Voigtlander vs Zeiss question

I just got a Zeiss Ikon ZM and will need a 35mm lens for it. Any opinions about CV vs Zeiss 35mm?

Zeiss is a tad more expensive, and Leitz is not an option re price.

Do you like hard, every third aperture clicks? Or focus tab which looks like the rudiment? Do you like to have lens big if it is faster than f2.8? Then choose Cosina made Zeiss.

Like small f2.5, 1.4 lenses? Or want aspherical? Or very fast ? With always normal aperture clicks and sometime normal focus tab?
Don't want to overpay?
CV, then.

If you don't need focus tab Ultron 35 1.7 asph in LTM with M adapter is great performer for less price than slower Biogon 35 2.8.

There are many lenses available to you- I'm thinking that you want a new one. In the last month, I picked up a Canon 50/1.4 in LTM, circa 1957, with absolutely perfect glass and less wear on it than my Voigtlander 50/1.5 Aspheric has picked up in 10 years of use. $170 for the Canon. Also just unboxed a chrome Canon 50/1.8, perfect glass, original caps, near perfect cosmetics- under $100. The Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 match the Summilux V1 and Summicron V1 of the day.

ANYWAY! The 50/1.5 Nokton Asph and 35/1.7 Ultron are fast, sharp, smooth bokeh, and the pair can be had for under $800 with high-quality adapters. I prefer the Black paint versions over the chrome. I had one issue with the 50/1.5 Nokton -and is probably why I got it at such a good price- the retaining ring for the inner element had not been completely tightened down. Someone had most likely used a spanner with flat tips to assemble it- tightened it flush with the surrounding metal. It actually tightened past that point using "needle-nosed" type spanner tips. Ten minute job, after figuring out why pictures would sometimes be out of focus. Then noticed all the out-of-focus pictures were with the camera pointed down. Has never given a problem since.

For modern Zeiss lenses- I have the 50/1.5 C-Sonnar. Fast, Small, best Sonnar formula lens that you can buy. Very different rendering from anything in the Voigtlander and Leica lineup. Mine has never developed a problem, but I've read of some developing a "wobble" in the focus- I believe relubing the helical corrects the problem.

Congrats on your ZM, great camera! You will enjoy it.

If you are OK with f/2.8, the Zeiss Biogon 35 2.8 is fantastic, small and good value for money. My Brother-in-law (one of the best photographers I ever met) has the 35 2.8 as well as the C-Sonnar 50 1.5. I have the Biogon 35 2.0 and the Planar 50 2.0. We love to exchange lenses but apart from the difference in max aperture, we never saw much difference between the 35 2.8 and 2.0. The 2.0, by the way, is a great companion to the Planar, exact same size, and very similar rendering. Love that Planar (I much prefer it to the C-Sonnar, but that's just me)

Bottom line, it all depends on your budget - a Zeiss 35 will set you back around $600 for f/2.8, a couple hundred more for f/2. If you want to spend that money, go for Zeiss, If you want faster for the same money, go with Voigtlander. I think you cannot go wrong either way. The 35mm Distagon 1.4 is overkill in my opinion, it's huge, more than twice as expensive, and blocks a big chunk of the viewfinder - although surely a fine lens. I had a look at it in a store, mounted it on my camera and immediately decided for the 35 2.0 (which I got used for a very good price). If I want a lens that big I can as well shoot an SLR.

As a side note and for what it's worth, the only M-mount lenses which I found not to be compatible with the ZM are 1) the Leica 28-35-50 Tri Elmar (it mounts but the viewfinder frames do not switch according to the selected focal length) and 2) the Leica summicron dual range, which cannot focus at infinity (risk of damaging the shutter) and whose goggles do not fit the camera. There might be others. Hope this helps

I wouldn't mind throwing in the CV 35/1.4 SC or MC if you haven't thought about those lenses.. Not super expensive, really tiny and, in my experiences, quite a decent performer blending a bit of character and excellent sharpness stopped down. I exclusively used it (albeit on a Fuji Xpro2) for the birth and hospital stay of my daughter and couldn't be happier.

