Zeiss Distagon 35mm F1.4 ZM vs Voigtlander Nokton 35mm F1.2 iii

[Craig Clark]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey folks, I've searched the forum and haven't found a direct comparison, so my apologies if this has been covered before (someone reply with a link).  I am wanting to add an M mount 35 to my SL2-S kit - mainly for environmental portraiture.  I am not currently in a position to purchase a Summilux, so I have narrowed it down to 2 non-Leica lenses; the zeiss distagon 35 F1.4 ZM and the newest Voigtlander Nokton 35mm F1.2 (gen iii).  

Can any of you tell me which would be better for portraiture and render most closely to Leica glass?  I should add that size and weight aren't a factor....the only other lens I have for my SL2-S is the 50mm Summilux SL and compared to that, both of these lenses are small.  

Any input would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks in advance.  

[robb]

I owned the zm.  I only sold it because I bought the apo 35 SL 35

nothing but great images out of the Zeiss.

Robb

[Advertisement]

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

[Sohail]

The ZM is a fantastic lens. It renders beautifully and complements the 50mm Summilux SL very well. It's been consistently rated by Lloyd Chambers as the best M-mount lens.

And BTW I'm selling mine because it gets very little usage. The Q2 trumps it for me.  DM if you're interested! 

[Ba Erv]

I weighed the attributes of all three of the M lenses you mentioned.   For me the VM 35mm f1.2 III won the contest.  

[astrostl]

I own both. For portraiture alone I would give a slight nod to the VM, but for overall (inc. portraiture) I'd give a heavy nod to the ZM. I also hate it when focus rings go below 0.7m without any kind of hard stop, so consider that a point of pickiness.

[sometimesmaybe]

@Craig Clark i can only speak about the CV35 f1.2 v3

this lens has a very interesting rendering wide open. shooting at less than 1m, the images has a glow about them. it's easily sharp enough (wide open) for portraits. it does vignette wide open, but that doesn't bother me for portraits. i have no idea re colour or CA etc as i only use it on the m246

there is some uneven distortions, but nothing noticeable in real life use. it's also more compact and lighter than the earlier versions.

i've included a few images shot wide open

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!

[hossegor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

the ZM is an amazing lens, i can totally recommend it 

[jimmielx]

I only own the ZM. As others have said it's fantastic. It provides lovely separation, bokeh that is a smooth as you could wish for, sharp yet smooth rendering, lovely fall off, hardly any flare (don't have a hood, I've never had flare), images that leave nothing to be desired. I find the Distagon has the smoothest focus operation of any rangefinder lens I've used, it is perfectly dampened so that accurate focusing is very possible despite having a modest focus throw - it is however quite a heavy focus, you cannot zip from infinity to MFD super fast as you would with a smaller lens. Also worth noting that it is internally focusing, so it does not get longer as you focus closer.

I haven't used the Leica Summilux, so I don't have personal experience of it's rendering compared to the Zeiss, however Summilux photographs I have seen online sometimes show a busier bokeh than I would expect to see with the Distagon.

Another difference I note, the Voigtlander focuses down to 0.5m, the Zeiss to 0.7m.

The Zeiss doesn't have the kind of characteristics mentioned above at closer focus distances and I don't believe it has much in the way of distortion, although it too vignettes wide open. So I think this is where the main difference lies - more character in certain circumstances go for the Voigtlander, 'better' optical performance go for the Zeiss. Certainly the environmental portraits shown above by @sometimesmaybe make a very compelling case for the Voigtlander for the use you describe, although I too would have no problem recommending the Distagon. Good luck!

[RexGig0]

I would not fret about being unable to afford or justify a Summilux-M 35mm lens. After adding the Leica M system, I initially thought that I might concentrate on 50mm lenses, and remain faithful to the Leica brand, but, eventually, I realized that a 35mm lens would be nice to have. This is the you-tube video that first prompted me to start looking into the Distagon 35mm f/1,4 ZM:

Of course, I would not base such an important buying decision upon one you-tube presentation. I did further internet research. Then, in order to get a lower price than buying new, I bid on an “evil bay” auction, that started at a relatively low opening price. This would allow me to try the lens for longer than the typical rental period, and recover most of my cost, if I did not like it, by selling it to another shooter, or trading it for credit, it at a local camera store. Well, I really learned to love the Distagon, a sharp, “modern” lens, with bokeh that is wonderful, to my eyes.

