Size of the 35mm 1.4 Distagon

[Rangeman133]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The reviews for this lens are all very positive, except for its large size. However, I recently used the Zeiss 50mm planar, which according to the spec sheet, is 2mm longer (but 11mm narrower) than the Distagon. Is this a typo on the specs sheet? Does anybody have any knowledge of even better, have both of these lenses that they could stand up side by side, to see if the Distagon is in fact smaller in length?

I hesitated in getting the Distagon, only because I thought it was very big, but if it's not much bigger than the Planar, I think it would be ok.

I do understand that it's all relative, as I also have the tiny 35mm 2.5 skopar. and i've used the massive 28mm 1.4 7artisans. but outside of this, really how big does the distagon look/feel compared to the 50mm planar?

[Guest]

Pretty sure that is a mistake and the distagon is longer and heavier than the planar.

I used to own the distagon and its about 65mm long which is shorter than the 28mm 7 artisans but pretty big compared to the summilux which some say is too big.

[Rangeman133]

Thank you! Yes I thought that was the case, going by photos seen online. After some thought, I think I’ll go with the 35mm 2.8 biogon, 

the Psychology is quite funny. When you have a fast lens, the novelty of shooting wide open can get old quite quickly. But not having a fast lens, you feel you’re missing it. I guess I’ll scratch that itch with the 50 planar if needed!

thanks again 

[robb]

I use the Zeiss 35 1.4 ZM distagon on an SL2 so to me the M lenses all feel fairly reasonable and small… but I understand if you only shoot M cameras and are used to the 35 f2 asph…

Here is a shot of the distagon next to my M 90 apo asph.  It’s slightly smaller but not by much on the length and width.  Hope the photo helps.

Robb

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!

[RexGig0]

I do not have a 50mm ZM, for comparison, but I really do like the Distagon 1,4/35mm ZM. It is a bit large, but is not perceptibly heavy. At 381 grams, I do not notice it seeming to be heavier than my much-loved Summilux-M 50mm ASPH, with its weight of 335 grams. 

The Distagon’s diameter does cause some amount of intrusion into the field of view of the viewfinder, which does not disturb me, perhaps because I added a vented lens shade to my Summilux-M 50mm ASPH, to protect it from my clumsiness. (It was the Summilux-M 50mm ASPH that lured me into adding the Leica M system. I made the decision to buy the lens, then had to decide which camera body I could afford to buy, with it. I ran the numbers, and bought my new M10.)

If I am correctly recalling the write-ups, from the time of its release, the Distagon 1,4/35mm ZM was designed to be ready for future high-resolution cameras. I reckon that means large elements are needed, in order to produce high-quality images, with a reasonable price point. Of course, the Distagon ZM does render a different look, than a Summilux-M 50mm ASPH.