Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
IMO, 35 1.4 ZM is bad joke on M, IMO. Even without odd hood 🙂
https://leicarumors.com/2017/01/28/...-the-zeiss-35mm-f1-4-distagon-t-zm-lens.aspx/
Think of move from 35mm summicron to zeiss 35mm 1.4
- Thread starter iyuzhulan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 45
- Views 5K
IMO, 35 1.4 ZM is bad joke on M, IMO. Even without odd hood 🙂
https://leicarumors.com/2017/01/28/...-the-zeiss-35mm-f1-4-distagon-t-zm-lens.aspx/
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
aires35III
Member
Hello,
I had the same choice 2 weeks ago and indeed, the Zeiss is the Grail. Perfect at all apertures for its contrast and definition, smooth bokeh. For the resolution, the Summilux 35 asph FLE is not able to do the same results at 1.4 for the Zeiss until f/4 for the Leica ! The Zeiss is probably, theoretically, the best 35mm ever.
But… I eventually bought the summilux 35 asph FLE. So Why ? I am not a Leica worshiper and the price is an issue for me. It is because of the global rendition, wich I find better. Sipmly to take more "human" pictures. Especially some shots of jonmanjiro (who prefer the Zeiss, if I understand right) on Flickr in Japanese markets or restaurant where in my opinion, the Summilux shows an unequal transparency and contrast. Moreover, I can’t explain exactly why, I found the smoother bokeh of the Zeiss not natural.
I made few years ago a comparison between the latest Summicron 50 and the famous C-sonnar 50/1.5 and both were nice, but the Summicron shows clearly more detail in shadows and better color rendition, especially in low and artificial light. It’s like some wavelength have been absorbed by the Zeiss lenses. Sorry, I don’t have pictures since my hard disk died…
So maybe it is because of less detail in shadows, and associated with it the out-of-focus rendition, I preferred the Summilux. And about the summicron ? Well the Summilux is clearly better : For the resolution, the two shows to my eyes the same results. But for the contrast, the Summilux is better : it shows deeper shadows with more details at f/2. And at 1.4 too ! But with a lot of vignetting. The bokeh is approximately the same. The better in it aspect is to me the previous Summilux Asph.
I don’t know well the Voitländer lenses, I have a 90 apo-lanthar and an Heliar on a Bessa iii. These are bargains and top-class for the resolution but I don’t use them so much : to me the Leica or Zeiss shows better detail in shadows, color rendition, contrast. The lens I buy are for decades so psychologically speaking, I don’t want to use ones that don’t show the best for the people I love.
I had the same choice 2 weeks ago and indeed, the Zeiss is the Grail. Perfect at all apertures for its contrast and definition, smooth bokeh. For the resolution, the Summilux 35 asph FLE is not able to do the same results at 1.4 for the Zeiss until f/4 for the Leica ! The Zeiss is probably, theoretically, the best 35mm ever.
But… I eventually bought the summilux 35 asph FLE. So Why ? I am not a Leica worshiper and the price is an issue for me. It is because of the global rendition, wich I find better. Sipmly to take more "human" pictures. Especially some shots of jonmanjiro (who prefer the Zeiss, if I understand right) on Flickr in Japanese markets or restaurant where in my opinion, the Summilux shows an unequal transparency and contrast. Moreover, I can’t explain exactly why, I found the smoother bokeh of the Zeiss not natural.
I made few years ago a comparison between the latest Summicron 50 and the famous C-sonnar 50/1.5 and both were nice, but the Summicron shows clearly more detail in shadows and better color rendition, especially in low and artificial light. It’s like some wavelength have been absorbed by the Zeiss lenses. Sorry, I don’t have pictures since my hard disk died…
So maybe it is because of less detail in shadows, and associated with it the out-of-focus rendition, I preferred the Summilux. And about the summicron ? Well the Summilux is clearly better : For the resolution, the two shows to my eyes the same results. But for the contrast, the Summilux is better : it shows deeper shadows with more details at f/2. And at 1.4 too ! But with a lot of vignetting. The bokeh is approximately the same. The better in it aspect is to me the previous Summilux Asph.
I don’t know well the Voitländer lenses, I have a 90 apo-lanthar and an Heliar on a Bessa iii. These are bargains and top-class for the resolution but I don’t use them so much : to me the Leica or Zeiss shows better detail in shadows, color rendition, contrast. The lens I buy are for decades so psychologically speaking, I don’t want to use ones that don’t show the best for the people I love.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Do you mean, because of too much finder intrusion?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
At least. Where are also 1/3 aperture clicks and pimple instead of focus tab.
And honestly, IMO, it just disproportionately not appealing lens.
I'd rather have Nokton 35 1.2 III or 35 1.4 II these days instead of this chunk.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
Leica M-P 240
35mm Zeiss Distagon ZM
Similar threads