Here is another you-tube presentation, with comparative images, and detailed thoughts from the photographer, on the differences. This one did not influence my decision to buy the Distagon, as it appeared after the fact:

Notably, I already had some familiarity with Zeiss SLR lenses, the ZE and ZF.2 versions of the Sonnar 135mm f/2 APO, and actually bought a Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1,4 ZF.2 the same day that I bought my pre-owned, well-preserved Summilux-M 50mm ASPH and my new M10, in 2018, to begin my Leica M “journey.” (That is an over-used word, no?) I scuttled plans to acquire a Nikon 600mm f/4 super-telephoto lens, for the pursuit of bird images, so, actually spent less to add the Leica M system, and acquire a truly excellent SLR lens, than would have been the cost of the enormous, heavy “exotic/super-telephoto.”

To be clear, my point is that one does not “need” a Leica-brand Summilux-M 35mm lens, unless its optical imperfections are desired, for an artistic purpose. Yes, some criticize some Zeiss lenses for being too perfectly optically corrected. I understand the desire for using some optical aberrations for artistic purposes, but I do not need to have “character” lenses at 35mm, being content to use some few lenses with notable “character,” and otherwise use “modern” lenses.

I am not meaning to slight the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.2 III lens that is also the subject of this discussion. I simply have to experience with it.

I have two Voigtlander Noktons that I really do like, the 50/1.0 VM and the 21/1.4 VM, acquired last year. Before I added the Leica M system, I was using Nikon-mount 90mm, 58mm, and 20mm Voigtlander SL II lenses. So, I am not meaning to talk trash about Voigtlander lenses. Cosina uses the Voigtlander name, by license agreement, and is also the maker of all but one of the Zeiss ZM lenses, (Distagon 15mm f/2.8 ZM,) anyway, so Cosina knows how to make good lenses.

Edited May 4, 2023 by RexGig0

[Craig Clark]

Thanks so much for the input guys...I now realize that I need both 🤣

I decided to buy the distagon...I will post some pics once it arrives!  

[Huss]

I can completely recommend the ZM Distagon 35 for a camera like the SL (or other mirrorless cameras).

I shoot with Leica Ms however, and the size really intrudes into the VF which is why I never use it.  Here are my 35s lined up (ok the Lomo is a 32) to give you a size comparison.

The Distagon is on the far left, the Summilux FLE on the far right.

But again - for a mirrorless/EVF camera?  No problem.

 

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]

The Distagon ZM is a large lens, relatively, but is not heavy. I started Leica M shooting with a Summilux-M 50mm ASPH, which is certainly not “compact.” I have actually come to favor M lenses with some size and heft, because my left hand is aging more gracefully than my right, so, it is comfortable and convenient to use the lens barrel as the camera’s “grip.” Plus, if the lens tends to make make camera droop in the front, if worn on a strap, I can simply move the camera into a lens-downward orientation, which is nicely comfortable, for me. (I wear my strap over the right shoulder, so that the camera hangs below my left arm.)

[BastianK]

I had both, still have VM 35mm 1.2 III.
If you care about speed and bokeh get the VM 35mm 1.2 III.
If you care more about wide open sharpness with the subject off-center try to find a used VM 35mm 1.7.

Some environmental portrait samples with the 35mm 1.7:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bastian_k/35573048700/in/album-72157682672829375/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bastian_k/37286348471/in/album-72157682672829375/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bastian_k/43734949394/in/album-72157682672829375/

ZM 35mm 1.4 is simply too big and too heavy as a 35mm lens on M-mount cameras,
now you are uisng an SL camera so you may have a different opinion about this.
Nevertheless, it is not 2014 anymore (when the ZM 35mm 1.4 had been released) and a lot has happened since then.
If it wasn't for the Zeiss tag I am not sure anyone would still consider it a viable alternative.

