Which Voigtlander: 35/1.4SC, 35/1.4MC or 35/1.2 ASPH?

[noisycheese]

I am thinking of getting one of the Voigtlander 35mm M mount lenses, either the Nokton 35/1.4 SC, the 35/1.4MC or the 35/1.2 ASPH (v.2, the version currently being produced).

I am somewhat inclined to go with the 35/1.2 ASPH but am wondering if the additional cost (nearly double the 35/1.4 lenses) is worth the upgrades of the new design, ASPH glass and the extra 0.5 f/stop in maximum aperture.

I am wondering if anyone out there owns or has used both the 35/1.2 v.2 and one (or even both) of the 35/1.4 Voigtlanders and can give some insight into the differences between these lenses - other than the obvious (weight, size, etc.).

How does the rendering of these lenses differ?

Thanks for your input! 🙂

 

[froyd]

The rendering of the 1.2 is legendary and deservedly so, in my opinion, and I'm sure some people will find both lenses worth having.

For me the choice was not about cost, but about size and handling. In general I prefer smaller lenses because I'm more likely to take them with me, and I chose accordingly even though I recognize that the 1.2 is a superior performer to the 1.4.

Having said that, I'm perfectly happy with the smaller and slightly slower 1.4. Again, this will vary from person to person, but for the photographs I tent to take the distortion and the focus shift have not been issues.

 

[Dez]

None of the above. I am perfectly happy with my f1.7 Ultron. It's almost as fast, still quite small, takes 39mm filters, produces excellent results, and doesn't back focus.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[Matus]

It all depends on the look you like. the 1.4 and 1.2 Noktons have very different rendering. It would be the 1.2 for me unless I would find the size a problem (I have no idea, never had that lens in hand)

 

[raid]

I do not have any of these three lenses, so I can give my unbiased opinion of them as I have used them side by side.

The 35/1.4 are small, sharp, cheap.
The 35/1.2 is large, sharp, and less cheap.

Each of the three lenses can be used for photography.

 

[raid]

I should have side by side images from the 35mm-40mm lenses comparisons. They are on Roland's webside.

 

[raid]

Here is the link: http://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Raids-35-40mm-Lens-Test

 

[f16sunshine]

The f1.2 renders in a very "calm" and elegant way at wide apertures and close up. It's a beauty but also a beast!
If you use 35mm lenses in close range and low light often the f1.2 may be worth the extra weight….. it's huge and heavy for a small RF body.

I've not owned the f1.4 in any 35mm version but used the 1.4/40mm nokton for years. I can see the difference in how it renders.
It has a more aggressive look to out of focus areas up close and some distortion.
In longer ranges of focus this is less apparent. The small size is terrible enticing… this lens handles wonderfully.

I sold the f1.2 in the end as it was not getting used because it is so big. I currently use an f2/40 lens and am very satisfied that I am not missing that extra 1.5 stops. YMMV

In this case size does matter. The f1.2 nokton is a beast of a big lens.
Every single time I picked it up to mount it I second guessed myself often setting it aside.
It's easy to imagine others have felt the same way.

Cheers!

 

[ktmrider]

Have the 35f1.2 and it is a great lens. It's main draw back is it's size. I made a mistake and sold a 35f2.5 when I got the f1.2 so will keep the large lens while searching for a used smaller 35. So if you need the fastest 35 out there and do not mind the size, get the 1.2.

 

[noisycheese]

...In this case size does matter. The f1.2 nokton is a beast of a big lens.

Compared to a Noctilux, the 35/1.2 is a middleweight vs. a heavyweight. Neither the 35/1.2 Nokton or the Noctilux make a camera nimble in the hand, though.

 

[rover]

I like the Ultron 1.7 best and use the Nokton 1.2 most.

 

[Jason Sprenger]

Having both the 35/1.4 MC and the first version of the 35/1.2, I find the 35/1.2 sharper at all f-stops pixel-peeping, the out of focus areas more buttery-smooth, and the lens is amazingly flare-resistant.

That said, the 35/1.4 MC is plenty sharp for hand-held, picture-taking and the out of focus areas are not terrible or distracting to my eye. As to flare, I'm just mindful of the possibility.

 

[unixrevolution]

I don't have a horse in this race, since I don't own anything but a lowly screwmount Color Skopar f/2.5, but I would choose the 1.4 over the 1.2 merely for price and size considerations.

 

[Jack Sparrow]

If you don't mind the size/weight (which really isn't that bad) the 1.2 is a killer lens.

 

[shadowfox]

Another vote for the Ultron 35mm f/1.7

 

[ferider]

About the 35/1.2 size: for me it's not about weight and actual size but viewfinder intrusion. I like to see what I photograph.

Therefore the 35/1.4 wins. Great to handle and small, good enough optically, non-obtrusive bokeh, and - yes, some distortion - but just as much as the 35/1.2, and nothing that couldn't be fixed trivially post-scanning. I read about the "circular flare" problem of the 35/1.4 Nokton, but have never experienced it myself, and I've had 3 copies.

The 35/1.4 are small, sharp, cheap.

I disagree, Raid, US $630 is not really cheap for any 35mm lens.

Roland.

 

[raid]

🙂
I knew you would say this.

I was about to say "less expensive than the 35/1.2".
I don't want any of these three lenses.
My 35mm ltm/m are:

Summicron V1
Nikkor 35/1.8
Canon 35/1.5 35/1.8 35/2.8

They give me good options.

 

[ferider]

🙂 sorry, I'm becoming so predictable ....

Well, we finally now share a 35 .... The Nikkor, which rocks.

 

[umcelinho]

I've had all three (actually four considering the two 1.2 versions). I haven't noticed significant difference between the MC and SC in real use. The 1.2 is a fantastic lens, which I prefer the v2 due to almost a lack of bullseye effect on light orbs, slightly lighter and thinner (barely).

The 1.4 is a great tiny fast lens for overall use but it is not so sharp wide open, can be a bit prone to flare also (even the MC). I like the bokeh and I don't find it 'harsh'. Big plus: it won't interfere on the viewfinder 35mm lines.

The 1.2 is a heavy and big lens which you can get used to, but sometimes it's just better to have a lighter camera+lens kit. Still, it is pretty sharp wide open and has a lovely out of focus melt.

I'd keep both if $ was not an issue, otherwise just the 1.4, for being lighter, tiny and fast enough.

Not listed but worth mentioning is the 35/1.7 Ultron. It's sharper than the 1.4, and has a lovely smoother out of focus melt, but half a stop slower and a bit bigger, different ergonomics. A pretty good all around lens. Technically I find it better than the 1.4, but I have more shots I love with the 1.4 SC than with the other Voigtlanders. The other lens I've used the most for pics I love is the v4 Summicron, which is also tiny and light.

 

[raid]

🙂 sorry, I'm becoming so predictable ....

Well, we finally now share a 35 .... The Nikkor, which rocks.

I have been so busy at work that I have not tried out the Nikkor yet.
I keep the "modern look" for my few relatively new 50mm lenses