35mm Summilux pre-asph or Voightlander 1.2?

[andrewnelles]

After reading countless threads on this, I'm still torn, maybe someone can offer some advice for my specific intended use.

My M6TTL is used mostly for concert work these days, usually with Tri-X pushed out to 1600 or 3200. I've been using a Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 for years but have never been totally impressed by it. It doesn't hold up to my Leica 50mm F2 or 90mm F2. I previously had the pancake Voigt 35mm 2.5, which I loved but it just was not fast enough.

I'm looking to purchase the Pre-ASPH 35mm 'Lux or the 35mm Voightlander 1.2. I'd prefer the size of the lux, however the unique qualities of the lens, coma, glow, and such, worry me. I don't might the look of it, but dealing with a lot of backlight on stages might be an issue.

Any thoughts are welcomed! Thanks in advance.

[mfogiel]

CV 35/1.2 has hardly any flare, but it isn't free of problems wide open, like some coma in the corners, and obviously at full aperture the sharpness is limited to the center of the frame. From what I have seen though, it is comfortably sharper than the old Summilux 35.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=5917...on+35mm&m=text

[andrewnelles]

Thanks guys. I'm open to other lens suggestions in this budget window, but 1.4 or faster is a must.

[Mark T]

I'm not so sure a pre-asph Summilux would be very different from your Voitlander 1.4. However, the Nokton 1.2 ought to be quite different...

[ferider]

Originally Posted by andrewnelles

After reading countless threads on this, I'm still torn, maybe someone can offer some advice for my specific intended use.

My M6TTL is used mostly for concert work these days, usually with Tri-X pushed out to 1600 or 3200. I've been using a Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 for years but have never been totally impressed by it. It doesn't hold up to my Leica 50mm F2 or 90mm F2.

I'm sure that wide open, neither Summilux (flare) nor 35/1.2 (distortion) will hold up to the two longer Summicrons. The Color Skopar, in my experience, does hold up however. Why is it too slow if f2 is good enough for the longer lenses ?

[jmanivelle]

Originally Posted by ferider

I'm sure that wide open, neither Summilux (flare) nor 35/1.2 (distortion) will hold up to the two longer Summicrons. The Color Skopar, in my experience, does hold up however. Why is it too slow if f2 is good enough for the longer lenses ?

I second that !
+1.

[Erik van Straten]

Originally Posted by ferider

The Color Skopar, in my experience, does hold up however.

The Ultron 35mm f/1.7 is better still, no distortion, no flare and from f/2.5 extremely sharp.

Erik.

[Phil_F_NM]

Summilux.

Phil Forrest

[sazerac]

I struggled with the same decision for a while until I found a good v1 35/1.2 at a good price. I was going to wait for the v2 but got impatient. All in all the 35/1.2 is a good lens but I prefer my 50/2 and 90/2.8. I like tighter compositions but sometimes you need wide.

I think the 35/1.2 is a good change from the 50 & 90 it has a very dreamy quality up to f2.8. I also have the 35/2.5 for those days when I want something sharp.

[umcelinho]

The 1.2 Nokton is pretty sharp wide open. Much sharper than the 1.4 Nokton, which is pretty much a Summilux pre-asph copy.

On the R-D1


Les Plastiscines by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr

On the M9:


testing 1 2 3 by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr

On film:


samson by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr

[jonmanjiro]

Originally Posted by umcelinho

The 1.2 Nokton is pretty sharp wide open.

This mirrors my experience with my 35/1.2 V2. More than satisfactory sharpness wide open (and definitely better than the Nokton 35/1.4 I used to own). Not sure what was changed optically in the V2, but I don't remember reading any comments about the updated version being soft wide open. A friend went through four 35/1.2 V1 copies until he got one he was happy with wide open. I compared my V2 with his cherry picked V1, and while it was close, my V2 was a little better.

If the Nokton 35/1.4's barrel distortion doesn't worry you, the Nokton 35/1.2's won't either. The faster Nokton certainly has it, but it doesn't seem as bad as the slower Nokton's barrel distortion to my eye.

