Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 version I vs II

[jc48375]

I'm interested in getting one of these; are there significant differences in the image qualities between the two versions?

Please share your personal experiences if you have the opportunity to shoot with both lenses...

cheers!!

 

[Gregm61]

Nothing in the specs suggests a world of difference. Unless you can find the version I for hundreds less (If I did, that's what I'd buy), I would just get the version II. Same optical formula, the new model supposedly has a newer type glass within the elements. Filter size is the same, the newer model is a little lighter and thinner. Focuses a little closer, but none of that closer amount is coupled to the rangefinder.

Incrementally better and slightly smaller. To me, the only trump card for the version 1, if it could be found at a significant discount, would be price.

 

[jc48375]

Nothing in the specs suggests a world of difference. Unless you can find the version I for hundreds less (If I did, that's what I'd buy), I would just get the version II. Same optical formula, the new model supposedly has a newer type glass within the elements. Filter size is the same, the newer model is a little lighter and thinner. Focuses a little closer, but none of that closer amount is coupled to the rangefinder.

Incrementally better and slightly smaller. To me, the only trump card for the version 1, if it could be found at a significant discount, would be price.

Thanks for your input - cheers,

 

[quadtones]

Had the v1, sold it, bought the v2 about a year later, but for the price, decided not to keep it. I returned it to KEH, and a few months later found a v1 that had been 6-bit coded as a 35mm f.14 Summilux. I can't tell the difference between them. v2 may be marginally higher in contrast, but since I paid about 30% less for the v1, and it's coded [which seems to cure any corner fall off], it's a keeper.

 

[agoglanian]

I too am curious about using one of these and I've been casually looking for one. So there really is no difference optically between the two versions?

 

[uhoh7]

The aspherical elements in the v1 became unobtanium, nessesitating a redesign.

v1 really should be the better, despite some forum hype for "the latest", but I can't really tell either.

Here's my v1, which I use all the time, on both my bodies, wide open:


Porsche by unoh7, A7.mod 35/1.2

It's a real workhorse for the M9, because you can get into the dim with some DOF LOL

 

[agoglanian]

I would trade a touch of wide open sharpness / contrast for zero focus shift. Any word on wether the new version has issues with focus shift?

I want to get one to use on my M bodies of course, but also my Sony bodies, and I've been starting to use my M lenses for video with my A7s (crazy as it sounds)

 

[ktmrider]

Have tried both and really see no difference. Both are large but render beautiful images. I keep one on my M9 for low light shooting. The size does get in the way and I have a Zeiss 35f2.8 for when it does.

 

[dave lackey]

The aspherical elements in the v1 became unobtanium, nessesitating a redesign.

v1 really should be the better, despite some forum hype for "the latest", but I can't really tell either.

Here's my v1, which I use all the time, on both my bodies, wide open:


Porsche by unoh7, A7.mod 35/1.2

It's a real workhorse for the M9, because you can get into the dim with some DOF LOL

That is a very nice rendering from that lens!🙂

 

[CameraQuest]

The aspherical elements in the v1 became unobtanium, nessesitating a redesign.

not true. V2 has the same optical design

Stephen

 

[Freakscene]

The vII has one feature that infuriates me: a 0.5m close focus with no focus stop at 0.7m where the rangefinder cam disengages from the lens.

That's the major difference for me.

Both lenses have an odd back-and-forth focus shift if you look very closely.

Marty

 

[sleepyhead]

The vII has one feature that infuriates me: a 0.5m close focus with no focus stop at 0.7m where the rangefinder cam disengages from the lens.

That's the major difference for me.

Both lenses have an odd back-and-forth focus shift if you look very closely.

Marty

I recently found a chrome version 1 at a good price (500 GBP) and jumped on it even though I wasn't really in the market for one of these. The focus only going to 0.7 meters was the main reason I went for the version 1. I will only use the lens on a leica m body, so below 0.7 meters would just drive me mad. One person's "feature" is another person's "annoyance".

 

[ferider]

Both lenses have an odd back-and-forth focus shift if you look very closely.

