Voigtlander vs Leica 35 mm

[Howling Dick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’ve just acquired my first M - an M11 monochrom and have to choose a 35mm lens.

The Voigtlander is 1/3 rd of the price! 
will I really see that kind of difference?

[Advertisement]

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

[sinjun]

Which Voigtlander and which Leica 35s did you have in mind? Spending more money on a lens generally yields diminishing returns, though those returns might be important to you.

[osaf]

Well ... both, Voigtländer and Leica, produce different 35mm lenses with different characteristics. You will not get a general answer. 

[kiwidad]

2 hours ago, Howling Dick said:

I’ve just acquired my first M - an M11 monochrom and have to choose a 35mm lens.

The Voigtlander is 1/3 rd of the price! 
will I really see that kind of difference?

I just got a 35 summilux asph and had its focus recalibrated at DAG. It was tuned to f4 when I got it and Don did the magic on it and my M10M loves it. I have previously owned Voigtlanders and they all performed nicely but just not like the summilux. 

[Howling Dick]

7 hours ago, sinjun said:

Which Voigtlander and which Leica 35s did you have in mind? Spending more money on a lens generally yields diminishing returns, though those returns might be important to you.

Thanks for replying - the 2 lenses Im offered are 

Voigtlander ULTRON Vintage Line 35mm F2 Aspherical VM II 

Summicron M35 f/2 ASPH

 

[Howling Dick]

7 hours ago, osaf said:

Well ... both, Voigtländer and Leica, produce different 35mm lenses with different characteristics. You will not get a general answer. 

Appreciate your reply

 the 2 lenses Im offered are 

Voigtlander ULTRON Vintage Line 35mm F2 Aspherical VM II 

Summicron M35 f/2 ASPH

[skahde]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a tough decision. I had a summicron v4 twenty years ago and now own the Ultron you mentioned above. I would prefer the Cron for sentimental reasons (used it on our honeymoon-vacation) only as I think the Ultron is just as sharp and and has very pleasing character, slightly different but on a comparable level. Current inflated prices for the Cron is not refecting what it is. I cant help with a comparison to the Lux Asph but the Ultron is a very nice lens in its own right. 

[Ko.Fe.]

9 hours ago, Howling Dick said:

I’ve just acquired my first M - an M11 monochrom and have to choose a 35mm lens.

The Voigtlander is 1/3 rd of the price! 
will I really see that kind of difference?

Awesome camera!

From my experience with Cosina made 35 in M, LTM mount it is better to choose lenses with aspherical elements. 

Surprisenly, they render well on BW.

For Lieca made, best lens i ever had for bw is Summarit-M 35 2.5.

Very nice build as well. Still compact with its hood as well.

Should be fine on M11M. And no as overpriced as else from Leica. 

Don't go for big lenes, they protruding too much to VF, it is ruining Leica framelines experience. 

[osaf]

1 hour ago, Howling Dick said:

the 2 lenses Im offered are 

Voigtlander ULTRON Vintage Line 35mm F2 Aspherical VM II 

Summicron M35 f/2 ASPH

I had not yet the chance to test the 'cron 35/2 Asph, but I own and use the Ultron 35/2 Asph and I love it: The optical performance is excellent and the characteristic is fantastic. I have bought the lens as a "starter" / first lens, re-selling it later in mind. But I will keep it because I love it. I guess you would not make a mistake to start with the Ultron. Testing the 'cron and swap the lenses later is always an option. 

[Howling Dick]

1 hour ago, skahde said:

This is a tough decision. I had a summicron v4 twenty years ago and now own the Ultron you mentioned above. I would prefer the Cron for sentimental reasons (used it on our honeymoon-vacation) only as I think the Ultron is just as sharp and and has very pleasing character, slightly different but on a comparable level. Current inflated prices for the Cron is not refecting what it is. I cant help with a comparison to the Lux Asph but the Ultron is a very nice lens in its own right. 

Thank you.

im erring towards the Ultron the only thing is people talk about “the Leica look” on the Summilux. Not shooting colour with it atm 

[Howling Dick]

36 minutes ago, osaf said:

I had not yet the chance to test the 'cron 35/2 Asph, but I own and use the Ultron 35/2 Asph and I love it: The optical performance is excellent and the characteristic is fantastic. I have bought the lens as a "starter" / first lens, re-selling it later in mind. But I will keep it because I love it. I guess you would not make a mistake to start with the Ultron. Testing the 'cron and swap the lenses later is always an option. 

Thank you

probably the way to go to start - could afford a 70 to go with it and still have lots of change👍

[Howling Dick]

1 hour ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Awesome camera!

From my experience with Cosina made 35 in M, LTM mount it is better to choose lenses with aspherical elements. 

Surprisenly, they render well on BW.

For Lieca made, best lens i ever had for bw is Summarit-M 35 2.5.

Very nice build as well. Still compact with its hood as well.

Should be fine on M11M. And no as overpriced as else from Leica. 

Don't go for big lenes, they protruding too much to VF, it is ruining Leica framelines experience. 

Thanks

interestng what you say about the Leica and b &w. I’ve tried the Ultron but was expecting deeper blacks - maybe it’s all in the post processing?

Edited June 21 by Howling Dick
Spelling

[Howling Dick]

Basically, I love my Q2 mono but acquired the M11 to hopefully get even more striking images

any tips?

