If we're going to start comparing the CV 35/1.4 with the 35/1.2, maybe someone would be willing to compare the CV 35/1.7 as well? Thinking of buying the f/1.4 or f/1.7 at some point, but couldn't find a great comparison between the two.
There is a new Voigtlander Ultron M-mount 35/1.7 II on the way. That one really gets my attention and anticipation. No word on pricing or release date yet, but I expect it to be sharper than the 35/1.4, as sharp as 35/1.2 with as smooth bokeh (at same f-number),but at much lighter and affordable price. Interesting times for us 35mm shooters.
Anyway, thank you for lovely review. I always liked more of these kind of real world reviews with real pictures
I had one briefly. Fairly sharp, CA not too bad, but pretty serious field curvature. It's a pretty simple, traditional design. Certainly not an Otus or APO/ASPH/etc, but it's not priced like it - it's worth its price (or more) and very small. If my fingers weren't too fat for tab focusing (couldn't turn the focus tab without moving the aperture tab), I probably would've kept it.
In my opinion, the 35/1.7 is inferior. Much less sharp (though that could've been sample variation) and worse CA. But as Tmuussoni said, very interested in checking out the v2.
It's funny, because the A7 i actually helpful with the little Voigtländer, because of the field curvature induced by the cover glass counteracts partly the one from the lens, because they're in opposite directions. That's why Charlie was quite thrilled with his and not so much with the rest. The corners are a little better because its field curvature is a little less pronounced than on the various NEXes.
I love mine on my Sony A7 and on my Leica M6. Its fast, has some character and it is very compact. The bang-for-the-buck for me is being able to share between my two cameras.
Some very nice photos in your review...thanks for posting!
