Steve Huff Review Voigtlander 35/1.7 vs ZM 35/1.4

CameraQuest

CameraQuest

Head Bartender
Staff member
Local time
9:29 PM
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Messages
6,522
see http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/09/23/the-voigtlander-35-1-7-ultron-vm-leica-mount-lens-review/

Test done on Sony A7rII

Voigt_35_17_M_BC_08.jpg


Chrome and Black versions of the Voigtlander 35/1.7 M

Voigt_35_17_M_23.jpg


the current production Voigtlander Leica Mount 35mm lenses,
35/2.5 P Color Skopar, 35/1.7 Ultron in black and chrome, 35/1.2 Nokton Version II

Voigt_35_17_M_B_15a.jpg


black Voigtlander 35/1.7 M Ultron mounted on Leica M-P



New optical formula, highly corrected very sharp fast 35mm lens designed for digital sensors

Great sharpness with minimum color shift

Styled like the 50/1.5 Nokton M Aspheric in classic chrome or black aluminum lens barrel

f/1.7 to f/16 in clicked half stops

9 elements in 7 groups, one aspherical

close focus .7meters with rangefinder coupling, scale focusing to .5 meter

46mm filter size

Dedicated LH-9 B Black or LH-9 C Silver Vented Lens Hood optional

Weight Chrome 11.6 oz, Black 8.4 oz

Size 50.6mm x 53mm

63 degree field of view on full frame 35mm

10 aperture blades for pleasing bokeh

Will fit ANY Leica M mount camera, as well as all Sony NEX, M43, Fuji X and digital mirrorless cameras via adapters
 
Thank, it was an informative and good review.

I'm also considering purchase this lens and searching the comparison between the 35mm f2 ZM and the 35mm new Ultron on M. They are both similar in price and size and only half stop aperture different.
 
Actually, not that helpful. Using a Sony A7-series camera - which is all but guaranteed to give poor corners with any wide - tends to obscure a pretty important performance metric (if he ran the "against all other tests" with corner detail, I'd wager that the Sony/Zeiss lens would crush the others on this camera).

I'm sure this is a great lens. But I question the premise of "value shopping" among expensive lenses — on a system that can't take advantage of them.

Also, what's with the shiny chrome finish? Lots of "revival" RF lenses use a sandblasted, somewhat cool-tone chrome that is at least an ok match for various chrome and chrome-like camera bodies (in fact, a lot of the details look so close that I'd almost wager that one metalworking or finishing shop served Ricoh, Pentax, Konica, Rollei, Avenon, etc.). Putting a highly polished lens on a matte chrome body just looks weird (unless it's an adapted Opton Sonnar - but that only works because the Sonnar is so small and has so much detailing that you don't immediately notice it's shiny).

Dante
 
The lens is showing pretty severe field curvature. Look at the shot of his friend in the gym. The writing on the wall is legible on the left side, but blurs out in the middle.

No mention of this in his review.
 
There are many excellent options for 35mm RF lenses these days. This by itself is great. I believe that Stephen and Steve both will agree with me that some factors for choosing a 35mm lens are personal preferences. How many photographers (anywhere) really "need" a perfect 35mm lens in their photography, compared to a 35mm lens that is "95% perfect"?


The modern CV lenses obviously are first class lenses. They are excellent deals with respect to the cost, as compared with Leica lenses. Zeiss ZM lenses are also great lenses at fair prices, as compared with Leica lenses.

The live view FF cameras also allow us to use excellent SLR 35mm lenses now. While such lenses are larger in size than most comparable RF 35mm lenses, they are "free" (in my closet).

It is great that we have so many options available to us. The rest is about using the lenses to obtain great looking images.
 
Steve Huff is enthusiastic about every new lens he tests. It' s always better than the last one :)

I would wait for Sean Reid's opinion, but so far I'm not impressed
 
Huss said:
The lens is showing pretty severe field curvature. Look at the shot of his friend in the gym. The writing on the wall is legible on the left side, but blurs out in the middle.

No mention of this in his review.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see a comparo between this lens as shot on the Sony -- then used on an M9 or M240.

Something tells me that the Voigtlander as well as the Zeiss Distagon would perform even better on a native RF body.

The A7rII is a great camera, but it seems to stuggle with lenses that aren't E-mount.
 
Huss said:
The lens is showing pretty severe field curvature. Look at the shot of his friend in the gym. The writing on the wall is legible on the left side, but blurs out in the middle.

No mention of this in his review.
Click to expand...

You are not looking at "the field" (focus plane).

Also agree with everybody else, why not test on an M ? Guessing, SH gets more readers that way.

Stephen, I have the hardest time pushing the button on this one - because it would make my 35/1.4 SC obsolete. :cool:
 
Dante_Stella said:
Actually, not that helpful. Using a Sony A7-series camera - which is all but guaranteed to give poor corners with any wide - tends to obscure a pretty important performance metric (if he ran the "against all other tests" with corner detail, I'd wager that the Sony/Zeiss lens would crush the others on this camera).

I'm sure this is a great lens. But I question the premise of "value shopping" among expensive lenses — on a system that can't take advantage of them.

Dante
Click to expand...

Huff testing on the A7 is exactly to the point of many many buyers.

Why is the CV 15v3 a success? Because it shoots well on the Sonys. This has increased sales of that lens by 10x or more.

Obviously we all know how the Sony sensor, with it's thick cover, hates most RF 35s and loves none. The Native 35/2.8 is very good (if you get a good one), but awful to manual focus.

Many Sony users dream of a good RF 35 for their camera.

What about M240 or M9? 1) test shots are out and it's real good. 2) How many good 35s are there for M9? I can't even count. The lens is squarely aimed at Sony users who love M glass.

In fact this looks to be the best yet RF 35 for the A7 series.

Not that you can tell from the "review". I like Steve, and I have seen him really do a good review of lenses, but not for some time. He once did a CV 28/2 versus 28 Cron review that was excellent. This one shows his recent trend where practically everything you see is wide open with a central subject. His one wider test shot is way too close to see the real sony issues, and a single aperture only. Why he won't compare 35/2.8 to the ultron at multiple apertures, with long shots included, I don't know, because it's not that hard and it would be very helpful for many users.

But Steve does what he likes and people like it . I have learned lots of stuff reading various pieces he's done over the years. I have two great camera bags thanks to him. Also he has done a service to Voigtander and our bartender in this review, which has a huge exposure. He is quite honest about the way he tests, as well, not claiming to be lloyd or Sean or even Ming :)
 
uhoh7 said:
The lens is squarely aimed at Sony users who love M glass.
Click to expand...

You said this before and I wasn't sure. I thought about it, have been browsing ebay, and now I agree. If you want a "clean" (high resolution, no distortion, etc.), f2 or faster RF 35mm, in the < 2000$ ballpark, you basically have 3 choices: (1) Summicron ASPH, (2) ZM Biogon, and (3) this one. For my M, I probably would pick a Biogon. (3) is the only one that doesn't smear corners on the A7.

Roland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top