[ramarren]

I have M10-M and M10-R bodies, and use a 1972 Summilux 35mm f/1.4 and a 2015 Voigtländer Color-Skopar 35mm f/2.5 with them. These two lenses both produce lovely results, but they are very very different in how they render the images. So which is better than the other? I don't know, it depends on what I'm trying to achieve. 

Compared to a modern Summicron 35 f/2 or ULTRON 35 f/2 ASPH II ... I have no idea. Every lens design produces slightly different results, and how they interact with specific bodies/sensors ... well, the only way to know for sure is to get one and work with it. 

I'm pretty confident that neither of the two lenses you have in mind will produce poor results...  Produce "more striking results than your Q2 mono" ... Well, that's completely up to you, not the cameras.

G

[Howling Dick]

3 hours ago, ramarren said:

I have M10-M and M10-R bodies, and use a 1972 Summilux 35mm f/1.4 and a 2015 Voigtländer Color-Skopar 35mm f/2.5 with them. These two lenses both produce lovely results, but they are very very different in how they render the images. So which is better than the other? I don't know, it depends on what I'm trying to achieve. 

Compared to a modern Summicron 35 f/2 or ULTRON 35 f/2 ASPH II ... I have no idea. Every lens design produces slightly different results, and how they interact with specific bodies/sensors ... well, the only way to know for sure is to get one and work with it. 

I'm pretty confident that neither of the two lenses you have in mind will produce poor results...  Produce "more striking results than your Q2 mono" ... Well, that's completely up to you, not the cameras.

G

Yes you’re right , perhaps striking was the wrong word🤔maybe rendering would have been better.

maybe look at old lenses?

R

 

[sinjun]

If you are after more characterful rendering you might consider the Voigtländer 35mm Nokton Classic, which has the added advantage of being cheap, or the similar Leica 35mm Summilux pre-asph. Alternatively, if you want cheap (relatively) and Leica, the 40mm Summicron-c, a lens with a very pleasant old-school rendering wide open. 35mm M mount lenses constitute a vast subject area.

[Stuart Richardson]

16 hours ago, Howling Dick said:

Thanks

interestng what you say about the Leica and b &w. I’ve tried the Ultron but was expecting deeper blacks - maybe it’s all in the post processing?

When you say deeper blacks, I guess you mean darker? Or do you mean more shadow detail? Older lenses tend to have lower contrast, they will make you blacks greyer, rather than darker. They might increase shadow detail, but that is because stray light is bouncing around inside the lens and exposing your shadows more. Generally, the "better" the lens, the higher the contrast...perfect contrast would be just reproducing the light in the world with no loss. The closest lenses to this in M mount are the APO Summicrons and APO Lanthars. You pay for that with either price or size. Ko.Fe. is right that on a rangefinder, a big 35mm lens is going to intrude a lot into the framelines. Some don't mind, some do. But if you want the best possible performance and don't want to spend 10,000 dollars on the 35mm APO Summicron, that is what you probably have to do. The left field alternative would be the 35mm 2.8 Biogon ZM, which is super compact and high sharpness. But if you are not doing photos that need the edges tack sharp from wide open, all of these lenses will be good performers. Choosing one is about picking the right combination of size, price and speed.

But if you just want more contrast, you can add essentially infinite contrast with digital. So that is a trivial thing to do in post-processing.

Edited June 22 by Stuart Richardson

[Howling Dick]

33 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

When you say deeper blacks, I guess you mean darker? Or do you mean more shadow detail? Older lenses tend to have lower contrast, they will make you blacks greyer, rather than darker. They might increase shadow detail, but that is because stray light is bouncing around inside the lens and exposing your shadows more. Generally, the "better" the lens, the higher the contrast...perfect contrast would be just reproducing the light in the world with no loss. The closest lenses to this in M mount are the APO Summicrons and APO Lanthars. You pay for that with either price or size. Ko.Fe. is right that on a rangefinder, a big 35mm lens is going to intrude a lot into the framelines. Some don't mind, some do. But if you want the best possible performance and don't want to spend 10,000 dollars on the 35mm APO Summicron, that is what you probably have to do. The left field alternative would be the 35mm 2.8 Biogon ZM, which is super compact and high sharpness. But if you are not doing photos that need the edges tack sharp from wide open, all of these lenses will be good performers. Choosing one is about picking the right combination of size, price and speed.

But if you just want more contrast, you can add essentially infinite contrast with digital. So that is a trivial thing to do in post-processing.

Thanks Stuart

i think it’s deeper blacks which seem to be better on Summicron. The one I’m looking at is £3k new so I’m assuming that APO rather than ASPH is where the big bucks go. At the moment my budget won’t extend to that.

as it is I could also buy a couple of additional Voightlander lenses rather to than go with the one Leica bbut but something telling me I need the quality but then again maybe I’m just blinded by marketing? 
Richard

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ramarren]

18 hours ago, Howling Dick said:

Thanks

interestng what you say about the Leica and b &w. I’ve tried the Ultron but was expecting deeper blacks - maybe it’s all in the post processing?

While different lenses have different native contrast, most of that is completely adjustable with appropriate rendering in post. I always go for maximum detail in capture rather than best contrast ... You can always increase contrast, but you can't put back detail that wasn't captured.

G

[Howling Dick]

Thats great advice

seems like the sensors more important for digital then?

Richard