Edited May 7, 2023 by BastianK

[pptmstr]

I can't recommend the ZM 35/1.4 enough, it is one of the most amazing lenses I have used. It is tack sharp wide open, even close-up. It is so sharp wide open that on my M10-R I can crop to the equivalent of a 75mm without any apparent resolution / detail loss. The bokeh is smooth and beautiful. The render has fantastic 3d pop, like no other, perhaps only the Summilux. Top notch construction and zero flare. It is truly a marvel of engineering with it's 2 aspherical lenses and floating elements. 

It is simply not too big, this information is unfortunately propagated through the internet perpetually and it is just a personal opinion, not fact.

This Distagon delivers. Every. Single. Time.

It is absolutely a viable alternative.

[TomB_tx]

5 minutes ago, pptmstr said:

It is simply not too big, this information is unfortunately propagated through the internet perpetually and it is just a personal opinion, not fact.

"Too Big" is an inherently subjective evaluation. influenced by factors like size and dexterity of your hands, history with cameras, and what image characteristics you value. If you value image quality (by whatever criteria you choose) above all else, no lens is too big, and the ZM 35 Distagon has great performance.

I started in the Leica ltm (IIIf) era, and at first even thought the Leica M3 body was too big; but finally decided its advantages were worth the size. Then for 40+ years used the tiny Summicron 35 v2 as my favorite 35 lens; so even the current Summilux 35 Asph lenses seem too big to me. I also tried the ZM 35 f2.0 and liked the performance, but found it to be too big. I now find the Summarit 35 f2.5 (and 50 f2.5) to be my favorite M10 lenses, and use the VM 35 f1.4 II on my M9, largely for the size / performance of all of them.

For SLR use in the late 1970s I even went from the Leicaflex SL to Pentax MX (and its tiny lenses) even though I admired the Leicaflex as a mechanical marvel. The MX even made the M Leica bodies seem large.

[Huss]

2 hours ago, pptmstr said:

 

It is simply not too big, this information is unfortunately propagated through the internet perpetually and it is just a personal opinion, not fact.

 

Exhibit A your Honour.

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!

[pptmstr]

Thank you for the exhibit  My point is that its size is highly subjective and but then it is taken as objective once propagated through the internets. I am just trying to let potential users know to trust their own opinions when it comes to size rather than trusting someone else who is, well, someone else with their own subjective opinions. There are objective aspects to lens reviews, this is not one of them, imho of course.

I'll see myself out, I know it's not a popular opinion, but I stand by it.

Luv y'all.

[UliWer]

My point is that the size of an elephant compared to a mouse is highly subjective and but then it is taken as objective once propagated through the internets. I am just trying to let potential users know to trust their own opinions when it comes to size rather than trusting someone else who is, well, someone else with their own subjective opinions. There are objective aspects to animal reviews, this is not one of them, imho of course.

[jonnyboy]

Huge fan of the Distagon as well, a true beauty.
Let's put it this way: the lens it is a bit big/heavy compared to other Leica lenses BUT, it gets the job done. It's not the typical lens I would pick for a stroll and shoot some picture (I got the Nokton 1.4 for that) but definitely the type of lens I pick when I'm on a job or simply need that extra quality.
Excellent on a Monochrom body, excellent on SL2 body and even more excellent on M6.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pptmstr]

1 hour ago, UliWer said:

My point is that the size of an elephant compared to a mouse is highly subjective and but then it is taken as objective once propagated through the internets. I am just trying to let potential users know to trust their own opinions when it comes to size rather than trusting someone else who is, well, someone else with their own subjective opinions. There are objective aspects to animal reviews, this is not one of them, imho of course.

Thanks for the sas ... I don't get it, but I'm sure someone appreciates it.

TBH, what was I even thinking commenting on a Leica thread. I love my Leicas but boy this world is unfriendly. Sad ...