomics of the lenses themselves so I like to constantly fart around and juggle them. But I do think the VM 35/1.2 III is probably the best COMPROMISE of aesthetics, ergonomics, speed, rendering, and budget. If overindexing on optical perfection, I'd give it to the ZM 35/1.4.

[Dennis]

2 hours ago, astrostl said:

The most-helpful site for me on agonizing comparisons has definitely been Phillip Reeve. Specifically: the CV Ultron 35/1.7 review, the ZEISS Distagon 35/1.4 review, the CV Nokton 35/1.2 III review, and their 35mm Comparison (inc. the Ultron, Distagon, and Leica 35/1.4 FLE). They are first and foremost evaluating things on Sony FE bodies, but it doesn't concern me so much as all the lenses have an equally disadvantaged playing field (thick sensor stacks mitigated by filters).

Awesome, I would read the reviews, thank you!

2 hours ago, astrostl said:

author says this: "All great lenses on an M-mount camera.
Would get the one you are still willing to carry and if that is not an issue to you the one where you like the bokeh most. I would probably get the 1.2/35 now, greatly balanced lens."

It makes sense. I' writing before reading the reviews, but the compromise most of the time works 🙂 I have already a great 35mm, razor sharp, super light and compact. I need to use it a super fast lens, the Nokton is the one gives me more .... Except maybe sharpness at 1.2 (I mean like the Distagon at 1.4 for example). I can't have it all for that price.

2 hours ago, astrostl said:

But I do think the VM 35/1.2 III is probably the best COMPROMISE of aesthetics, ergonomics, speed, rendering, and budget. If overindexing on optical perfection, I'd give it to the ZM 35/1.4.

Here a good resume. $1k a new lens would be perfect. And it's not so big as the Zeiss.

I was thinking a few posts ago hahaha about the CV 40 1.2 III Asph. Love the idea of the unique FL, the 1.2, and the normal diagonal on a FF camera. But if I have to take off the Thumbs Up from my M10 to put a 40mm VF, I can't live with that. T.U. accessory is mandatory for me, for my hands. And try to get a 40mm FL w/o an external VF, I think is "so much guesstimate". It's romantic the idea and the concept, but it's a risk. And with limited budget, this time I prefer safe. That's why I switched preference from 40 1.2III to the 35 1.2III 🙂  

Edited August 19, 2020 by Dennis

[astrostl]

The 40/1.2 is addressed too: "Therefore I would personally recommend the new 35mm 1.2 lens if the focal length is not a deciding factor to you." General takes on the street seem to be that the image quality rank is 35/1.2 III > 50/1.2 > 40/1.2, while all are well worth considering. For me my biggest gripe might be that the last 0.2m of focus (0.5 as opposed to the "usual" 0.7) is not rangefinder-coupled (as with all close-focusing M mount lenses). Which is to say, no huge gripes. If/when I feel like I demand the best possible image at a comparative sacrifice of ergonomics/weight/size I'll bring the ZM 35/1.4, but I think this the 35/1.2 is my default walkaround on looks and balance. Love the bokeh too.

[Archiver]

13 hours ago, Dennis said:

Is this lens similar to this one? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1182782-REG/voigtlander_ba327b_vm_35mm_f_1_7_ultron.html

It's not so fast as others 35mm, but everyone say is very sharp.

The VM Ultron (Leica M mount) has a different optical design from the older LTM version.

https://casualphotophile.com/2018/09/25/voigtlander-ultron-35mm-f-1-7-ltm-review/

I don't have any photos from the LTM version to show you, but they are around on flickr:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f1.7 LTM/

I love the shape, size and weight of this lens. The focus ring is long enough to get a decent grip, and while it lacks a focus tab, that doesn't bother me. It's unfortunately of lesser mechanical and design quality - the lens blocks are glued together and can't be taken apart to service internal haze, which is a problem from the glue offgassing over time. But the way this thing renders is really lovely, and I enjoy using it immensely. The bokeh is different from the Nokton f1.4 and f1.2, and I wish that Voigtlander would reissue this lens formula in an updated M mount, rather than use an entirely different formula with a reportedly uncomfortable focus ring.

[Dennis]

On 8/19/2020 at 3:53 PM, astrostl said:

but I think this the 35/1.2 is my default walkaround on looks and balance

Glad you like it. 

