Deciding on a 35...

[film_man]

This Leica thing is not good for my pocket. So I started with the M4 and that pointless idea of only having a 40mm lens on it. Well it is less than 3 months in and I now have a Zeiss 21/4.5 and a 50/1.5 to go with the M4. The only other focal length I've been holding onto with my SLR is 35mm but I think it is time to make a move and go rangefinder all in. So looking at a 35mm and the options I've got it down to are:

Voigtlander 35/1.4 Nokton
Zeiss 35/2.8 ZM C

I've considered the Skopar f/2.5 but it doesn't seem to offer anything over the Zeiss apart from price and I've also thought about the ZM 35/2 but it is just too big and intrusive. The Leica stuff is all too expensive, even the Summarit, and things like the CV 35/1.2 or 35/1.7 are just big.

Now, the Zeiss would be the easy choice, essentially a perfect lens and it matches in look and feel my other two. The Nokton on the other hand is just as small and light, a bit cheaper and is f/1.4 At the same time it seems to be a bit of an acquired taste (maybe like the 50/1.5) especially wide open with heavy vignetting, maybe some focus shift and basically lots of things that sound like the Sonnar. While I don't really mind that much I would prefer a 35 that I can shoot easily and transparently (if it makes sense).

So the question is for those that have experience with these lenses, is the Nokton at f/2.8 nice and clean like the Zeiss 35/2.8? If so then it looks like the Nokton is the best of both worlds, quirky at f/1.4, nice and easy at f/2.8 and still fast enough to shoot in low light. If not I'm probably edging towards the Zeiss...

Thanks for any advice!

 

[jimjm]

I've been using the Nokton 35/1.4 for about 8 years now on an M2, and I'm really happy with it. I shoot mostly B/W and it's the perfect size for a Leica. For me, the added speed makes it more versatile when shooting indoors or in low light. Never seen any issues with sharpness, and contrast is really good. I've heard about the problems with focus shift and distortion, but if I really need to nail critical focus wide-open I'll use an SLR, and for architecture I'll use medium or large-format.
It's just a great walking-around lens at a good price and small size. If I didn't need a 1.4 lens, I might look at the Zeiss 35/2.8 as well.

Luckily, the resale value on the Nokton is still good, cost of a used one is about the same as what I paid new. So you're not risking much if you buy one to try it out. I would think the same is true about the Zeiss.

M2, Nokton 35/1.4 MC, TMax 100

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Color Skopar 35 2.5 and Nokton 35 1.4 should be the same at f2.8. Just less focus shift with Color Skopar

Here is also very small 35/2 ASPH Color Skopar. Available in M mount since this year.

 

[daleda]

I own both, flip a coin. The Nokton is on one of my M3’s with a 35mm finder most of the time. I only shoot B&W.

 

[film_man]

I've been using the Nokton 35/1.4 for about 8 years now on an M2, and I'm really happy with it. I shoot mostly B/W and it's the perfect size for a Leica. For me, the added speed makes it more versatile when shooting indoors or in low light. Never seen any issues with sharpness, and contrast is really good. I've heard about the problems with focus shift and distortion, but if I really need to nail critical focus wide-open I'll use an SLR, and for architecture I'll use medium or large-format.
It's just a great walking-around lens at a good price and small size. If I didn't need a 1.4 lens, I might look at the Zeiss 35/2.8 as well.

Luckily, the resale value on the Nokton is still good, cost of a used one is about the same as what I paid new. So you're not risking much if you buy one to try it out. I would think the same is true about the Zeiss.

M2, Nokton 35/1.4 MC, TMax 100
View attachment 221162

That's great, thanks for the insight.

 

[film_man]

I own both, flip a coin. The Nokton is on one of my M3’s with a 35mm finder most of the time. I only shoot B&W.

Do you mean that at f/2.8 they're both the same? Is there a time when you would use the Zeiss over the Nokton?

 

[film_man]

Color Skopar 35 2.5 and Nokton 35 1.4 should be the same at f2.8. Just less focus shift with Color Skopar

Here is also very small 35/2 ASPH Color Skopar. Available in M mount since this year.

