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

[raid]

The 35/1.7 is an aspherical lens .
It is supposedly excellent.

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.

 

[uhoh7]

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.

I have that pair and the 2.5 skopar.

If I could only have 2 of the 3 I'd take the skopar and the 1.2, if I could only have one I'd take the CV 35/1.4 MC

35/1.4 MC today on M9:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55299472@N07/12109191494/

one more from last nite, wide open
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55299472@N07/12109515086/

 

[kxl]

I used to own the 1.2 v1 and 1.4 SC and have sold both of them. The 1.2 was something special in its smooth and creamy rendering, which for me was great for color but not so much for B&W. The 1.4 SC and its low contrast rendering was okay, but nothing special.

I down to one 35mm lens -- the Biogon 2.0, and that pretty much covers all my 35mm lens needs.

 

[Chris Bail]

I voted for the 34/1.4 MC paired with the 35/1.2 Asph...because that's what I have. I really like them both.

I believe the relative strengths of both have already been covered here.

 

[Lss]

They are all good lenses, all reasonably priced, too. It really depends on what you already have and what you are now looking for.

I have the 35/1.4 SC myself, and would next get either another 35/1.4 (whichever really) or the 35/1.2. I would enjoy the faster lens for some work, while having another 35/1.4 would spare me of many lens and filter changes. If I had no 35mm lens for M mount at all, I would get the 35/1.4 (or a much more expensive Leica) for the size and handling.

 

[Rotarysmp]

I bought a 1.4 MC used. Love the size and speed.

What I had not considered before I bought it was the interface. The 1.4's focus tab, focus throw, and aperture ring grips fall perfectly in the hand. I like the interface better than the summicron 28 and 50 I have.

 

[sazerac]

Bert & Ernie

Bert & Ernie

I voted other because I think that the 35/1.2 & 35/2.5 give you the best of both worlds. The 35/1.2 is smooth and dreamy and the 35/2.5 is small and sharp! I have to say that I ended up selling the 35/2.5 for $ and will probably be selling the 35/1.2 for the same reason. I need to fund my New Years resolutions for shooting sheet film! 😉

 

[Bruno Gracia]

35 1.4 SC, can't complain at all. Love the size and sharpness stopped down.

 

[raid]

I was about to buy the 35/1.2, but then I bought the Nikkor 35/1.8 ltm.

 

[Takkun]

Another vote for the Ultron. I agonized long and hard over it versus the 1.4, since the latter had the triple threat of being small, faster, and available single coated. The deciding factor was finding the Ultron used at a local shop.
They're all equally sharp, but the Ultron definitely has a smoothness wide-open. It's also a pretty manageable size, and incredibly smooth focusing.

The 1.2 is a beast, so if you have the cash, a smaller lens might be a worthwhile accompaniment.

 

[kosta_g]

ok so it looks like you want a fast-ish lens... if so I'd go the 35/1.4 MC if you shot colour...
otherwise i'd get the 35/2.5 color-skopar. a great and tiny lens.

 

[_lou_]

I used to have the 1.7 Ultron, which I liked, but it suffered chromatic aberrations which were noticeable on slide film. The only problem I had with this lens (but not such a big issue either).

I would certainly pick the 2.5 pancake next time.

 

[OurManInTangier]

I've had the 35 1.2 and the 35 1.4 SC.

My personal favourite, possibly ever and in any focal length, is the 35mm 1.2. Its simply a superb lens (though I had the v.1, not sure what differences there are between versions.) The 1.4 SC is an extremely good lens for the price and the size is preferable for me (though the fact the 1.2 was the one I always went for says a lot to me) although the 'rendering' or whatever you prefer to call it is a little more rough around the edges to my eyes.

If you've used SLR's I don't imagine the 1.2 will be outlandish, though it does obscure some of the VF.

Essentially you won't go wrong no matter which one you get. Buy the cheaper option and you have a very good lens for a budget price or spend a little more and get a little more.

I'd suggest checking out Flickr pages for both lenses and then having a look at both, on a camera, to decide whether either one if a 'no-no.'

 

[Benjamin Marks]

As with all things, it depends on what you're after. If you prize light weight, there's your answer.
If you shoot in low, low light and need to squeeze the last photon out of a scene, there's your answer.
If you like smooth bokeh, the 1.2's for you. Its bokeh is, as they say, all that.
If you have a short-baselength rangefinder, get the 35/1.7 (not on your list) -- with a Bessa R2 or an RD-1 or a Leica CL, you won't have the ability to focus the faster lenses accurately when they are wide open.
If you are a sharpness nut, get the 35/2.5 . . .

I have the 35/1.4 SC, the 35/1.2 and the 35/1.7. I have the 35/2.5 too, but in Nikon RF mount. I also have a 35 Summicron Asph. The CV lens that I would keep if I had to sell all the others is the 1.2 -- this is because it brings a look to the table that the others just don't. I don't care a bit about the weight or size and wide open it just has a look that the others can't match. The 1/4 is a nice, small lens. The occasionally busy bokeh puts me off compared to the others. Once again, these are intensely personal choices.