Why do I see so many 35mm 1.2s for sale?

[Joe Vitessa]

I've been hitting the classified ad sections of a lot of photo websites lately and I consistently see the Voigtlander 35mm 1.2 lens for sale more than any other Voigtlander glass. Why do you think that is? Do people not like the size/weight? The images I've seen with it look great. Can current owners share any thoughts? If you sold it, why did you sell?

 

[Huss]

I love mine. Maybe because most people realized they use it at f8 99% of the time, and if that is the case then they might as well use a much smaller 35mm lens? (possibly cheaper too).
It has much nicer mechanics than my Zeiss ZM lenses.

I also think it was/is more popular than other M 35 lenses,which is why you see more for sale.

 

[Huss]

Oh, forgot to mention, I mainly use it on my M5, which is a physically bigger M than most, so the size balances well.

 

[noimmunity]

Do people not like the size/weight? The images I've seen with it look great.

Both are true.

FWIW, I still have mine, one of the limited chrome edition of the v.1 .

Since there are two major new entries in 35mm in M mount coming this year (the CV 35/1.7 and the ZM 35/1.4), plus Leica's revamped Summarit (which has the effect of sending down prices on the old Summarit), that may be a factor as well. There are an awful lot of really awesome choices now in this focal length among in production lenses.

 

[jsrockit]

I think people are buying them for mirrorless these days too. It's also (V2) newer than many CV lenses. Special usage lenses (super fast) tend to turn over more than standard lenses (typical max apertures) I would think.

 

[Brian Legge]

Perhaps people migrating to the ZM 35/1.4?

I recall many people buying the CV 35/1.2 over the CV 35/1.4 for the the 1.2s more modern look rather than higher speed. They were okay with the large size. Someone who made that tradeoff seems like a candidate for the new ZM... and selling the CV could get them almost half way there on the budget side.

 

[raid]

While a different lens, I saw today many Zeiss 85/1.4 offered at reduced asking prices. Are people migrating to smaller and lighter lenses?

 

[Colin Corneau]

I had the v.1 lens - can only speak for myself but to me the only reason to get this lens is if you're going to shoot at 1.2. Otherwise go for a smaller lens (which I did, eventually). I liked this lens, it just didn't fit the street shooting that I do. No complaint with the build or image quality.

I think the point of using these for a new generation of mirrorless cameras is a great one - they'd be quite ideal.

 

[Darthfeeble]

I sold mine for the reason you mention. It's a tank! Excellent image and build quality but on my RD and on my M9 it made the camera too front heavy.

 

[Jason Sprenger]

Besides, size and weight, on a Leica M, the lens intrudes into 35mm frame of the viewfinder more than other lenses.

Not so much on a Zeiss Ikon though, FWIW.

Thus, I can see why folks would try it but let go of it in favor of a smaller 35.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I had the original. I just didn't like carrying it. I think i had it at the same time as a 35/2 ASPH. This was a while ago, so my memory is sketchy, but i either kept the 35/2, or sold both and both a 35/1.4 ASPH.

The CV 1.2 was a great lens, though. I probably preferred it to the 35/1.4 ASPH, but the form (size and weight) made it a little less desirable. It's not that it's really that large, as i'm used to SLRs and Medium format, but i was using Ms for a reason, and larger, heavier lenses sorta defeated the original 'logic.'

 

[okcomputer]

I like it a great deal... however, if I only used it on my A7r, I could see myself just bumping the ISO one stop rather than dipping down to 1.4 or 1.2, and just going for a smaller package. The extra stop (and change) does help on film though.
And here's an odd statement: I really like how this lens renders OOF foliage.

35/1.2. A7R Above, M4/Tri-X below:

tri-x_compare by adnan76, on Flickr

 

[nikku]

Had it, loved the way it rendered, sold it because it was too darn big and heavy. Got a 35/2 'cron ASPH instead. Yes I lost a stop and a half, but I rarely, if ever, needed 1.2 (I always soup my Tri-X in Diafine and shoot at ISO 1000). I value size and portability over low light shooting ability.

If I ever need to shoot in really low light, I just use digital (with IBIS my OMD EM5 / Panaleica 25/1.4 is capable of shooting in some truly dim lighting).

 

[Joe Vitessa]

Thanks for your comments, everyone! It's definitely a lens that intrigues me. Still debating if the weight/length makes it a no-go.

 

[Huss]

Thanks for your comments, everyone! It's definitely a lens that intrigues me. Still debating if the weight/length makes it a no-go.

If you are used to SLR lenses, then the weight/length thing is a non issue.

But.. it does significantly intrude into the VF of my M3, M5, M-E. I tune that out but some may find that really annoying.

 

[Krosya]

This has been talked about a zillion times ever since this lens ever came out. However, in my opinion, image quality/rendering at faster speeds is well worth it to overlook size/weight. I know - I will never sell mine. If I need a smaller/lighter lens - I have other lenses, but for some things - there is no substitute.

 

[mfogiel]

I think that the only real reason could be the new Zeiss 35/1.4, but in my opinion, for B/W the CV is probably giving you more of a classic look. I am very fond of Zeiss glass, but you need to know what you are buying. Besides this, in low light lower contrast can actually be an advantage in terms of effective speed (shadow detail).

 

[noimmunity]

I think that the only real reason could be the new Zeiss 35/1.4, but in my opinion, for B/W the CV is probably giving you more of a classic look. I am very fond of Zeiss glass, but you need to know what you are buying. Besides this, in low light lower contrast can actually be an advantage in terms of effective speed (shadow detail).

You will have to try them both together, Marek. I look forward to reading about your impressions.

The weight and size difference doesn't seem that significant to me. But the renderings do look different, especially across color or B/W.

 

[traveler_101]

I think people are buying them for mirrorless these days too. . .

😱 😱

 

[D&A]

I think that the only real reason could be the new Zeiss 35/1.4, but in my opinion, for B/W the CV is probably giving you more of a classic look. I am very fond of Zeiss glass, but you need to know what you are buying. Besides this, in low light lower contrast can actually be an advantage in terms of effective speed (shadow detail).

I completely agree. The look between the Zeiss and VC 35mm f1.2 is very different until approx f4. The former is very much like Leica's current 35mm f1.4 Lux asph fle whereby the VC 35mm f1.2 is very classic in its rendition and way it draws. Each have their place and respective fans and depends on how much optical character one wants to introduce into their photos. I'm lucky enough to own two of the silver versions of the 35mm f1.2, which in itself looks classy.

I think the above analogy is similar to comparing the current Leica 50mm Lux asph vs its immediate predecessor, the pre asph. Both very sharp when stopped down but the pre asph has a more classic look when shot at more open apertures.

Dave (D&A)