Am I going crazy, or does the 35mm Zeiss Distagon have a better rendering than the FLE?

[28framelines]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So, I've been eyeing a fast 35mm option, and after looking through the entire 35mm shots thread, I'm convinced I like the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 Distagon ZM way more than the FLE. For example: 

 and 

There seems to be a busy-ness to the FLE's bokeh in a way that the Distagon just does not show/represent. The runner up in my eyes is the 35mm f2.8 C-Biogon for rendering transitions from in focus to not in focus, and I'm really starting to wonder: is this the Zeiss look? I feel like I'm supposed to like the Leica rendering more, but... I'm convinced the lens at 1/2 the price is the better lens. Am I the only one?

 

[28framelines]

Another set of shots:

Dare I say it? It seems to have the closest rendering to the Summilux AA:

 

[Advertisement]

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

[28framelines]

Even more: 

 

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

58 minutes ago, 28framelines said:

So, I've been eyeing a fast 35mm option, and after looking through the entire 35mm shots thread, I'm convinced I like the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 Distagon ZM way more than the FLE. For example: 

 and 

There seems to be a busy-ness to the FLE's bokeh in a way that the Distagon just does not show/represent. The runner up in my eyes is the 35mm f2.8 C-Biogon for rendering transitions from in focus to not in focus, and I'm really starting to wonder: is this the Zeiss look? I feel like I'm supposed to like the Leica rendering more, but... I'm convinced the lens at 1/2 the price is the better lens. Am I the only one?

 

35mm is my most used focal length.
The 35AA is my fav, followed by the 35ASPH preFLE, then the zm35 and finally the 35FLE 

Btw, I compared the ZM35 against the 35ASPH and 35FLE a few years ago, here is the link:

 

[jaeger]

No you are not crazy.  I can only say "I'm not surprised".  Personally I think VM does better job than many Leica glass. 

[raizans]

Not crazy one bit. The Distagon makes the smoothest bokeh of any fast 35mm I’ve seen with the aperture wide open.

[archive_all]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, 28framelines said:

So, I've been eyeing a fast 35mm option, and after looking through the entire 35mm shots thread, I'm convinced I like the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 Distagon ZM way more than the FLE. For example: 

 and 

There seems to be a busy-ness to the FLE's bokeh in a way that the Distagon just does not show/represent. The runner up in my eyes is the 35mm f2.8 C-Biogon for rendering transitions from in focus to not in focus, and I'm really starting to wonder: is this the Zeiss look? I feel like I'm supposed to like the Leica rendering more, but... I'm convinced the lens at 1/2 the price is the better lens. Am I the only one?

 

I think that's fairly well known. If you're okay with the size of the ZM I think it's a solid choice. Maybe the best 35 1.4 rendering out there?

@TheGodParticle/Hari posted comparison is one of the best I've seen between the three lenses. 

[Erato]

ISO 1600 1/90s F2.4, 35mm FLE, M11

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 March 10, 2022 by Erato

[padam]

Had the ZM, now have the FLE. They render a bit differently, maybe I like the FLE ever so slightly better for shooting people at closer distances with its wavy focus field, but it doesn't really matter, I could be happy with either one.

I am the sort of person who likes to pixel peep, but in practice, the handling difference is more substantial than the differences regarding image quality. Since I almost neve give these out to my relatives to shoot pictures of me, it is difficult to imagine what they are seeing, but I suppose the silver ring on the ZM attracts a bit more attention to itself.

[davidmknoble]

I am certain that this is another debate that has been worked through hard and will probably continue for some time to come.  I have the ZM 35 1.4 and the ZM 35 2.8, along with the M 35 1.4 FLE and the M 35 2.0 ASPH.  I have used the M 35 1.4 pre FLE and I would make the following observations (IMHO).

1. The M 35 1.4 pre FLE along with the M 35 2.0 ASPH (M 35 cron) have the most ‘film-like’ renditions to me and I love to shoot those with black and white film. The depth of the film brings the photos to life.

2. The ZM 35 2.8 reminds me of the M 28 2.8 ASPH - sharp detail with lower contrast, but good for street work.

3. The ZM 35 1.4  and the M 35 1.4 FLE are similar but I believe the ZM has a different color cast and the M is more neutral color.  I believe the ZM is more classical at the edges than the M and so the out of focus corners are a little harsher.  In the bokeh, I believe the ZM is softer in the finer details, but is harsher in the larger outlines, while the M is less smooth all over.

From an overall appearance I stil prefer the Leica as it is more pleasing to me at various distances, and overall at smaller f/stops (f/4 and 5.6) I prefer the overall image.

After tax time I’ll see if I can post some images…

[tom0511]

I once had a 35/1.4asph pre FLE. Even if the bokeh with the FLE can be a bit busy (in some situations)...what helps the smoothest bokeh if I can not focus a lens properly due to focus shift?