Then again, with a 35/1.2, the cosine error matters much more than the short shift you observe (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148485).

 

[Tariq]

not true. V2 has the same optical design

Stephen

I'm guessing the idea of a design change originated with this message from the Cosina Factory, received by the person linked below in 2011. "Modified" does sound like at least some sort of design change had to be made, even if the optics are in the same position:

" We would like to draw your attention that the aspherical lens element used for Nokton F1.2/35mm is no more available and due to this we had to decide the discontinuation of this model because we can not produce. Now we are working on to develop modified Nokton F1.2/35mm Type-II using new type of aspherical lens. We aim to start the shipping of Type-II version from early summer in 2011. Please note that discontinued model has been out of stock. So we would like to ask you to do without 1.2/35mm till modified Type-II is produced."

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum65/86161-voigtlander-35mm-f1-2-interesting-news.html

 

[bennyng]

The aspherical elements in the v1 became unobtanium, nessesitating a redesign.

v1 really should be the better, despite some forum hype for "the latest", but I can't really tell either.

The lack of access to some rare earth needed for the glass formula seems to be the story over here in Asia as well. At least amongst some of those in the trade.

For those who have a chance to critically compare, there seems to be a difference, especially in the contrast. Although I still have both versions, I cannot tell the difference.

Cheers,

 

[bennyng]

I recently found a chrome version 1 at a good price (500 GBP) and jumped on it even though I wasn't really in the market for one of these. The focus only going to 0.7 meters was the main reason I went for the version 1. I will only use the lens on a leica m body, so below 0.7 meters would just drive me mad. One person's "feature" is another person's "annoyance".

Lucky you! I understand that there are only 500 of the silver version of this lens. I'm sure collectors will be hounding you when you decided to part with it.

Cheers,

 

[uhoh7]

I would trade a touch of wide open sharpness / contrast for zero focus shift. Any word on wether the new version has issues with focus shift?

I want to get one to use on my M bodies of course, but also my Sony bodies, and I've been starting to use my M lenses for video with my A7s (crazy as it sounds)

I use v1 very often on the M9 and find it can be easily focused at F/1.2. Now, could there be a small focus shift? Yes. But it's not something I'm seeing alot using the lens at various apertures. Or ever really, but I could miss it.

The is one of the most unique 35s in the way it draws and color signature. Edges are not that strong. Bokeh is best of any 35 ever made, for me.

Cosina is very tight lipped on the stories behind their Voigtlander glass, and I would love to real hear the real back story of this lens, and many others. It's not like there are many competitors at these price points, and just as a piece of art is worth more with the backstory, it wouldn't hurt sales at all to get some details. Who did the design? What were the inspirations? What were the challenges? What was the glass chosen.

Alot of shooters just love that stuff, like me 🙂

Here it is at 5.6 (v1) on the M9

L1024366 by unoh7, on Flickr

a bit faster:

L1024340 by unoh7, on Flickr

It's also an important lens, as mentioned above, for the M9 especially, which is not so good over 800 ISO. You can basically shoot anywhere you can see, and you have alot more DOF than with any 50 superspeed.

I was able to shoot this at base ISO on the M9:

Mike by unoh7, on Flickr

 

[Huss]

Here's my v1, which I use all the time, on both my bodies, wide open:


Porsche by unoh7, A7.mod 35/1.2

That's some interesting bokeh in the edges of the trees against the sky.

IMO either one of the 35 1.2 lenses is the ultimate low light RF lens. Much better than the 1.1 Nokton because 1.2 essentially is 1.1 (see if you get a different meter reading!) but also because you can hand hold a 35mm lens to a slower shutter speed than a 50mm.

 

[gdi]

That's some interesting bokeh in the edges of the trees against the sky.

IMO either one of the 35 1.2 lenses is the ultimate low light RF lens. Much better than the 1.1 Nokton because 1.2 essentially is 1.1 (see if you get a different meter reading!) but also because you can hand hold a 35mm lens to a slower shutter speed than a 50mm.

Yeah, that is some funky looking bokeh, but I think it is more a result of the subject than the lens. Other shots show pretty smooth bokeh...