Do you miss a ZM 35mm f1.4?

[semilog]

So you're saying Zeiss couldn't make a better 35/1.4? I believe they could. In some ways the Nokton 35/1.2 is better than the Summilux ASPH for a fraction of the price. I also think the new ZF/ZE will be the best 35/1.4 made to date. CV/Zeiss have proven their abilities and I have no reason to doubt them.

Zeiss could make a different lens, possibly a less expensive one. I seriously doubt that they could make a better fast 35. The Nokton undeniably has characteristics that people like, but it's not better-corrected, higher resolution, or smaller than the 1.4 ASPH, and it is unlikely that a ZM 35/1.4 would have properties so substantially better than either of these lenses that it would represent a major step forward.

 

[horosu]

Semilog,

I had both versions of the ASPH. Sean Reid also reviews them on his websites and compares the Luxes the Nokton. The CV lens doesn't have focus shift (both of the Leica versions have), and is way sharper in the centre of the frame than Leica's lenses having substantially more resolution at the intended point-of-focus.

It's only drawback was size.

So, yes, I think there is room for improvement versus the 'Luxes.

I can also post comparative shots of the NEW Summilux 35/1.4 FLE to Zeiss Biogon 35/2 but this would most likely start a war.....

 

[semilog]

I can also post comparative shots of the NEW Summilux 35/1.4 FLE to Zeiss Biogon 35/2 but this would most likely start a war.....

Oh, please... oh, please....

😉

 

[leicashot]

IMHO, Zeiss can make a better lens than the 35/1.4 in terms of wide open resolution and size. I hope I'm right 😀

Semilog,

I had both versions of the ASPH. Sean Reid also reviews them on his websites and compares the Luxes the Nokton. The CV lens doesn't have focus shift (both of the Leica versions have), and is way sharper in the centre of the frame than Leica's lenses having substantially more resolution at the intended point-of-focus.

It's only drawback was size.

So, yes, I think there is room for improvement versus the 'Luxes.

I can also post comparative shots of the NEW Summilux 35/1.4 FLE to Zeiss Biogon 35/2 but this would most likely start a war.....

 

[MCTuomey]

I can also post comparative shots of the NEW Summilux 35/1.4 FLE to Zeiss Biogon 35/2 but this would most likely start a war.....

C'mon, that's so wrong. Post, and we'll behave.

 

[MCTuomey]

We'll see how the ZE/ZF version of the 35/1.4 is received shortly. It looks like Lloyd Chambers will have one to review later this month. If the ZE 35/1.4 is to the ZE 35/2 as the ZE 50/1.4 is to the ZE 50/2, I'm not sure it'll be worth the trip. At least my budget would like to think so.

 

[leicashot]

C'mon, that's so wrong. Post, and we'll behave.

I once compared the Nokton 1.2 to the Lux ASPH in Leica''s customer forum and barely made it out with shrapnel in my back

 

[newghost]

a ZM 35/1.4 will bridge the gap between lux 35 and c/v 35... the difference in pricing between these two is just heaven and earth so a mid level zm 35/1.4 even 2 x the price of a c/v 35/1.4 will see a lot of interest...

 

[Krosya]

Only 1000 of the M-Hexanon 35/2.0 were made and they can be found often as well. rare indeed, not.

I have never heard that only 1000 M-Hexanons 35/2 were ever made. Now, UC-Hexanons 35/2 were limited production. And they are rather rare, but not impossible to find.

 

[MCTuomey]

I once compared the Nokton 1.2 to the Lux ASPH in Leica''s customer forum and barely made it out with shrapnel in my back

Whew. In that case, I withdraw my request, although I like to think RFF has well above average internet civility.

 

[horosu]

Oookaay...Preparing the pics.

C'mon, that's so wrong. Post, and we'll behave.

 

[horosu]

Summilux vs. Biogon at f2

Summilux vs. Biogon at f2

Okay,

So I bought a SH copy of the Summilux 35/1.4 FLE on ebay from a very honest gentleman from Germany. He himself has bought this copy in July. Lens is really like new. The size is just right and it seems very solid made.

Mounted it on the M9 and compared it to the Zeiss Biogon at f2.

This is the whole scene:

 

[horosu]

Focus was in the middle of the frame, on the red flower.

The first are 100% crops from the point-of-focus. The second set is a crop from the flower that was some 40cm behind the point-of-focus.


Biogon first

Summilux

Biogon behind the focus point

Summilux behind the focus point

The Summilux has obvious back-focus. The resolution is very high, but not where I intended it to be. I concluded that my sample had back-focus so I sent it in to Solms.

End of part One

 

[horosu]

The lens came back from Leica 7 days later! I was impressed. Really! Including shipping, etc, I considered the service exceptional.

Now for round two.

Only compared them at the centre of the frame, at various apertures to look for focus shift

Biogon at f2

Summilux at f2

 

[horosu]

Biogon at f2.8

Summilux at 2.8

Biogon at f4

Summilux at f4

OK! Let the war begin!!

 

[Neare]

The results speak for themselves. 🙂

 

[Matus]

Is it just me or the Biogon looks still sharper even after the Summilux was adjusted ?

 

[nex100]

The Biogon color at F2 seems to be inaccurate. A tad too warm compared to itself at F2.8

 

[leicashot]

The Biogon color at F2 seems to be inaccurate. A tad too warm compared to itself at F2.8

Without seeing the pictures in person or with a grey card how do you know whats accurate or not?

I'm not surprised at how good the Biogon is. It's on my list as my next 35mm lens

 

[aleksanderpolo]

Um, is the shift inherent in the design of 35/1.4? Does a CV 35/1.2 has a shift like this too?