 

On 8/19/2020 at 3:53 PM, astrostl said:

the image quality rank is 35/1.2 III > 50/1.2 > 40/1.2, while all are well worth considering. 

Good to know. I think it can delivery well at 1.2, but how well? How soft do you think it is?

On 8/19/2020 at 11:52 PM, Archiver said:

The VM Ultron (Leica M mount) has a different optical design from the older LTM version.

https://casualphotophile.com/2018/09/25/voigtlander-ultron-35mm-f-1-7-ltm-review/

I don't have any photos from the LTM version to show you, but they are around on flickr:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f1.7 LTM/

I love the shape, size and weight of this lens. The focus ring is long enough to get a decent grip, and while it lacks a focus tab, that doesn't bother me. It's unfortunately of lesser mechanical and design quality - the lens blocks are glued together and can't be taken apart to service internal haze, which is a problem from the glue offgassing over time. But the way this thing renders is really lovely, and I enjoy using it immensely. The bokeh is different from the Nokton f1.4 and f1.2, and I wish that Voigtlander would reissue this lens formula in an updated M mount, rather than use an entirely different formula with a reportedly uncomfortable focus ring.

Thanks for the links. What a shame the LTM version is discontinued 

[Guest]

Half my stuff is on a tripod taking night city harbour lights type photography and the other half is recording my 4 grand childrens childhood.

I used the 35mm f2.4 summarit for my first 2 years of leica use [m262].

but after reading reviews about how good the zeiss 35mm f1.4 distagon was i cracked and got one.

It so outclasses the summarit for both tripod stuff and my grand kids that the summarit will simply stay in a cupboard,the zeiss renders beautifully and is very very sharp,in fact i never knew a lens could be that sharp and i have used minolta rokkor and modern olympus lenses as well as the summarit.

If you could try one out for yourself somewhere you would realise its not so big in reality and is very well put together,for 20 years i only really used my 58mm f1.4 rokkor but however long i live now i will be using the zeiss 35mm f1.4 distagon.

[astrostl]

> How soft do you think it is?

I think it's totally fine outside of minimum distance territory, esp. for center-cut single subjects of focus. Which is how I'd mostly use f/1.2 anyway.

> What a shame the LTM version is discontinued 

FWIW the CV VM 35/1.7 is broadly considered to be optically superior to the LTM, and it's also a native M mount. I have one of those now too. I think it's tack-sharp wide open and I love the way it handles (and don't mind the narrow focus ring). It's a full stop slower than the 1.2, though.

[Dennis]

52 minutes ago, steve 1959 said:

but after reading reviews about how good the zeiss 35mm f1.4 distagon was i cracked and got one.

It so outclasses the summarit for both tripod stuff and my grand kids that the summarit will simply stay in a cupboard,the zeiss renders beautifully and is very very sharp,in fact i never knew a lens could be that sharp and i have used minolta rokkor and modern olympus lenses as well as the summarit.

More I read about this lens, and more it tells me that it could be my perfect candidate. Still scared about size.. Weight not so much.

45 minutes ago, astrostl said:

the CV VM 35/1.7 is broadly considered to be optically superior to the LTM, and it's also a native M mount.

This is not so fast, it doesn't make so much sense to get another 35mm that is not 1.4 ... From 2.8 of my Biogon, I would switch directly to 1.4.

What does it mean Native M mount? Is it very sharp at 1.7 as the Distagon as 1.4? But I know it's a great lens too. Compared with the Biogon 2.8?

So much questions right? 🤷‍♂️

[a.noctilux]

Hello Dennis,

Have you seen at RFF this thread Zeiss Distagon T* 1.4/35 ZM ?

Strange enough, I do see some "muted colors" (maybe mostly in film use), that I qualify as "non-Leica/Leitz-like" rendering.

Some really nice pictures, though in the thread ...

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!

© Leica All Day

Edited August 23, 2020 by a.noctilux

[mike3996]

I'm partial to choosing either number 1 or 3 from your list. Both have their upsides, Classic Nokton in particular can well be an all-year partner, lightweight, nimble. The new Nokton, while not particularly heavy, can perhaps weigh you down.

[lct]

You are still here Dennis?  You know that you will pick a Distagon don't you. And then you will open a thread about the Summilux FLE i bet . Just kidding.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pedaes]

48 minutes ago, lct said:

Just kidding

 

Many a true word said in jest!