Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.23 #17 · Voigtlander 35mm f/1.5 Nokton Review | |
highdesertmesa wrote:
Agreed. There are few universally-liked 35mm M lenses with f/1.4 apertures. Too big, too small, too much glow, not enough glow, too clinical, too busy, too sharp, not sharp enough...
Everyone is ok with owning multiple 50mm variants but wants a single 35mm to do everything 
I think with a Leica M mount 35mm lenses, you have the first issue that the lens ideally is small enough that it doesn't block the viewfinder. That means a 35mm has to be smaller than a 50mm. Then designing a wider angle lens is tougher than designing a normal lens. Then if you want your 35mm to be your main lens you want it to be very fast because the wider lens has to be faster to get more blur. At 35mm you can pick any two of: 1) fast, 2) small enough to have only minor viewfinder blockage, and 3) great optical performance, but your can't have all three. So if you want small enough to have only minor view finder blockage, and great optical performance the CV 35 f/2.5 II is a great option. If you want a fast aperture and small enough to minimize view finder blockage then the Leica M 35 f/1.4 pre-Assph or other lenses based on this design including the CV 35 f/1.4 classic fit the bill. If you want fast aperture and very good performance and can live with a bigger size then the ZM 35 f/1.4 is an option. The new CV 35 f/2 APO is sort of similar with a slower max aperture, almost as big of size, and almost no compromises in IQ.
I see the CV 35 f/1.7, the Leica 35 f/1.4 FLE, as coming closest to meeting all criteria but they still have some compromises. The CV 35 f/1.7 blocks the viewfinder quite a bit, is "just f/1.7", and has less than perfect IQ. I like it because it compromises in every area just enough to make it work without really falling down in any area. If it weren't so terrible ergonomically it would be good enough in all the areas to work for me. As it is, I find the ergonomics bad enough and I find the compromises just enough to keep me from using it.
I see the Leica M 35 f/1.4 FLE as providing a nice fast aperture, but it still blocks the viewfinder more than I would like and at this point long after it was introduced the IQ compromises are notable as well (although the lens is sharp, it does have quite a bit of axial CA more than I would like). If I shot 35mm as my primary focal length, however, this would probably be my choice.
I see the Leica M 35 f/2 APO as having only the f/2 aperture as a compromise, but it costs so much I could never consider it. Looks like a lovely lens, however, and not much to complain about other than the obvious--the price and the slightly slower aperture.
Personally, I am going to go with a small lense with great IQ without as fast of an aperture, which means the CV 35 f/2.5 II and it has the benefit of being quite inexpensive too. It will work for me and provide an ultra small kit too. I just may pick up a Leica M 35 f/1.4 FLE sometime too but the fairly high price combined with the slight compromises in size and IQ means it won't be a lens I get anytime soon,
|
