ZM Distagon 1.4/35 vs. Voigtlaender 1.2/35 II

[user237428934]

I want to have a faster 35. Summilux is no option, just too expensive. I like what I've seen from the ZM Distagon but that's still 2000 EUR and no used ones on ebay Germany.

So what's about the Voigtlaender 1.2/35 II ? Same size, the 1.2 vs. 1.4 is not an advantage for me. Is there someone who compared those lenses? What's the sharpness at 1.4/2.0? Flare resistance?

 

[Leica All Day]

I have never used the 35mm / 1.2 Voigtlander version II lens, but I do have about 8 years experience using the version I lens and I absolutely loved it. About a year ago I decided to sell mine and purchase the 35mm / 1.4 ZM Distagon. I think the ZM is a little warmer in tones and a little sharper wide open, but to be honest, if you have never used either of these lens, I think you will be happy with either lens, they are both excellent. I imagine that someone here will mention "size" when it comes to these lenses, but the size has never bothered me at all ( I have big hands) and I like the way they feel in my hands.

One thing I should say, when I was deciding on whether to purchase the ZM 35mm / 1.4, I did a comparison between the Leica 35mm 1.4 ASPH, the Leica 35mm 1.4 ASPH FLE and the above mentioned lenses and I decided to purchase the ZM.

Cheers, Michael

 

[user237428934]

Thanks Michael. The size is no issue for me.

 

[SaveKodak]

If you can find a used copy that you can afford the ZM is the better lens, it's just sublime. I've seen many reviews stating that it beats the Summilux generally in every way but size. Zeiss absolutely knocked it out of the park for what I would imagine will be their last M lens.

That said, the 35/1.2 is just great. It's got a more typical CV rendering, meaning that it doesn't try to have "perfect" bokeh, and at 1.2 it's certainly not tack sharp, but it's very good. And at 1.4 and 2.0 on it's just great. So if you had to buy one new, I'd say the CV is a great choice.

The hardest choice is the choice between two great lenses honestly. For my part the size did eventually bother me with the 35/1.4. It just didn't feel right on my M4 so I downsized to the 35/2 Biogon and the 50/1.5 Nokton. But, I would love to have that rendering at 1.4 from the Zeiss again if I could. It really freaking sang on an M 240. Sadly I think I would have the same size issues on the M10 now that it's back to film sizes.

 

[ferider]

I suggest to also consider the VM 35/1.7. Astounding lens.

 

[user237428934]

I suggest to also consider the VM 35/1.7. Astounding lens.

Interesting thought but I have the biogon 35 already. 1.7 is too close to f2. I want the full stop of more light and less depth of field.

 

[rscheffler]

The 35/1.7 is sharper than the Biogon wide open, but true, it's not really much faster. In fact, you really only gain the 1/3 stop in the very center of the frame.

As for ZM 35/1.4 vs. the 35/1.2... the ZM is technically the better lens. Sharper, less field curvature, higher contrast... overall a punchier rendering. But the 35/1.2 IMO is a touch smoother feeling and is faithful to the typical moderate contrast and rendering punch of many Voigtlander lenses. Anyway, I assume you plan to use it on a Leica camera and not a Sony digital, where all sorts of other problems related to the Sony sensor design degrade the results (though the 35/1.2 actually does quite well).

There was a shop, either Germany or Austria based, selling the ZM new on ebay for well under normal retail prices. Not sure if they're still offering it... IIRC it was in the 1200-1400 Euro range. Don't remember their store name, but maybe a search will turn up something?

 

[jonmanjiro]

If you can find a used copy that you can afford the ZM is the better lens, it's just sublime. I've seen many reviews stating that it beats the Summilux generally in every way but size. Zeiss absolutely knocked it out of the park for what I would imagine will be their last M lens.

That was my conclusion too. I bought a used ZM 35/1.4 on a whim even though I already owned a Summilux 35/1.4 FLE. Then I shot a side by side comparison, saw how good the ZM 35/1.4 was, then promptly sold the Summilux and don't miss it one bit.

