Range-rover
Veteran
it just gives that little bit of wideness that you sometimes need where a fifty won't do.
Range
Range
🙂
I agree with your thinking. 35mm is not my favorite as a matter of fact 50mm is. I already have the summicron f2 so I figured a 35mm would be good to have in my kit and being that I'm not a wide angle guy I did not want to spend out for 35mm so I am in agreement that buying a less expensive lens for the use of low light times when I'm not using the 50mm would be best.😀
It's another good lens, but it is also larger than the 35/1.4, does not focus to 0.7m, etc.The Ultron 35mm f/1.7 is a MUCH better lens.
Agree, both are wonderful.the 35 is an excellent lens...so is the 40!
This is true, Erik.The weak point of this lens is the distortion. The Ultron 35mm f/1.7 is a MUCH better lens.
Erik.


It's a great lens.
![]()
And regarding distortion, yes it does but no worse than the Summilux ASPH or the Nokton 35/1.2.
And regarding distortion, yes it does but no worse than the Summilux ASPH (check Leicas data sheets !), the CV 35/1.2, the UC Hexanon 35/2, the Nikkor 35/1.8 LTM, the Hexar AF, etc., etc.; still much better than many fast SLR 35mm lenses in any case.
Hi Roland, just curious... you're talking about barrel distortion at infinity right? I know of one source on the net (who shall remain nameless 🙂) who measured the barrel distortion at 3 meters ....
This is a lens for the poor man.... It is not a replacement for a LEICA lens. Yes, you could use this lens for a lifetime of making great photos, but in reality, most people who buy these are dithering hobbyists who spend more time on internet "forums" than actually taking pictures.
Between Ken and Steve, I trust Steve's opinions more so than Ken's. I take Ken's reviews with more grains of salt than Steve's. Now I am not one that completely dismisses Ken, as I can find some value in his reviews. But sometimes I think him and I are at polar opposites on certain things. Whereas with Steve I usually feel like his shooting style and his reasonings for liking or disliking something just seem to match up more with how I tend to view the photographic world.:bang:
Hi all,
I have been reading reviews of the Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 for days on end.
...
Most of the reviews I read are on both sides of the fence. Some say the image quality is poor at best. Others say it is fantastic. (for instance the opinions of Ken Rockwell and Steve Huff) Then there is the whole SC / MC debate.
...
Thanks,
V
The weak point of this lens is the distortion. The Ultron 35mm f/1.7 is a MUCH better lens.
Erik.
Between Ken and Steve, I trust Steve's opinions more so than Ken's. I take Ken's reviews with more grains of salt than Steve's. Now I am not one that completely dismisses Ken, as I can find some value in his reviews. But sometimes I think him and I are at polar opposites on certain things. Whereas with Steve I usually feel like his shooting style and his reasonings for liking or disliking something just seem to match up more with how I tend to view the photographic world.
I don't have the 35, but I have the 40 in the S.C. version. As far as M.C. vs. S.C., I'd say really consider whether you shot B&W or color more before choosing. If you do 50/50, I'm not sure which one I'd pick.





The Ultron was in my bag for a year, and never like it one bit. I found it lacking character.