Oh didn't know about the ASPH. I'll have a look, it's the same price with the Zeiss. Interestingly about £100 more than the Nokton.

So many choices, Ultron, Nokton, C-Biogon...

 

[daleda]

Do you mean that at f/2.8 they're both the same? Is there a time when you would use the Zeiss over the Nokton?

They each have their own character Ziess is tak sharp, Nokton while plenty sharp, seems more forgiving. I usually always shoot at F8 (Tri-X at ASA 200) in plenty of natural light.
Both lens are of the quality that I just forget about them and see what image is looking for me.

 

[trendland]

Color Skopar 35 2.5 and Nokton 35 1.4 should be the same at f2.8. Just less focus shift with Color Skopar

Here is also very small 35/2 ASPH Color Skopar. Available in M mount since this year.

One would normaly not belive - but yes from my point the "simple" Skopar 35 2.5 is
"increadable sharp"!!!!! I would not say the Nokton 35 is the 100% same (from resolution/color corection/contrast ability a.s.o) let's say from all optical characteristics!
But yes the simple much cheaper Skopar 35 is at the very near at 2.8 to the Nokton!

with regards

PS : The Nokton has more resolution at open lens! The Skopar don't need to have because it has not 1.4 or 2.0 it has " just 2.5/2.8" yes that to discuss is more academical but it is the reason for the Nokton is more expensive/ the Skopar is real cheap!
[ the correction of Nokton at open lens is quite good - that is the reason the Nokton can not profit
much from if it is set to 2.8....in other words nearly same characteristics with open lens in comparison to characteristics at 2.0 ....]

 

[trendland]

This Leica thing is not good for my pocket. So I started with the M4 and that pointless idea of only having a 40mm lens on it. Well it is less than 3 months in and I now have a Zeiss 21/4.5 and a 50/1.5 to go with the M4. The only other focal length I've been holding onto with my SLR is 35mm but I think it is time to make a move and go rangefinder all in. So looking at a 35mm and the options I've got it down to are:

Voigtlander 35/1.4 Nokton
Zeiss 35/2.8 ZM C

I've considered the Skopar f/2.5 but it doesn't seem to offer anything over the Zeiss apart from price and I've also thought about the ZM 35/2 but it is just too big and intrusive. The Leica stuff is all too expensive, even the Summarit, and things like the CV 35/1.2 or 35/1.7 are just big.

Now, the Zeiss would be the easy choice, essentially a perfect lens and it matches in look and feel my other two. The Nokton on the other hand is just as small and light, a bit cheaper and is f/1.4 At the same time it seems to be a bit of an acquired taste (maybe like the 50/1.5) especially wide open with heavy vignetting, maybe some focus shift and basically lots of things that sound like the Sonnar. While I don't really mind that much I would prefer a 35 that I can shoot easily and transparently (if it makes sense).

So the question is for those that have experience with these lenses, is the Nokton at f/2.8 nice and clean like the Zeiss 35/2.8? If so then it looks like the Nokton is the best of both worlds, quirky at f/1.4, nice and easy at f/2.8 and still fast enough to shoot in low light. If not I'm probably edging towards the Zeiss...

Thanks for any advice!

Hmm to prefer the Zeiss 35/2.8 ? In comparison to the Nokton makes no sense here from my point! To compare the Nokton 1.2 50mm with this Zeiss :

It is the Zeiss C Sonnar T 1.5 50mm ZM

would bring you into trouble from your budget it is more expensive!

BTW : I mentioned T H I S Zeiss just as a "possible" alternate in comparison to a Leica APO Summicron 2.0 50mm in an other thread!

Perhaps one can say so : All these lenses you have in mint for your decision and mentioned are quite simular priced (Zeiss is more expensive but it depends to the Voigtländer with wich you compare) the characteristics are near by near!
It is a question of your feeling indeed! If two products have same price/same characteristics the next criteria can be the design and then the color!

with regards

PS : First time in live I adviced to buy a special lens from reasons if it looks fine!
But yes - if is such near by near like here?

