Fast 35mm lens for SL2 - Voigtlander or Zeiss (or other)?

[Ken8]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello, I will apologise in advance as I realise this is yet another of the "which lens should I buy" questions. I almost did not post however I value your input so thought I would reach out...

I recently purchased an SL2 and have been using this with my Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 (version 1) I purchased to use with my M9. I will keep this as a character lens but also need a 'cleaner' 35mm lens.

I have narrowed this down (I think) to the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 viii and the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4. I am not a professional but do occasionally sell landscape prints and hope to do a little more of that in due course. I also travel a lot, primarily with a 35 and 50mm and I am not too worried about the size of the Zeiss, which I have heard mentioned many times.

I had decided on the Voigtlander however every thing I read and hear about the Zeiss makes me think again. I have seen many images from both and while they both look amazing, the Zeiss does seem to have that 'pop' that is mentioned so often.

I very much like the idea that the Voitlander is soft at 1.2 and I also like vignetting and character. I believe this becomes sharp corner to corner as you close it down and all this suggests this may be the better option for me. I still have a Zongyi Mitakon 35mm f/0.95 on a Fujifilm X-T2 which I love due to its imperfections however I also appreciate the clarity and perfection of the Zeiss.

I must have read everything I can by now on both lenses but have no way of testing either so I just wanted to reach out and ask how people get on either lens when photographing landscapes/travel/family shots/etc. and/or as a daily carry lens? I am 60/40 swayed towards the Voigtlander at present.

I thought about a Summilux and while I have not completely ruled this out that will need to be further down the line.

Many thanks

[Advertisement]

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

[skybolt]

Hello, I have to get it translated.
The Summilux-m 1.4/35mm FLE is a good lens across the entire image area, the Zeiss ZM 1.4/35mm is significantly better in the center area. Since I had both, I would buy the Zeiss today.

[Archiver]

On 8/28/2024 at 6:42 AM, Ken8 said:

I recently purchased an SL2 and have been using this with my Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 (version 1) I purchased to use with my M9. I will keep this as a character lens but also need a 'cleaner' 35mm lens.

I have narrowed this down (I think) to the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 viii and the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4. I am not a professional but do occasionally sell landscape prints and hope to do a little more of that in due course. I also travel a lot, primarily with a 35 and 50mm and I am not too worried about the size of the Zeiss, which I have heard mentioned many times.

I had decided on the Voigtlander however every thing I read and hear about the Zeiss makes me think again. I have seen many images from both and while they both look amazing, the Zeiss does seem to have that 'pop' that is mentioned so often.

I very much like the idea that the Voitlander is soft at 1.2 and I also like vignetting and character. I believe this becomes sharp corner to corner as you close it down and all this suggests this may be the better option for me. I still have a Zongyi Mitakon 35mm f/0.95 on a Fujifilm X-T2 which I love due to its imperfections however I also appreciate the clarity and perfection of the Zeiss.

I must have read everything I can by now on both lenses but have no way of testing either so I just wanted to reach out and ask how people get on either lens when photographing landscapes/travel/family shots/etc. and/or as a daily carry lens? I am 60/40 swayed towards the Voigtlander at present.

I use the Nokton 35/1.4, Distagon 35 and Nokton 35/1.2 v1 on my SL2S. The Zeiss is incredible, beating any other 24-50mm lens that I've tried in terms of sharpness, contrast, colour, 3D pop and bokeh. I haven't tried the later Leica Summilux versions, but it's difficult to imagine how much better they could be than the Distagon. The closest is the Summicron M 50: the way the Distagon renders reminds me of the Summicron but with added contrast, sharpness and bite.

As you know the Nokton 35/1.4 is quite glowy wide open. The v1 of the Nokton f1.2 is very glowy wide open, but I've read and seen that the v3 is cleaner, but not super clean. The Distagon wide open is razor sharp on M and SL bodies. If you want wide open glow, the Distagon is not for you. For me, it is perfect.

As an everyday carry lens, the size of the Nokton 35/1.4 is preferable, but the Distagon's image quality makes it extremely attractive. Surprisingly, it is a few grams heavier than the autofocus Summicron 35 SL ASPH, even though it is smaller and lacks autofocus. For landscapes, travel and family, the Distagon is amazing, but again, if you want some glow, you won't find it with the Distagon.

Having said all of this, I often use the Summicron 35 SL (non APO) because of the autofocus and much shorter minimum focus distance. I like to be able to take photos of food when sitting, something the Distagon can't easily do without a close focus adapter or leaning back from the table. Autofocus makes the SL2S much more snappy than manual, certainly when shooting wide open or even at f2-2.8. By image quality only, the Distagon wins. For convenience and minimum focus distance, Summicron 35 SL.