Advice wanted on 35mm + 50mm lenses

[JoshuaR]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I shoot an M2 with two lenses: the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 II SC and the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II SC. Before buying them, I used the Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar.

I like my lenses, but I don't love them. I bought them because they were small, and because I thought I wanted a vintage, expressive, glowy look to differentiate my film photographs from the ones I take with my digital cameras. But I think the pictures are a little too vintage. The images are a bit soft for my taste, and I should've bought multi-coated lenses to avoid flare. (These aren't value judgments—the lenses are excellent—it's really that my tastes have changed.) I mainly take pictures of my family, and I want my portraits to be a little more vivid and a little less dreamy. 

I don't have the budget for Leica glass, but I do have enough to sell these lenses and upgrade. My research is pointing me in two directions:

• The ZM Sonnar 50mm and ZM C Biogon 35mm f2.8
• The Voigtlander 35 f/2 Ultron and 50 f/2 APO Lanthar

Am I on the right track? Are these good choices? Does anyone have any perspectives on these lenses? On Zeiss, I wonder if what I really want is the Planar lens. Overall,, I'm tending towards the Voigtlanders, because I could afford to buy them new and they seem to be more technically perfect. (Also, the black paint finish will look nice if I ever manage to upgrade to an MP....)

Any insights will be much appreciated!

Edited May 20, 2022 by JoshuaRothman

[a.noctilux]

Hello Joshua,

I have since many years many 35mm and 50mm to choose from ( f/1 to f/3.5 wide open).

Depending on the film in use fast or slower film, I can choose fast or slower lenses.

So if you can try the 'cheap' (but very good for me) Summarit-M lens line.

 

Old(er to choose with care) Leitz/Leica lenses are not so expensive.

I have 2.5/35 and 2.5/50 (+ 2.5/75) my last goto lenses for film or digital.

Those Elmar/Summaron ( 3.5 old LTM Leitz lenses) are lovely old style but with characters of their own no other lens can do.

 

Anyway no ideal lens to do them all, we are lucky to have so many choices.

 

Arnaud

[pedaes]

Yes, these are good choices, the Zeiss Sonnar the weakest of the four in terms of performance.

All I can tell you is the Zeiss Biogon 35mm 2.8 is an excellent lens that holds it own against any Leica lens at f5.6, including the APO 35mm. As is the 50mm f2 Planar if you can live with f2 - equatable with f2 Summicron in performance, if a little more contrasty. Both these lenses are small with little viewfinder blockage.If you want new be quick, as they are out of production.

You will find many rave reviews of Voigtlander 50mm APO, but make sure you are comfortable with its size.

 

[Danner]

The C Biogon 35/2.8 is crystal clear and sharp in every respect, and will not disappoint.  Period.

For 50mm, I am very happy with the Summicrons (Type III, IV, and V are all excellent, IMHO).

[Viv]

I have the Zeiss Planar 50mm f./2. 

I find it to be excellent.

[cp995]

Ultron 2/35 VM is a great little lens.
The older f1.7 Ultron is better, but unfortunately discontinued.
I would prefer it over every 35mm lens, which Leica offers (except the APO Sumicron)

 

[cp995]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 1 Stunde schrieb pedaes:

... the Zeiss Sonnar the weakest of the four in terms of performance...

But for me still the best in terms of bokeh

[wda]

1 hour ago, a.noctilux said:

Hello Joshua,

...

So if you can try the 'cheap' (but very good for me) Summarit-M lens line.

 

...

Arnaud

Very many Summarit-M lens owners would disagree with this disparaging remark. They are truly excellent lenses and relatively affordable. You might be surprised.

[a.noctilux]

@JoshuaRothman

have a look in this thread of Summarit-M

 

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by a.noctilux

[spydrxx]

While I don't disagree with the above posters in terms of addressing your concerns of the limitations of your current lenses, I notice you do shoot digital. If funds are limited, I'd suggest trying a little post processing to alleviate your concerns before buying other lenses. Slightly enhancing contrast, and perhaps using something like Topaz Labs to sharpen weak or slightly blurry images can work wonders on images shot with vintage lenses or those producing vintage images. My suggestion doesn't eliminate GAS, but it can provide a respit and perhaps give you food for thought before jumping into a solution which isn't necessarily the only one for you.

[a.noctilux]

17 minutes ago, spydrxx said:

I notice you do shoot digital

M2 is digital ?

[Jeff S]

14 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

M2 is digital ?

First post, second paragraph.

Jeff

[bags27]

Just wondering if the MC versions of your two lenses would have made enough of an difference to your aesthetic taste.

I have both very modern and very old Leica glass. I tend to put my old glass on my M10 and new glass on my M4-P. That kinds of norms out the differences a bit, adjusting to modern sensibilities while acknowledging my more traditional taste.

[JoshuaR]

Thanks for all these replies! I won't reply individually, but they're all very helpful. The Summarit lenses are definitely on my radar; my main worry is that I found f/2.5 too slow a lot of my shooting when I used the Color-Skopar. (I take a lot of pictures indoors.) 

On post-processing: You're absolutely right, I shoot a Q2 in addition to the M2. I do find that a little sharpening gets me closer to what I want. I'm not rushing into any purchases, and I plan to sit on my current lenses for a while longer; I'll try and see if I can come up with a preset that closes the gap.

