New Voigtlander 35/1.7 M Arriving the end of August $980

[Antielectrons]

It could be a big deal for Sony A7 users, as small good 35s are not common for that camera.

Looking at the images of the lens on the M and the A7 that Steve Huff posted today the lens looks pretty big... Much bigger than say a 35 Summicron.....

 

[Erik van Straten]

Yes, it is big and heavy and the lens hood is horrible, far too big. I will try to find a decent ans small 46mm screw in hood. I dislike the dedicated hoods too.

The lens handles very good. The f-stop ring is awesome, even better than the one of the Nokton-M 50mm f/1.5.

Erik.

 

[Robert Lai]

In case people get the wrong idea about how "big" this lens is, I will give my first impressions. With the lenses in my camera bag at hand, and putting them side by side, the Voigtlander is about the same length as a Summicron 50 (without hood). I have the last pre-ASPH Summicron with pull out hood.

Since the filter diameter is 46mm, it is about the same diameter lens wise as my Elmarit 90 2.8.

So, you have to decide if a lens with the length of a Summicron 50, and the girth of an Elmarit 90 is "huge". In relation to the current 35mm Summicron ASPH and the CV 35 f/2.5, as well as the Summaron 35 2.8, it is bigger. But, not a lot heavier. I have the chrome lens. If weight is an issue, get the black version.

I initially thought that the styling was merely a designer's fantasy. But, in use the logic of it is inescapable. The entire front 1/3 of the lens is a "huge" aperture ring. Then comes the wasp waist with the depth of field scales. Then follows a very large focusing ring with the painful studs to let you differentiate the lens rings by feel. You have to use this lens to understand the genius behind the design.

Lens hoods: the lens does come with a black colored hood which is a solid "cone" type hood. There is also a cap which covers that black hood. The problem is that this hood intrudes a fair bit into the viewfinder of my Leica M7 0.72X.

I will say that you should pay the extra $108 and get the vented hood. It is one of the most beautifully machined all metal hoods that I have seen. There is a thumbscrew to allow you to set and lock your HOOD ANGLE! That means that you can rotate the hood when it is mounted on the lens, to be sure that the viewfinder is looking through one of the vent slots. This hood is wide enough that you can just use the 46mm center pinch cap to cap your lens. Yes, $108 is a lot of money for a hood. But, have you checked the cost of a replacement Leica hood for the 35mm Summicron ASPH? That piece of rectangular plastic is around $130.

I'll eventually have to shoot the new lens against my also new 35mm Summicron ASPH to see what the differences are. It took so long from the time I ordered it in the spring, to its arrival that I bought the Summicron ASPH in the meantime.

 

[Lax Jought]

Why does Voigtlander have two 35mm lenses so close to each other - an already spectacular f/1.2 and now an f/1.7?

 

[raid]

They differ in size. Also 1.2 is not close to 1.7.

 

[Erik van Straten]

In case people get the wrong idea about how "big" this lens is, I will give my first impressions.

I said "big" because the lens is bigger than my other 35mm lenses: f/3.5 Summaron, f/2.8 Summaron, f/2 Summicron v1, f/2 Summicron v4, f/1.4 Summilux pre asph and f/1.7 Ultron LTM. It is also longer and heavier than the Nokton-M 50mm f/1.5. It is however a complete different optical concept. The ergonomics are great, no doubt about that.

Erik.

 

[raid]

How would users of the 35/1.7 Ultron (old and new) compare the lens to the Zeiss Biogon ZM 35/2? Are there users of both lenses here? Thanks for any feedback.

 

[Lax Jought]

They differ in size.

This would be the strangest and most improbable reason to manufacture two 35mm lenses.

Also 1.2 is not close to 1.7.

Canon makes three 50mm lenses, an f/1.2L, f/1.4, and f/1.8. But for marketing purposes as well as aiming at target markets, each of those lenses play its own role in Canon's sales catalog.

They wouldn't simply make an f/1.2L and an f/1.8L just because they can. It doesn't make sense.

