Voigtlander VM versus Zeiss ZM

[rhl-oregon]

I settled on ZM because their F2 images pleased me more consistently than comparable CV, and the handling became second nature. I even fixed my ZM 50/2’s wobble.

The 50/1.5 CV haptics were a distraction from ZM; I had it on a Nikon S2 during a time of a Try This Try That; I sold both. To be fair, the ZM 50/1.5 not only had shift issues, but I also still had inconsistent results from Try This emulsion, Try That subject at f1.5.

I never tried the 35 Ultron. I enjoyed the little 2.5 Skopars (21, 25, 35) in daylight, but they’re mostly gone, and I am trading/selling the CV remainders (35/1.4, 28/1.9, 21/4). I also have ZM 21/2.8, may get a 35/1.4 Distagon.

Just another story about how coherence, consistency, and second nature haptics matter in creating taste and preference. (But a few different M lenses are coming my way, Leica and MS-Optics, to mix it up again.)

 

[SaveKodak]

I really liked using my old ZMs. The 35/1.4 is an optical gem in every way. However it's also absurdly large on an M. The 35/2 is super well balanced, and I loved it on my M4.

However eventually I noticed that the images I got from it were indistinguishable from those I get from my plain Jane Nikon 35/2D. I think that says less that the Zeiss is lacking, but more that the Nikkor is one great lens.

These days I am using Pentax Limited lenses on an MZ-S and LX.

I think the modern VM line will be a bit better than the old ZMs. Remember the ZMs were made for film. The VMs have high res sensors in mind. (If sharpness is your thing).

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Upon shooting the Biogon 35mm f2.8 a lot of late, with Ilford Delta, I have concluded that it is one of the best lenses I've ever had the opportunity to use. Also it brings out the fineness of Delta400 in a way I find intensely pleasing. I knew the colour rendition of the lens was stunning, but it is equally so in Black and White. So far, touch wood, I've not needed that extra stop.

 

[Ricochetrider]

This thread is of interest to me because I am looking to replace the 40mm Classic lens that came on my Voigtlander R3m with a 50mm. I'm thinking, "Zeiss or Voigtlander?"
It does seem to have come down, everywhere I've looked, to the Zeiss ZM 50mm f1.5 Sonnar or f2.0 Planar (Sonnar seems lovely but subject to focus shift, Planar seems to be way more "clinical" by most accounts) vs the Voigltander 50mm f1.2 Nokoton Aspherical

Hmmm.... I have a question about EBL but not wishing to derail this thread will begin another.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

...
It does seem to have come down, everywhere I've looked, to the Zeiss ZM 50mm f1.5 Sonnar or f2.0 Planar (Sonnar seems lovely but subject to focus shift, Planar seems to be way more "clinical" by most accounts) vs the Voigltander 50mm f1.2 Nokoton Aspherical
...

Out of interest, why not the 50/f1.5 Nokton? It seems to be a more natural competitor to the two Zeiss' in terms of size, speed and performance.

 

[sanmich]

Above a certain image quality threshold, for me, the lens ergonomics become king.
I like a lens small, flat, and really easy to focus. oh yeah, and I hated the ZM 1/3 stops or any VM lens with focusing not stopping at 0.7m.
So it's mostly Leica for me.
in a pinch I would re-try the color skopar (truely excellent), and try to relube it with a light grease.

 

[jawarden]

I can't compare between brands so I won't vote here, but when I bought my first camera that accepts M lenses I chose Zeiss and haven't found a need to move either up or down the price ladder. I've owned five of them and all have been excellent. If I need better/bigger prints I doubt a higher end lens would make much of a difference on a 35mm camera.

Similarly, if I had all Voigtlander lenses I doubt there would be much difference in quality between these brands when the images are viewed on the paper.

 

[raid]

I love my (old style) CV 50/1.5. I do not own any VM lenses yet. I do have a Zeiss 35/2 ZM which I find to be exceptionally good overall. I don't own a 50/2 ZM as I am quite happy with my Rigid Summicron 50/2. I don't own a CV 35/1.7 as I enjoy using my pre-asph Lux 35/1.4 and the V1 Summicron 35/2. There are many options available to us all.

 

[Derek Leath]

I use the Nokton 1.5 50 on my M9, you can go to the M9 images post and see some of my results for yourself.

 

[narsuitus]

Which 35mm and/or 50mm lens do you prefer?

First, on my 35mm cameras, I prefer the 35mm focal length instead of the 50mm focal length.

Second, I do not own any 50mm lenses for my 35mm rangefinder cameras.

Third, I have never owned or used any Voigtländer lenses.

Fourth, I only own and use one Zeiss lens for my Leica 35mm rangefinder camera - a 35mm f/1.4 Distagon ZM

Therefore, if forced to pick from the lenses on your list, I would pick the 35mm f/2 Zeiss Biogon ZM.

 

[james.liam]

Don't have the lenses you list; own a VM 3,5/28 and ZM 2,8/35. The former is brilliant on my M9M, the latter on everything.

The tiny 28 is the smallest lens I have and developed a following only after it was long discontinued. Go figure.

My world is not unraveled because of the 35C Biogon's 1/3 stops or 43mm filter thread. Everyone makes a big deal about nothing (sorry KoFe). A filter never leaves the lens and of all the things I have to deal with in life, 1/3 stop increments is the least of it. Brilliant lens, vivid & accurate colors, compact and high contrast straight off @ ƒ/2.8.