On MC vs SC: Yeah, I'm kind of regretting going with the SC lenses! I think I overdid it. My biggest source of unhappiness is flare and "glow." I like the way it looks in black and white, and when I bought the lenses I was mainly shooting black and white film. But I've ended up relying on color film quite a lot, too, and I don't like the washed-out color that veiling flare is sometimes creating. (Of course, it's also possible that I'm messing up my exposure, since I'm often shooting meterless.)

Thanks again for everyone's help!

[Jeff S]

35 Biogon is slower than the 35 Summarit (both versions are actually f/2.4). 
 

Jeff

[Life By Stills]

Hi @JoshuaRothman,

My reply will only be in relation to 35mm as I don't shoot 50mm - find it too cramped as I like shooting anywhere between 24mm and 35mm.

I don't know how much is half a stop going to be a deal breaker for you, but if you think the Summarit-M's 2.5 or 2.4 is too slow, is f/2 going to be okay? If f/2 is okay, I would suggest the Voigtländer 35mm f/2 Ultron. I got the Typ 1 Ultron as I found the Typ 2 had a bit of stiction on the copy I tried - other people reported the same. I got the Voigtländer because I found that it actually performed better than the Summicron-M 35mm f/2.

I don't know if this helps you, but I summarised my 35mm testing experience and why I went for the lens I chose. Linking for you in case it helps.

 

 

[cboy]

Although I consider the 35mm summarit for general photography including portraits, It wouldn't be my choice for exclusively family portrait photography. Preferably I'd go with the f1.4 to defocus background and isolate subject. So if you can hold out on the 35mm f1.4 Zeiss it's a stellar lens equally comparable to Leica FLE. Otherwise the TTartisans 35mm f1.4 would be the alternative for the meantime. The 35mm Zeiss C F2.8 is too sharp for portraits imo but in general the zm lens line has a warmer look which suits skin tones.

An alternative compact 50mm, which has more compression and I'd generally use for portraits would be the 50mm Elmar m f2.8 . However a 35mm f1.4 would be great environmental portraits.

Of course it's all a matter of preference. Horse s for courses

All the best

[Huss]

16 hours ago, JoshuaRothman said:

I shoot an M2 with two lenses: the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 II SC and the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II SC. Before buying them, I used the Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar.

I like my lenses, but I don't love them. I bought them because they were small, and because I thought I wanted a vintage, expressive, glowy look to differentiate my film photographs from the ones I take with my digital cameras. But I think the pictures are a little too vintage. The images are a bit soft for my taste, and I should've bought multi-coated lenses to avoid flare. (These aren't value judgments—the lenses are excellent—it's really that my tastes have changed.) I mainly take pictures of my family, and I want my portraits to be a little more vivid and a little less dreamy. 

I don't have the budget for Leica glass, but I do have enough to sell these lenses and upgrade. My research is pointing me in two directions:

• The ZM Sonnar 50mm and ZM C Biogon 35mm f2.8
• The Voigtlander 35 f/2 Ultron and 50 f/2 APO Lanthar

Am I on the right track? Are these good choices? Does anyone have any perspectives on these lenses? On Zeiss, I wonder if what I really want is the Planar lens. Overall,, I'm tending towards the Voigtlanders, because I could afford to buy them new and they seem to be more technically perfect. (Also, the black paint finish will look nice if I ever manage to upgrade to an MP....)

Any insights will be much appreciated!

Are you sure your focus is correct/rangefinder is properly calibrated?  I have both those lenses (as well as Leica Summiluxes, Zeiss 35s and 50s etc) and they are sharp at 1.5 for the 50 and 1.4 for the 35.  Nothing dreamy about them, and my CV 50 1.5 vII is the single coated version.  The interior shots were with the 50 1.5 and you can see how it handles the flare.

Selection with those lenses:

 

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!

[TomB_tx]

I really like the VC Nokton 35 1.4 II lens, but agree it isn't as sharp as some others. The 2.5 Summarit is my favorite 35, but I find the Biogon 35 f2.0 is also excellent - but a bit larger than I like. I don't have the Ultron f2 - but would like to add it sometime. I used a v2 Summicron 35 for decades, but on digital find it softer wide open - about like the Nokton ver 1 at 1.4

For 50 mm the Planar and Summicron ('68 & newer) are about equal, with the Planar higher contrast and better for flare. I also use an older Nokton 1.5 ( ver 1 MC ltm mount) which gives very nice results.

I agree about checking the focus calibration if your lenses seem a bit soft. I was disappointed in my f2.0 Biogon when I first got it, until I had DAG calibrate the focus, which made a significant difference. Overall I've found the VC lenses to be about the best calibrated for focus from the factory.  (I know - the Biogon came from the same factory, but Zeiss may have calibrated for f2.8 due to focus shift.)

Edited May 21, 2022 by TomB_tx

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

On 5/20/2022 at 1:05 PM, JoshuaRothman said:

I shoot an M2 with two lenses: the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 II SC and the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 II SC. [...]. The images are a bit soft for my taste, and I should've bought multi-coated lenses to avoid flare. [...] I don't have the budget for Leica glass, but [...] Overall,, I'm tending towards the Voigtlanders. [...]

Then you know the answer already, or almost so. CV 35/1.4 MC v2 and CV 50/1.5 MC v2. For more acutance i.e. mode details visible on your mother in law's skin  i would go for f/2 at Cosina's i.e.  CV 35/2 asph and CV 50/2 apo. The latter is a larger lens though.