First 35, Zeiss Distagon ZM 1.4 or Voigtlander APO-LANTHAR 35mm F2 Aspherical?

[Dob3rman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Anyone compared these 2 lenses and which one do you prefer. Very hard to chose between the 2. 

• Both great build quality.
• Like the focus nub on the Zeiss. Voight is also very smooth and can see he benefit of no focus tab/nobb.
• Seems like will help with prefocusing and developing muscle memory.
• Both aperture ringes smooth.
• Zeiss is 1.4 vs Voigt 2.0.
• Zeiss 2x$. ($2,390 vs $1,149), Resale value? Dont know which will be better and not a huge decision criteria.
• Voigtlander being an APO lens, is it supposed to be better?
• Like the Zeiss pop, Vightlander slightly warmer.

Thanks for any feedback from users. Seems like both great lenses. 

[rramesh]

First set your criteria for selection e.g. usage, size, price etc.

In my case, I was looking for a compact and inexpensive 35mm that I could use for travel and street photography (this required tab focusing). I felt that an f/2 was sufficient for my M10-P. Bought the Voigtlander 35 f/2 Ultron II. No regrets.

[spydrxx]

I recently bought a secondhand CV Nokton 35/1.4ii at a really good price, but haven't had a chance to give it a real workout. So far mostly just trying it on my Sony, not yet on my M2. Seems to incorporate all the features I value. Still miss my old Summaron, but it was too costly to get another one.

[autograph]

I have 35mm Distagon and color skopar.

I love both. I use Skopar for street and Distagon for indoor (Night) and optical excellence.

[Robert Blanko]

I only have the Zeiss Distagon as my one and only 35 and don‘t have any experience with the Voigtländer.

If you plan to have only one 35, I would take the Distagon, as this is most universal. 1 stop is 1 stop is 1 stop and this can hardly be compensated by any f 2.0 lens, if you want to have the benefits associated with f 1.4.

[tri_fom]

I have had both, not as the same time and I do not own either now.

They are both incredibly good. This is a case of you can’t go wrong with either…
I cannot offer a direct comparison or an overall winner as they have different strengths/ drawbacks.

I think the Zeiss is better at what it does than the CV (at what it does). The CV 50 apo is better than the CV35. It’s when you compare those two lenses you can see the drawbacks of the CV35. 

The only con of the Zeiss is weight (oh and cost!) If the weight is no issue (I don’t think the CV35 is much lighter?) then I’d be tempted by the Zeiss - it is a true classic not sure the same will be said of the CV35 but (maybe) that isn’t important…

Edited May 23, 2022 by tri_fom
Grammar

[robb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the Zeiss.  Great bokeh and sharp.  So hard to go wrong.  I like voigtlander quality also and have a 50 Nokton.  I think both builds are really similar.  I’d rate Zeiss overall image quality, and ownership perfect in the 35 category and I bought it over going with an FLE Leica but image quality was the main reason rather than cost savings.

Robb

[Cobram]

I used to own Zeiss ZM 35 1.4. Great sharp lens but (as stated in other threads) I really like Leica rendering so Zeiss is for me a little bit too dull. Maybe strange statement but Zeiss was too harsh (sharp) for my taste. Size is OK, managable. 

I think that using Zeiss lenses on M body you lose those Leica colors... In this  case I think Sony A7xyz body + a Zeiss lens is a better investment.

[RexGig0]

With few responses being posted, thus far, I reckoned that I would add my thoughts, having used this ZM, but not this VM, thus far:

Regarding resale value, pre-owned ZM Distagon lenses seemed to sell, on the evil bay, for about $1600+ US, to ~$1800 US, pre-panic-demic, when I was looking for them. If I recall correctly, I paid ~$1800, perhaps closer to $1900, for a black one, that was like new. Zeiss lenses do not retain resale value as well as Leica M lenses, but, this one ZM lens was somewhat rare, on the pre-owned market, so, performed relatively well, from a seller’s viewpoint.

Large black-finished lenses can become really hot, to the touch, in Texas, in the summer sun. During a holiday-season promotion, as usually happens with Zeiss lenses, in North America, I bought the silver-tone version, new, from B&H. I had thought that I might sell or trade the black one, after confirming that the silver one was a good sample, but, occasionally, I like using both an M10, and an M Type 246 Monochrom, together, with lenses of the same focal length. Plus, I have become reluctant to part with any lens that performs well.

The focus nub on the ZM is small enough to be “out of the way,” but just large enough to be useful, if one likes using it as a reference.

The ZM is large, for an M-mount lens, but, I like lenses that are large enough to grip firmly, and had been conditioned to use SLR lenses, before adding the Leica M system, in 2018. In images that I have seen posted, on-line, it appears that this VM lens is almost as large as the ZM.

I was already accustomed to the “Zeiss Look,” before owning any Leica lenses, due to already having owned and used a few Zeiss SLR lenses. I also owned a few Voigtlander lenses, but there is no one “Voigtlander Look,” of which I am aware, so one must do the research, to see how each individual VM lens performs.

Cosina/Voigtlander has used the term “APO” freely and loosely, in the past, so, again, one must do the research. Some recent VM lenses are REALLY good.

A subscription to Lloyd Chambers’ site might be worth the modest financial investment, if considering a Zeiss lens. I did not pay for a subscription until after I had already bought my first Distagon 1,4/35mm ZM, but it helped guide me to avoid at least one other ZM lens, and to buy the 25mm ZM. (Notably, for ZM lenses, one subscribes to Lloyd Chambers’ Leica pages, not his Zeiss pages.)

Lloyd Chambers has reviewed a few VM lenses, though not the one being discussed, here. He is a harsh critic of ALL brands, and is not afraid to say that a ZM or VM lens performs well, compared to Leica M lenses.

Edited May 24, 2022 by RexGig0

[1joel1]

I also have the CV 50 APO as it is better than the 35. I went with the Leica ASPH 35mm lens. Used, the V1 is about $1800 and it is tiny and very good. If you're using an M10-R or M11, you might opt for the V2. I don't think you stated what camera you are using, If using Film, I would choose the faster Zeiss only if you need the f1.4. The other Zeiss f2, which I really like, should be a more equal comparison with the APO VC.

GL

[tommonego@gmail.com]

These are both large lenses, one of the advantages of Leica cameras is a 35mm that is around 30mm out from the camera body. I have 2, the one I would recommend is the Zeiss C-Biogon f2.8. In many ratings this lens is one of the top 35s for Leica. My other lens is a 35 f1.4 preasph Summilux I bought 40 years ago, also a nice lens but going for far too much money now. I think the small 35 is a great advantage of Leica cameras.   

[Dob3rman]

4 hours ago, 1joel1 said:

I also have the CV 50 APO as it is better than the 35. I went with the Leica ASPH 35mm lens. Used, the V1 is about $1800 and it is tiny and very good. If you're using an M10-R or M11, you might opt for the V2. I don't think you stated what camera you are using, If using Film, I would choose the faster Zeiss only if you need the f1.4. The other Zeiss f2, which I really like, should be a more equal comparison with the APO VC.

GL

Sorry. Yes. Camera would make a difference. M11 :)..