Have no interest in the ZM 50 (boring) or adding yet another 35. I have heard from others that the VM 2/35 is outstanding, every bit as much or better than Leica's 24 year-old 35 Summicron ASPH. No reason to spend $3k on that aging optic.

[My guess is that they are waiting to release updated 35 Summicron ASPH & 50 Summicron for higher-rez Leica M cameras and we will see them when the M11 appears.]

 

[m.galimathias]

I've owned the ZM 50mm Planar for years and recently switched to the Summicron 50mm.

Overall, the Planar is probably 95% as good as the Leica with a little less pop / resolution wide open and at 2.8. Rationally speaking, there is no way to justify the higher cost of the Leica.

The greatest quality of the Planar (and Summicron) is their predictability in terms of results. Stop down to 2.8 and 4.0 and your result is almost perfect / perfect in technical terms. A VM 50mm 1.5 (the m39 version) which I tested years ago was sharp at 1.5 but delivered less predictable results in real world test settings (focus shift, lateral color shifts, etc.).

I can't relate to the comment made earlier about the Zeiss' supposed lack of micro-contrast / pop. In my opinion, micro-contrast (at 2.8 especially) is one of the strongest qualities of the lens. Plus the slightly warmer rendering versus Leica glass.

Overall, the ZM 50mm is an extremely capable performer and should not be overlooked in favour of some of the more flashy / faster offerings from VM.

 

[kram]

I have the zm f2 35 and 50mm lenes. All I can say is they tick the box for an f2 lens for me so will not replace then for a VC of the same aperature E.g. Apo 35 or 50 VC. Can't comment on the VC you have listed. Note my new 28mm f2 ultron II is in the same league as the ZM Lenses IMHO.

 

[raid]

I'm interested to hear the preferences of those who have experience of these pairs of lenses. In other words, those who have tried either or both pairs of lenses.

• Voigtlander VM Ultron 35mm f1.7
• Zeiss Biogon ZM 35mm f2.0

• Voigtlander VM Nokton 50mm f1.5
• Zeiss Planar ZM 50mm f2.0

I have one lens from each group, Lawrence.
The Zeiss 35/2 and the VM Nokton 50/1.5.

I can't make comparisons for you, but I like my two lenses. One is a ZM and one a VM.
I own a Zeiss G 45/2 in M mount. I like it so much that I skipped getting a ZM 50mm lens.
I own several 35mm lenses, so I skipped getting the VM 35/1.7. I like using the pre-asph 35/1.4 Summilux and the 35/2 V1 Summicron, say.

 

[mapgraphs]

I have the 35mm Ultron LTM, 35mm Biogon ZM and 50mm Planar ZM but tend more to 28mm & 40mm.

The 40mm f/1.2 Nokton VM is used more lately, augmented by a Color Skopar 35mm VM. A 28mm Ultron LTM is probably used the most (Have all three 28mm Ultrons).

The ZMs are fine. The VMs are fine. Both the 40mm Nokton and 28mm Ultron LTM are special.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Well so far the Voigtlanders have been well and truly trounced in the poll but the reason is unclear. Any side by side comparison would be appreciated.

My experiences with Zeiss ZM and Voigtlander M-mount lenses is that the Zeiss lenses are better optically and suffer from less sample variation. Voigtlanders are built more durably (no wobble problems that Zeiss lenses all seem to develop) but aren't as sharp and they suffer from poor quality control. Large numbers of them I have tried had decentered optics.

 

[Bingley]

Above a certain image quality threshold, for me, the lens ergonomics become king.
I like a lens small, flat, and really easy to focus. oh yeah, and I hated the ZM 1/3 stops or any VM lens with focusing not stopping at 0.7m.
So it's mostly Leica for me.
in a pinch I would re-try the color skopar (truely excellent), and try to relube it with a light grease.

I agree with most of this. I had the Zeiss ZM Planar 50/2.0 several years ago, and sold it because I really disliked the handling and size. I’ve never used the CV VM Nokton 50, but I did own the original CV 50 Nokton in LTM, and sold it b/c it was too big for my needs. Now, if i want to shoot a modern 50, I go to my CV Skopar. Or the Summicron 50 version III (a lens that I prefer to the Planar).

 

[steveyork]

My experiences with Zeiss ZM and Voigtlander M-mount lenses is that the Zeiss lenses are better optically and suffer from less sample variation. Voigtlanders are built more durably (no wobble problems that Zeiss lenses all seem to develop) but aren't as sharp and they suffer from poor quality control. Large numbers of them I have tried had decentered optics.

My experience in owning recent M and F mount Voigtlanders (since 2018) -- 35/1.4 MC & SC, 40/1.4, 40/2 and 58/1.4 -- is that the build is excellent, on par or better then Leica, with no QC issues. I wonder whether their QC improved over the years. I did once own two S mount older Voigtlanders, and they did seem more "fragile" and one had developed haze, a not so uncommon reported issue with that line, but I wasn't the original owner and didn't own lenses long enough to test their durability. Still own the the Voigtlander 35mm lenses and so far, so good. Although I haven't owned any recent Leicas optics, the only lenses that broke on me in the field have been Leicas. One was a five year old 35mm Summicron Asph, and ironically the focusing mechanism on two different circa 25-year old 60mm elmaritls. In fixing the Summicron Sherry told me the build of modern Leica optics are trash with a lot of plastic inside. Ha, ha, and that's what broke on that lens.

 

[oldwino]

I think the current crop of Voigtlander lenses has put to rest the notion that Zeiss is better.