 

[user237428934]

There was a shop, either Germany or Austria based, selling the ZM new on ebay for well under normal retail prices. Not sure if they're still offering it... IIRC it was in the 1200-1400 Euro range. Don't remember their store name, but maybe a search will turn up something?

There are some on ebay that are cheaper than the retail price but they are all from Hong Kong.

 

[user237428934]

That was my conclusion too. I bought a used ZM 35/1.4 on a whim even though I already owned a Summilux 35/1.4 FLE. Then I shot a side by side comparison, saw how good the ZM 35/1.4 was, then promptly sold the Summilux and don't miss it one bit.

I know you have one, I think you posted some photos here already. I have the Planar and Biogon already and maybe it's better to stick with the Zeiss look.

 

[gunston]

any shootout comparison?

 

[raid]

Is the VM 35/1.7 same optically as the past version 35/1.7?

 

[Erik van Straten]

Is the VM 35/1.7 same optically as the past version 35/1.7?

No, it is different. The screw mount Ultron 35/1.7 was superb, but the new M-mount Ultron is better still. No distortion, sharp and with a nice contrast.

Leica M5, Ultron-M 35mm f/1.7, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

 

[raid]

Used first version costs about $400.
VM costs about $800.

Is it worth twice as much?
Twice as superb?

 

[Erik van Straten]

Used first version costs about $400.
VM costs about $800.

Is it worth twice as much?
Twice as superb?

Mechanically it is much better I guess. However, after a while mine got the wobble. A loose ring somewere inside. Because the lens was still under warranty it had to go back to Japan. It was more than two months until I had my lens back.

Erik.

 

[raid]

So for a gentle use of such lenses, the first version (ltm) should be OK then. It was an under-rated and under-priced lens. Some people would say, why get a 35/1.7 when I can get a 35/1.4 or even a 35/1.2. I would say that for "on the go", the 35/1.7 may be a great choice, while for local use, the 35/1.2 may be good for an outburst of additional creativity at aperture 1.2.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

So for a gentle use of such lenses, the first version (ltm) should be OK then. It was an under-rated and under-priced lens. Some people would say, why get a 35/1.7 when I can get a 35/1.4 or even a 35/1.2. I would say that for "on the go", the 35/1.7 may be a great choice, while for local use, the 35/1.2 may be good for an outburst of additional creativity at aperture 1.2.

I used 35 1.7 fist version and optically it was very good lens. Superior to 35 2.5 Skopar on bw film. Too bad they choose tab-less design again for VM and this ring with sharp edges is not for my fingers skin. I have Skopar Classic for now in addition to Summarit 35.

 

[narsuitus]

Leitz, Nikon, and Zeiss make excellent lenses. However, compared to my Nikon and Leitz lenses, I prefer the slightly sharper, less field curvature, higher contrast, and overall punchier rendering of my Zeiss glass. I have never used Voigtländer lenses so I cannot compare.


M6 Rangefinder by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[ferider]

Leitz, Nikon, and Zeiss make excellent lenses. However, compared to my Nikon and Leitz lenses, I prefer the slightly sharper, less field curvature, higher contrast, and overall punchier rendering of my Zeiss glass. I have never used Voigtländer lenses so I cannot compare.

Your Zeiss "glass" is Voigtlander glass. 🙂 And that 90 - while "sharp" in the center (resolution) - is not really "punchy".

Note that I have 2 35mm Summicrons: my version 1 is "sharper" than a 35/2 Biogon, the other one (v3) less sharp but more contrasty.

All I'm saying is that it's impossible to characterize brands like this, in particular if you equal lenses manufactured over 60 years or so.

Roland.

 

[raid]

What Roland has said above ....
There is a reason why I use many different lenses. Yes, I enjoy trying out lenses, but I also know that I can benefit from different qualities that characterize different lenses.

I also like using the Summicron V1 35/2 for high sharpness, but I also like using a Zeiss Biogon 35/2 for better flare resistance and bolder colors (which can be actually obtained with PS if desired). Today, I will be using a Canon 35/2, which is a very small and light lens that is very sharp in the center. I will also use a Canon 35/1.5 for capturing some nice looking soft colors of the Gulf of Mexico, if I am successful.