[sazerac]

Originally Posted by jonmanjiro

This mirrors my experience with my 35/1.2 V2. More than satisfactory sharpness wide open (and definitely better than the Nokton 35/1.4 I used to own). Not sure what was changed optically in the V2, but I don't remember reading any comments about the updated version being soft wide open. A friend went through four 35/1.2 V1 copies until he got one he was happy with wide open. I compared my V2 with his cherry picked V1, and while it was close, my V2 was a little better.

If the Nokton 35/1.4's barrel distortion doesn't worry you, the Nokton 35/1.2's won't either. The faster Nokton certainly has it, but it doesn't seem as bad as the slower Nokton's barrel distortion to my eye.

Do you have any image samples from the 4 lenses? I'd be curious to see how much sample variation there is.

[jonmanjiro]

Originally Posted by sazerac

Do you have any image samples from the 4 lenses? I'd be curious to see how much sample variation there is.

I have sample images (somewhere...?) from my friend's cherry picked V1 and my V2, but I never saw my friend's three other V1lenses. I'm just going on his word. He also mentioned he knocked back several other new out of the box V1 samples without testing them due to internal haze. He's a good friend of the Voigtlander dealer in Singapore so I'm sure he was able to check before buying.

[maddoc]

The photos in this set were all taken using the 35mm Summilux-M pre-ASPH (late German version). http://www.flickr.com/photos/maddoc2...7603691633507/

[buzzardkid]

The Summilux is my weapon of choice, especially for the dreamy coma shots vs. the sharp shot when stopped down. But, thes perks do not suit you, I read.

Since you already shoot a Summicron 2.0/90, I suspect the size of the 1.2/35mm won't make all the difference!

[f16sunshine]

Love this photograph. easy to see the RD1 signature here.

[wogg]

From what I understand, late copies of the 35 1.2 (i) are very reliable-- certainly mine is quite sharp at 1.2, and far better than the 1.4 classic I had. This lens really has character. keep in mind with regard the VF obstruction, if you are shooting shows, you can ditch the hood and get a bit more coverage. This is my favorite of all the CV lenses I've used, for what it's worth.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8196/8...91f79e4a_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7182/7...1692664c_b.jpg

[andrewnelles]

Thanks for all the great input. In regards to F2 on the longer glass, the 35mm focal length is what I use 90% of the time, so speed is more important to me with this lens.

I don't necessarily mind the coma, and unique look of the 'lux, I like quirks with lenses. I was just worried about flare issues with backlight, but the examples Maddoc posted look quite good. Such a tough call.

[k__43]

Sounds like you should get a Lux'asph

I think the nokton 1.2 should be the one for you of those both. I tried it once and were really impressed.
One thing I really did not like compared to other 35mm it has a very long focus throw.

[umcelinho]

Concerning flare, I just NEVER use my 1.2 Nokton's hood (mine is a late V1) and I never ever get any flare. It's pretty impressive. Also, pretty smooth focusing and positive clicks on the aperture ring. That M9 shot I posted when seen in 100% magnification is impressive, I had no idea this lens was THAT sharp wide open:

[lcpr]

I'd go for the 35/1.2, it's a better lens for low light since it's sharper and more predictable.

[richardhkirkando]

I have a 35/1.2 v2, and have considered selling it for the pre-asph Summilux. I don't like the size of the Nokton, but the lens is just too good a performer to get rid of.

In a previous life, I had a Jupiter-12 that I kept around for daylight use, which was a good compromise for me. That lens doesn't meter right on my M7, but I'll probably end up picking up a lighter 35 to complement the Nokton at some point.

[jatiphoto]

v/c 1.4 is kinda copying the 'lux, but id get the 'lux over the 1.2, and make it work. the 1.2 is so big.....

[andrewnelles]

I'm pretty much sold on the 1.2 at this point. It sounds great.

I'd still prefer the smaller size of the lux, and honestly the Leica name, haha. But why pay more if the 1.2 exceeds it's performance.

Anyone tried both the Voigtlander 1.4 that I have and the pre-asph lux? Is the lux any sharper?

[lawrence]

I've had both those lenses and sold them. As has been said, the Nokton's a great lens but not one that I enjoyed carrying around -- it's too darn big and heavy for a svelte Leica body. The pre-ASPH is a very nice lens in all ways except optically! I particularly hated the vignetting at wide apertures and the lack of a filter thread. I eventually decided that if I need to shoot in dark places I'll just use faster film, so my last 35mm purchase was a C-Biogon (lovely).