I dont own the 35/1.4 Zeiss but the 35FLE, 35Apo Summicron and once had the 35/2.5 (which has a very smooth rendering and bokeh).

If I didnt need f1.4 I would choose the Summarit.

I am a bit hesistent to choose wider non-Leica lenses for the M, because for color drift/corner correction its really usefull to have the coded Leica lenses.

Also I would not want a lens too big.

The FLE can sometimes show a little busy bokeh, but in most cases its just fine, its sharp, it focuses accurate, and is small size.  

[otto.f]

"better rendering"

I don't think you can say 'better', it's more a question of purpose and taste. I do not see any difference with these two 35's from Leica and Zeiss in how they have  always compared, so you're not crazy. The Zeiss showing  more smooth and harmonious rendering with very gradual almost unnoticeable evolution from sharp to unsharp. The Leica showing more bite and 'pop' with clearer distinctions between sharp and unsharp. This was the difference at least from the '80's on. So for portraits the Zeiss would be ideal and if you want microcontrast and structure in surfaces and Urbex locations for instance, the Leica would be your choice. The best lenses from Zeiss and Leica do not differ so much in MTF curves itself, but more in microcontrast.

Personally I'm not in search of THE least busy bo-keh, I like it a titillating and thus the FLE remains my friend.

Edited March 10, 2022 by otto.f

[archive_all]

1 hour ago, davidmknoble said:

I am certain that this is another debate that has been worked through hard and will probably continue for some time to come.  I have the ZM 35 1.4 and the ZM 35 2.8, along with the M 35 1.4 FLE and the M 35 2.0 ASPH.  I have used the M 35 1.4 pre FLE and I would make the following observations (IMHO).

1. The M 35 1.4 pre FLE along with the M 35 2.0 ASPH (M 35 cron) have the most ‘film-like’ renditions to me and I love to shoot those with black and white film. The depth of the film brings the photos to life.

2. The ZM 35 2.8 reminds me of the M 28 2.8 ASPH - sharp detail with lower contrast, but good for street work.

3. The ZM 35 1.4  and the M 35 1.4 FLE are similar but I believe the ZM has a different color cast and the M is more neutral color.  I believe the ZM is more classical at the edges than the M and so the out of focus corners are a little harsher.  In the bokeh, I believe the ZM is softer in the finer details, but is harsher in the larger outlines, while the M is less smooth all over.

From an overall appearance I stil prefer the Leica as it is more pleasing to me at various distances, and overall at smaller f/stops (f/4 and 5.6) I prefer the overall image.

After tax time I’ll see if I can post some images…

This is interesting. I don't have experience with the ZM lenses but have thought about moving away from the FLE at times. I think it's rendering on film is what keeps me from selling it though. The 'busier corner bokeh' seems smoother on film too.

[otto.f]

The big deal breaker for ZM lenses are the hoods, awfully unhandy, and shooting without hoods is a mortal sin for me. This Zeiss issue was less pregnant in the SLR times

[davidmknoble]

13 minutes ago, otto.f said:

The big deal breaker for ZM lenses are the hoods, awfully unhandy, and shooting without hoods is a mortal sin for me. This Zeiss issue was less pregnant in the SLR times

And the hoods are expensive and separate.

[28framelines]

4 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

I am certain that this is another debate that has been worked through hard and will probably continue for some time to come.  I have the ZM 35 1.4 and the ZM 35 2.8, along with the M 35 1.4 FLE and the M 35 2.0 ASPH.  I have used the M 35 1.4 pre FLE and I would make the following observations (IMHO).

1. The M 35 1.4 pre FLE along with the M 35 2.0 ASPH (M 35 cron) have the most ‘film-like’ renditions to me and I love to shoot those with black and white film. The depth of the film brings the photos to life.

2. The ZM 35 2.8 reminds me of the M 28 2.8 ASPH - sharp detail with lower contrast, but good for street work.

3. The ZM 35 1.4  and the M 35 1.4 FLE are similar but I believe the ZM has a different color cast and the M is more neutral color.  I believe the ZM is more classical at the edges than the M and so the out of focus corners are a little harsher.  In the bokeh, I believe the ZM is softer in the finer details, but is harsher in the larger outlines, while the M is less smooth all over.

From an overall appearance I stil prefer the Leica as it is more pleasing to me at various distances, and overall at smaller f/stops (f/4 and 5.6) I prefer the overall image.

After tax time I’ll see if I can post some images…

This is actually super helpful to me. I have the Leica 28mm Elmarit ASPH II, so I feel like as much as I’d want the jewel of a lens Zeiss 35mm c-Biogon, I have my street work mostly covered. I think optically, what I’d be looking for is more of that portrait work look, and sometimes (only sometimes, because my 28 lives on my camera) for walk-about/documenting life.