I usually prefer 50mm lenses but my very first Voigtlander lens was the Color Skopar 35/2.5 in M Mount for my ZM. What a wonderful buy that lens was. It was light, tiny, very well built and took incredibly sharp photographs. Though I still prefer the 50mm viewpoint I ended up using that lens far more then I expected because I loved the results.

I used that lens so much that I ended up buying one for my Leica IIIc in thread mount. Though Barnack cameras are smaller it still worked just as nice on my IIIc as it did on my ZM. It partnered up very nicely with the little Voigtlander Heliar 50/3.5 I picked up for the IIIc.

Then I ended up buying a Bessa R2C (wonderful camera btw) and I missed the Color Skopar so much that I bought one to fit the Contax mount on the R2C.

I own a few more Voigtlander lenses now but I still own those first three Color Skopars and I have never regretted buying them. If they are an example of what all the Cosina lenses are like then I'm not sure why I would ever need to buy a lens from any other manufacturer.

J_calow said:

I wouldn't mind throwing in the CV 35/1.4 SC or MC if you haven't thought about those lenses.. Not super expensive, really tiny and, in my experiences, quite a decent performer blending a bit of character and excellent sharpness stopped down. I exclusively used it (albeit on a Fuji Xpro2) for the birth and hospital stay of my daughter and couldn't be happier.

Click to expand...

I have this lens in Single Coat form as my standard fit on the M6. As you allude to it renders really lovely wide open, smooth out of focus areas, thin DoF, lovely natural vignette, a bit soft bit still detailed. Stopped down to F8 its as sharp as you need (I had to compare TMY2 to TriX shots at F8 to see that for myself). Absolutely love it, its the CV re-interpretation of a Leica legend and perfect on a film rangefinder. Much underrated lens.

NJH said:

I have this lens in Single Coat form as my standard fit on the M6. As you allude to it renders really lovely wide open, smooth out of focus areas, thin DoF, lovely natural vignette, a bit soft bit still detailed. Stopped down to F8 its as sharp as you need (I had to compare TMY2 to TriX shots at F8 to see that for myself). Absolutely love it, its the CV re-interpretation of a Leica legend and perfect on a film rangefinder. Much underrated lens.

Click to expand...

IMHO this lens is a waste of time compared against the Color Skopar 35/2.5. At wide open apertures it is very poor and the out of focus rendering is very busy. It gets much better by f/2.8, but by that time it is competing with the Color Skopar which is a much better lens optically and a much nicer size and weight. I was not impressed with my version and sent it back for a refund within a month. It is one of the very few lenses where I have done that. If you need a wider aperture then you can get with the Color Skopar you will be much better served by the Zeiss Biogon 35/2 which is a much better lens, though a larger. This lens is certainly worth the additional cost where-as the Nokton 35 is not.

Skopar is absolutely no name lens, IMO. Good for color. And it is the only lens so far, I was turned off on darkroom bw 8x10 prints. So primitive this lens on prints is. But it you need lens without focus shift, kind of sharp and very neutral, sure. It is cheapest modern 35 LTM/M. I went with all three versions and will never look back. Two of them were driving me nuts with shifting aperture ring for no reason... To me it appears what very first version is the best one.

Pioneer its all about use cases. I have no use for F2.8 on a 35mm lens, none. For this sort of camera I am either wide open in low light or at F8. In such circumstances I found the 35/1.4 covered those 2 cases nicely for me and its been the same for many other happy users. You are right though in that if one is more interested in the interim apertures and a slight cost saving then the color skopar is better for such people.

I'm assuming that since it has been more than a month the OP has already picked up a lens and has long forgotten this thread.

Personally after using a lot of different 35s I ended up with the Zeiss f/2 Biogon. The Voigtlanders never appealed to me from an image quality perspective. They were just blah, and wide open, not so great. I compared the Zeiss lens to the Summicron I had at the time and it wasn't even close. Better field illumination, less distortion and better sharpness, not to mention the color was cleaner. There is almost nothing you can say negative about the Biogon. It is a spectacular lens. Haven't looked back.