Is it worth upgrading to Zeiss 35 1.4 ZM?

[aaaced]

Dear all

I am thinking of making an upgrade on my 35 M lens. Currently I have a Leica 35 summilux preA (11870) and a Zeiss Biogon 35 2 ZM. There are only two options in my mind, one is the 11663, which is smaller, has the benefit of lens profile in both M240 and MM, but, obviously very expensive. I also came cross the Zeiss 35 1.4 ZM, i found on a tee shoot review, it showed this lens is sharper than the 11663 as well as producing a better bokeh with less than half of the price. The cons for the Zeiss is that it is bigger, heavier, and of course,no lens profile. I need opinions from you fellow RFFs, shall I, 1. Sell preA summilux and 35 2.0 and get a 11663, or 2. just sell the 35 2.0 ZM for a 1.4 ZM, or, 3. Keep the current setting?

Thanks and Merry Christmas in advance!

 

[Mark C]

You've got two great lenses. I don't see much point unless you need the sharper 1.4 for low light. I'm actually content enough with the 35 Summilux that my Summicron doesn't get out much lately. I originally thought I'd be disappointed with the 1.4 performance of the Summilux, but have really come to like it and to appreciate something that offers a different look than all the super sharp lens out there.

Still, no bad choices in that list.

 

[raid]

You have two great 35mm lenses. I have the same ones. If you simply want yet another excellent 35mm lens, there are many options.

 

[jonmanjiro]

2. just sell the 35 2.0 ZM for a 1.4 ZM

This. I sold my 11663 after I got a ZM 35/1.4. Incredible wide open performance. If you can live with the size, go for it.

 

[rscheffler]

The ZM35/1.4 definitely outclasses the ZM35/2 at wide apertures. Stopped down and you probably won't notice much, if any difference.

I've briefly shot the ZM35/1.4 with my M240 and found it didn't really need a profile, other than for the convenience of EXIF tagging. If for this purpose, you could hand-code it as one of the 35 Lux ASPH versions.

Yes, it's fairly large, but not all that heavy. At least not when compared to my muscle memory of the Voigtlander 35/1.2. Viewfinder blockage may be more bothersome.

35 Lux pre-ASPH is on my wish list for its compact size and rendering style... Just can't seem to find one at a nice price.

 

[narsuitus]

I have never used the Leica 35 summilux preA (11870) or the Zeiss Biogon 35 2 ZM. However, I do own and use the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM. Based on my typical subjects and my shooting style, I would replace the older Summilux and the slower Biogon with the newer and faster Zeiss.


Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[:: Mark]

I started with the 2/35 but now mainly use the 1,4/35.

The F1.4 lens is the sharpest lens that I have wide open, comfortably beating the Sigma 35mm Art on my Canon system and vastly better than the 2/35 shot wide open.

The 2/35 is an excellent lens when stopped down to f4 or less, and it has the lowest distortion of any lens I have seen. However, wide open the images are noticeably soft, and this is visible even without pixel-peeping. The ergonomics are excellent and there is minimal finder blockage.

The 1,4/35 is just astonishing at all apertures. It is at least as sharp as the much more expensive summilux while having much smoother out-of-focus transitions and without the wavy field curvature that makes focus-and-recompose difficult with the Leica. There is more distortion than with the 2/35, but this is still very good.

As others have said, the main disadvantage of the 1,4/35 is the finder blockage. Other downsides are a stiffer focus movement than other lenses (there is a lot of glass to move...), the awkward 49mm filter size, and the ridiculous pricing of the optional lens hood. However, for me these were minor compromises to get a lens that was optically better than the summilux for about 40% of the cost.

What I really like most is the way that the distagon renders. Modern sharpness but with gorgeously smooth bokeh. It makes an excellent pairing with the Leica 2/75 ASPH, sharing similar rendering and the same filter size.

 

[FrozenInTime]

I recently upgraded my 28 summicron to a Summilux - comparable in size to the zeiss 35/1,4.
However I know for sure once the winter months are over my 28mm Elmarit is going back on the camera .. until I need speed again.

In your shoes, I would not consider the Zeiss 35/1,4 alone : keeping the classic 35/1,4 alongside seems like a great combination; both for size and the different way they draw.

 

[aaaced]

Well, no I have to confess that I ordered this 35 1.4 zm just now...

 

[Huss]

Well, no I have to confess that I ordered this 35 1.4 zm just now...

The main problem I have w my Zm 35 1.4 is the vf blockage. Here on my M240

I actually use this lens on my M7 as imo speed is more important on film due to its lower iso levels, while on digital I can just raise iso as needed.
For this reason I use my Summicron Asp 35 on digital.

 

[Huss]

One thing that is interesting about the Zm 35 1.4 is the physical length of the lens does not change as you focus. This should keep the insides of the leens more dust free than lens types that elongate, as there is no focus pumping action.

Downside is the physical length is such that it is longer than my 90mm macro elmar! This makes it much harder to pack a camera with the 35 1.4 lens on it in my camera bag.

 

[aaaced]

wow， I thought it would be long, didn't know it is that long...

One thing that is interesting about the Zm 35 1.4 is the physical length of the lens does not change as you focus. This should keep the insides of the leens more dust free than lens types that elongate, as there is no focus pumping action.

Downside is the physical length is such that it is longer than my 90mm macro elmar! This makes it much harder to pack a camera with the 35 1.4 lens on it in my camera bag.

 

[Mark C]

wow， I thought it would be long, didn't know it is that long...

It will certainly make an interesting side by side comparison with your 35 Summilux.

 

[brennanphotoguy]

I'd just keep your current setup.