 

[film_man]

...but trendland I do have the 50 Sonnar. I'm only asking about 35mm lenses...?

 

[film_man]

They each have their own character Ziess is tak sharp, Nokton while plenty sharp, seems more forgiving. I usually always shoot at F8 (Tri-X at ASA 200) in plenty of natural light.
Both lens are of the quality that I just forget about them and see what image is looking for me.

Ok, thanks that's great.

 

[narsuitus]

So looking at a 35mm and the options I've got it down to are:

Voigtlander 35/1.4 Nokton
Zeiss 35/2.8 ZM C

Why are you not considering the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM?


Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 (left) by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[dourbalistar]

I don't think anybody has mentioned the Canon 35mm f/2 LTM. Very compact and can be found relatively cheap, certainly cheaper than the CV 35/1.4 Nokton or the Zeiss 35/2.8. Speed-wise, it splits the difference between the CV Nokton and the Zeiss.

 

[film_man]

Why are you not considering the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM?

Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 (left) by Narsuitus, on Flickr

Because it is huge!

 

[film_man]

I don't think anybody has mentioned the Canon 35mm f/2 LTM. Very compact and can be found relatively cheap, certainly cheaper than the CV 35/1.4 Nokton or the Zeiss 35/2.8. Speed-wise, it splits the difference between the CV Nokton and the Zeiss.

Interesting, very cheap compared to the other two.

 

[NB23]

At this point, let me recomend you all the other 35s that have ever been made, ever.

 

[film_man]

At this point, let me recomend you all the other 35s that have ever been made, ever.

Thanks, that's a great idea. I'll buy one of each.

 

[Ces1um]

At this point, let me recomend you all the other 35s that have ever been made, ever.

I see what you did there...

 

[trendland]

Why are you not considering the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM?


Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 (left) by Narsuitus, on Flickr

I guess it is in concern of pricing narsuitus! I of course have not all prices correct in mint but the
Voigtländer is about 600,- and the Zeiss is around ~ 1700,- bucks!

with regards

PS : The original Leica isn't real comparable here (ASPH LEICA MADE !) but the pricing isn't also comparable = > 4500,- bucks - so perhaps that answer a question here made : Why cheap lenses with higher priced Leica bodys...? OK good question ! Simple answer :
1) 1700,- (for the Zeiss isn't cheap)
2) there is no need to pay min. 4500,- bucks here because

3.) both lens designs are just great (Zeiss and Voigtländer)

but I guess yes narsiutus the Zeiss seams to be different from characteristics in comparison to the
Voigtländer - what did you pay (just out of curiosity) ?

 

[narsuitus]

what did you pay (just out of curiosity) ?

$1,610 in 2016

 

[film_man]

So in the end I went for a Zeiss 35/2. After playing with it for a while in the shop I didn't find it that intrusive in the finder plus the 35/2.8 C was a bit too small to focus well. I also tried the CV 35/1.2 just for a laugh, that thing is a monster, easily taking up the bottom right 1/4 of the finder on the M4. Thanks all for the suggestions.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

About a year ago I wanted a 35mm lens to complete the Holy Trinity of 35 / 50 / 90 on my Leicas. I considered the Zeiss, but it was too intrusive for me. Instead, I bought this EX+ condition version 4 Summicron 35/2. It's pleasant to use, especially with the focusing tab. Only minor complaint is that aperture ring needs more depth in the detents, as it turns too easily. I posted these photos last year, one showing actual view through the finder.

 

[film_man]

Summicrons are really nice for that, small and unobrusive. I spent the day today shooting with the Zeiss and I must say I didn't find it an issue by the end of the first roll. In any case, maybe one day I will be able to afford a summilux.

 

[Huss]

I got em all, but still recommend the 7A 35mm f2 for about $200. Here on an M7 w/ Fuji C200:






So cheap I don't bother w/ protective filters, hoods etc. The whole darn lens is about the price of a Leica or Zeiss lens hood!