[28framelines]

4 hours ago, otto.f said:

"better rendering"

I don't think you can say 'better', it's more a question of purpose and taste. I do not see any difference with these two 35's from Leica and Zeiss in how they have  always compared, so you're not crazy. The Zeiss showing  more smooth and harmonious rendering with very gradual almost unnoticeable evolution from sharp to unsharp. The Leica showing more bite and 'pop' with clearer distinctions between sharp and unsharp. This was the difference at least from the '80's on. So for portraits the Zeiss would be ideal and if you want microcontrast and structure in surfaces and Urbex locations for instance, the Leica would be your choice. The best lenses from Zeiss and Leica do not differ so much in MTF curves itself, but more in microcontrast.

Personally I'm not in search of THE least busy bo-keh, I like it a titillating and thus the FLE remains my friend.

I definitely see that smooth harmonious rendering you’re talking about. I most definitely would be looking at this lens for portrait work, which is why it seems so appealing (I don’t have an additional 3k to spend Canadian on the FLE).

[28framelines]

On that note, does anyone have any experience with the 35mm Ultron II in terms of rendering and can share some examples? Does it compare at all to the Distagon in terms of rendering (obviously not light gathering potential).
 

Perhaps that would be a better EDC if the rendering is close enough, much cheaper, and much smaller.

I should note that for my purposes, I only shoot on film (Leica MP) and have no interest in buying a digital Leica, so “future-proofing when I make the switch to digital” is not something I care about or have a requirement for.

[mheine]

The Distagon is an outstanding glass, it is by far the best lens I have ever owned. The sharpness at f1.4 is amazing and beats my beloved Leica Q or GM / Zeiss lenses for the Sony System I used to own. The bokeh is super smooth - combined with the "3D pop" Zeiss lenses are known for - you get a very unique look. And what's super important: There's absolutely no focus shift at all, even when I adjust my RF for other lenses, the Distagon still focuses on point. This is by the way, next to the Ultron 35mm f2, the only M lens I had in use without any focus shift, even the Summilux FLE has focus shift at some apertures. The close-up rendering is also one of its own - there's just no difference when taking images from near distances - the lens just performs with every aperture at any distances. The flare resistance is also very high, I only had like 5 lens flares since I got the lens (over a year and highly usage).
The only downside is its size & weight which some not like - especially on a Leica M camera. I have to admit that sometimes it's an overkill to take the lens with me for example daily walks, that's why I would get two 35mm (if possible and you like the idea), one for daily carry and the Distagon when you want and need image perfection.
I had the Ultron (highly recommended as a "one lens only" lens) next to the Distagon for some time but sold it because they were too similar (sharp), so, I got myself the Nokton Classic again, to have a whole different - classical - rendering.

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[chasdfg]

9 hours ago, 28framelines said:

On that note, does anyone have any experience with the 35mm Ultron II in terms of rendering and can share some examples? Does it compare at all to the Distagon in terms of rendering (obviously not light gathering potential).
 

Perhaps that would be a better EDC if the rendering is close enough, much cheaper, and much smaller.

I should note that for my purposes, I only shoot on film (Leica MP) and have no interest in buying a digital Leica, so “future-proofing when I make the switch to digital” is not something I care about or have a requirement for.

I never had the two lenses (ZM 1.4 and Ultron f2) at the same time but IIRC, compared to the ZM 1.4,  the Ultron has swirlier bokeh, the rendering isn't as clean and it is more "characterful". The ZM is crisp. They're both modern optics and are sharp wide open (ZM would probably be sharper particularly if you stopped it down). Before the 35mm APO from Leica and VM came out, I always felt that the best 35mm to combine with a 50APO and 28 Summicron v2 would be the ZM 1.4. because of the look of the images.

You can check out samples of the Ultron f2 here:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/4585520@N20/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/26944379@N07/50392110308/in/pool-4585520@N20/ ->swirly bokeh (not shot by me). The ZM is a bit more controlled but I wouldn't say it is immune as it does suffer from mechanical vignetting as well (correct me if I'm wrong).

One thing which may be a dealbreaker is that the 35 Ultron II focuses to 0.58m and does not have a hard stop at 0.7m. On my M10M it appears I'm able to focus with the rangefinder till the minimum focusing distance, but usually fall back on live view for shots closer than 0.7m.

I sold the ZM because I found it too bulky as my EDC. Now I use the Ultron f2 almost all the time. The FLE looks huge side by side, though it is a stop faster. That said if you like the look of the ZM and want to use it for portraits, I'd just go for the ZM directly. You can use the 28 Elmarit for small lens stuff.

 

Edited March 11, 2022 by chasdfg