Zeiss 25mm f2.8 or Voigtlander 35 f1.2

[steveclem]

People, I'm seeking a lens to put on my newly acquired Epson and the choices within my realistic budget are the two mentioned.
I would prefer to go the wider angle route at first but like the idea of a fast lens for indoor use at high iso. As it's a first lens I'm tending towards the Zeiss due to favourable reviews on its performance although it is a 'slower' lens,which may not be such an issue if other qualities can compensate.
The Voigtlander? I read that the build quality isn't quite up there but it's still a capable performer, even more so at the low light levels of club and pub lighting.

I'm asking opinions on what experience others may have of one or both of these lenses or should I be saving my pennies for another piece of expensive glass instead? Perhaps a Voigtlander 28mm f2 for instance,is that a reasonable start?
Be grateful for the advice,

Steve

 

[Richard G]

The Zeiss is stellar, straight, sharp and contrasty. It's quite a big lens for a one and only, but, without knowing it intimately, I guess that Nokton is pretty big too. I would rather have a 35 first. If you are even thinking of an f2.8 lens, why not get a 35 f2 (Biogon) or 2.5 (CV) or the much raised 2.8 C Biogon 35? Sorry.

 

[noimmunity]

Both of those are great lenses, though quite different.
I think the R-D1 viewfinder is ideal with a 35mm lens, yet I cannot remember whether or not the 35/1.2 blocks the VF and if so how much. It's incontestably a great lens; there are lots of other great choices in that focal length.

 

[BobYIL]

People, I'm seeking a lens to put on my newly acquired Epson and the choices within my realistic budget are the two mentioned.
I would prefer to go the wider angle route at first but like the idea of a fast lens for indoor use at high iso. As it's a first lens I'm tending towards the Zeiss due to favourable reviews on its performance although it is a 'slower' lens,which may not be such an issue if other qualities can compensate.
The Voigtlander? I read that the build quality isn't quite up there but it's still a capable performer, even more so at the low light levels of club and pub lighting.

I'm asking opinions on what experience others may have of one or both of these lenses or should I be saving my pennies for another piece of expensive glass instead? Perhaps a Voigtlander 28mm f2 for instance,is that a reasonable start?
Be grateful for the advice,

Steve

While using a film camera, which one is your preferred focal length: 50mm or 35mm? Rangefinder users usually regard one of these focal lenghts as being their "favorite" or "normal", i.e. "inclined to use more often". If you are a 35mm type then go with the 25mm Biogon as you can hardly find a higher-resolving and well-corrected lens with almost no distortion, hi-contrast and bleedingly sharp. A reference class; even in the DSLR world there is no other lens like it including the Zeiss ones. There is also the 25/4 Skopar but I have never owned one. (Or go with the 3.8/24 Elmar which is considerably more expensive.)

If you are a 50mm type, then the choices are much wider. For example the 35/1.2 Nokton is regarded highly if you can cope up with the large size and weight. For more resonable cost (and size) there are plenty of 35/2 and 1.8 lenses around, the Biogon 35/2 is a stellar example. With the cost further down check the C-Biogon 35/2.8 (I find it on par with the Summicron 35 asph. but with better bokeh) and the widely beloved VC 35/2.5.

In case you plan of owning more than one lens (also to upgrade to another rangefinder in future) then note that the Zeiss lenses do exhibit remarkably the same color rendition and microcontrast characteristics that might be important for color photography.

 

[lcpr]

The 35 1.2 (at least the V2 I own) feels pretty well built, I compared it to a friends' 35 cron ASPH and I felt that the aperture clicks were more defined on the Nokton.

 

[umcelinho]

hard to recommend comparing two focal lengths, it really comes down to how wide you usually shoot and how much low light shooting you like doing.

i havent used the 25/2.8, but the 21/2.8. it's a great lens and the extra wideness is welcome. build quality is good. but you have to keep in mind you will either need an external viewfinder or frame using the 50mm framelines as a guide (i imagine them as being the central rectangle of a bigger rectangle which is 3x the 50mm framelines height/width), do it with both eyes open and it's a good estimate. i've shot at 2.8 quite a few times at night and it's fairly okay, as long as you don't have fast moving subjects, just crank iso up to 1600 and it's fine (i usually go up to 800, saving 1600 for really dark situations). i'd recommend going for the 21 instead of the 25 as it'd be further from a 35mm lens, which is more likely you'll be getting later on.

the 28/1.9 or 28/2 idea is also a good one, if you want to spend a bit less and not fiddle with lens changing. it's a really good lens (ive shot with a friend's 1.9), balances well but size wise it's close to the nokton. you get the advantage of having viewfinder coverage (though if you wear glasses it could be too tight).

the 35/1.2 in probably the best lens that I have. it won't flare at all, is amazingly sharp at 1.2, feels smooth, i like its ergonomics, the only downside is the weight (not much the size), but on the r-d1 it balances well since the camera is a bit heavier and bigger than an M (the M5 might have a similar weight/size, for reference). i don't use the 35/1.2 too often, so i sometimes start to think of selling it.. then i take it out for some low light shooting and it wows me and i remember why i keep it 🙂

both ways you'll be in good hands, but

 

[dreilly]

Great advice above. I will say that though the 25mm is only f2.8, it's surprisingly good at low-light work. Its sharpness makes up for its slowness somewhat, hard to explain but I've seen it happen. It's a bit wider than the 28 frameline for the R-D1, but still it lived on my R-D1 most of the time, even when I had the 35. The 35 I consider more of a specialty lens...it's huge and sharp but the 25 is so bloody sharp that I just found myself using that. It does vignette a bit on the R-D1 (I don't recall the 35 doing that) but I liked the vignetting, which can be corrected in post easily anyway.

 

[BCMielke]

Very good answers. I look at this differently though. I have the Zeiss lens and as others have stated it is indeed a stellar performer. I also have the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.7. I like the fast speed and the blur the background bokeh of the 35mm. I wish there was a fast lens that was affordable in the 21-25mm range as well, but there isn't. I like and need both. If I were to only have one, well I wouldn't. 🙂

 

[steveclem]

Went for the 35 Voigtlander in the end, nice lens ! Does anyone know of a rangefinder adjuster here in London who can finish the job in a day? I've seen the D.I.Y thread on here but my eyes just aint up to the job and I've ground to a halt after getting as far as removing the hot shoe-the interior is just too small and dark for my eyes!