Voigtlander also makes an f/1.4 SC/MC but this lens has its own identity in their catalog in terms of its look, capability, and quality.

 

[raid]

This would be the strangest and most improbable reason to manufacture two 35mm lenses.

I should have clarified that the different lens sizes were due to the different max apertures, of course.

 

[Lax Jought]

I should have clarified that the different lens sizes were due to the different max apertures, of course.

But these aperture sizes are so close!

Is the f/1.7 of lesser quality in the same way that the Canon's f/1.8 is regarded as a nifty fifty?

 

[raid]

Not really. A 1.7 max aperture may be close a 1.8, which since many years was the standard max aperture for "normal" lenses. The 1.2 or even 1.4 max apertures were used for "fast lenses". Why would now the 1.7 and 1.2 be "close to each other"? I can see that having very high ISO settings on modern cameras may 1.2 and 1.7 "similar" in terms of exposure needs, but OOF may differ here.

 

[cpc]

But these aperture sizes are so close!

Is the f/1.7 of lesser quality in the same way that the Canon's f/1.8 is regarded as a nifty fifty?

They aren't that close. This is a difference of 1 stop which commands that the entrance pupil diameter of the 1.2 is ~1.4x the entrance pupil diameter of the 1.7.

It is then reasonable to expect a similar relationship between their lens barrel diameters.

 

[Lax Jought]

I'm trying to understand this - with the f/1.2 you can also stop down to f/1.7 or f/1.8.

If the price of both lenses are similar, and if the f/1.2 is considered the better lens, why would anyone prefer the f/1.7 lens?

 

[cpc]

I'm trying to understand this - with the f/1.2 you can also stop down to f/1.7 or f/1.8.

If the price of both lenses are similar, and if the f/1.2 is considered the better lens, why would anyone prefer the f/1.7 lens?

Because it is smaller and lighter.
Smaller and lighter means a lot to a lot of people. 🙂

(Also, initial reports say it is better than the 1.2.)

 

[superultramega]

What is the issue with having a closer focus lens than rangefinder? Does the image in the rangefinder appear to be in focus at 0.5m? Or does something else happen that my mind can't comprehend?

 

[Lax Jought]

Because it is smaller and lighter.
Smaller and lighter means a lot to a lot of people. 🙂

(Also, initial reports say it is better than the 1.2.)

Ahh now I'm starting to understand the difference between these two lenses and how it might appeal to different people. 🙂

 

[Erik van Straten]

If the price of both lenses are similar, why would anyone prefer the f/1.7 lens?

The prices of the Voigtländer lenses are not related to their speed, in contrast to the Leica lenses, maybe for reasons of marketing and such. This was also the case long ago with the Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5 and the Nokton 50mm f/1.5. A huge difference in speed but a small difference in price, if I remember correctly.

Erik.

 

[cpc]

What is the issue with having a closer focus lens than rangefinder? Does the image in the rangefinder appear to be in focus at 0.5m? Or does something else happen that my mind can't comprehend?

The rangefinder will disengage at its minimum distance (say, 0.7m) so further turning the focus ring towards 0.5m won't have a visible effect in the VF even though the actual focus distance changes. So yeah, it may appear in focus even if you are focussing closer and stepping in. On some cameras there is a hardly audible "click" sound when disengaging.

 

[Lax Jought]

The prices of the Voigtländer lenses are not related to their speed, in contrast to the Leica lenses, maybe for reasons of marketing and such. This was also the case long ago with the Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5 and the Nokton 50mm f/1.5. A huge difference in speed but a small difference in price, if I remember correctly.

Erik.

Hi Erik, I realise price has nothing to do with speed but rather lens quality.

I can totally understand the situation between the nokton and the skopar though.

 

[raid]

The new CV lenses seem to have been made extremely well, and it may be that CV decided at some time to limit the sales price to be around $1000 to be even more competitive with Leica and Zeiss lenses that cost more money than CV lenses of similar qualities.