p.1 #1 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
So what is the consensus at this point for stopped down for DOF (and corner sharpness) landscape photography with a Sony A7rM (thin sensor Kolari Vision Modification) and a stock Sony A7rII get/use a Zeiss 35mm f1.4 Distagon ZM or the new Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron? I expect to send my A7r in for modification finally tomorrow or Wednesday. I want to probably order one of these lenses from the Leica Shop in Austria. Presently it seems the Zeiss is in stock and now they are listing the Voigtlander as Pre-order (I guess they ran out of stock).
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Rich - I am going to get the ZM 35 f/1.4. I think it is the better all around lens and will be better for landscapes. If I was shooting just portraits, I might go with the CV, but even there I like the colours better from the shots I have seen with the Zeiss. But keep in mind this is just the conclusion I have come to without shooting either lens, so take it with a big grain of salt. Both are nice options, IMO, I just think the ZM 35 f/1.4 is a very special lens.
p.1 #3 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Steve if you are getting the ZM are you having the camera modified. I have the A7rII and this lens is a consideration but I'm not modifying my camera, so this lens would have to work perfectly for me to buy it as is.
Nov 09, 2015 at 01:06 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
GMPhotography wrote:
Steve if you are getting the ZM are you having the camera modified. I have the A7rII and this lens is a consideration but I'm not modifying my camera, so this lens would have to work perfectly for me to buy it as is.
Hi Guy,
I will either get the camera modified or more likely get a Leica SL. It performs quite nicely on the A7r II without modification, but there is some added field curvature in the outer quarter or so of the image. If goes from a very flat field to a slightly curved field which curves in toward the camera. This can, IMO, ruin some shots at wider apertures, but it is also something that knowledgeable photographers can avoid and work around. Philber (Philippe) and Jako (Jack) both use it very well on an unmodified A7r II. So, it is not an easy answer to whether you need to modify the camera. I would do it. Others quite reasonably have not, but it does not work perfectly without a modification.
p.1 #6 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Steve Spencer wrote:
Hi Guy,
I will either get the camera modified or more likely get a Leica SL. It performs quite nicely on the A7r II without modification, but there is some added field curvature in the outer quarter or so of the image. If goes from a very flat field to a slightly curved field which curves in toward the camera. This can, IMO, ruin some shots at wider apertures, but it is also something that knowledgeable photographers can avoid and work around. Philber (Philippe) and Jako (Jack) both use it very well on an unmodified A7r II. So, it is not an easy answer to whether you need to modify the camera. I would do it. Others quite reasonably have not, but it does not work perfectly without a modification....Show more →
At the current price difference I would certainly choose the CV over the ZM. The Vignetting nerver goes away completely but at f/8 it is easily correctable.
p.1 #8 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Steve Spencer wrote:
I will either get the camera modified or more likely get a Leica SL. It performs quite nicely on the A7r II without modification, but there is some added field curvature in the outer quarter or so of the image. If goes from a very flat field to a slightly curved field which curves in toward the camera. This can, IMO, ruin some shots at wider apertures, but it is also something that knowledgeable photographers can avoid and work around. Philber (Philippe) and Jako (Jack) both use it very well on an unmodified A7r II. So, it is not an easy answer to whether you need to modify the camera. I would do it. Others quite reasonably have not, but it does not work perfectly without a modification....Show more →
I have not seen anything thus far indicating that the ZM 35/1.4 would perform better on an SL (with regard to smearing or induced field curvature) vs an unmodified Sony A7x. So far, the tests I have seen (Sean Reid's) which compare the Leica digital M to the SL show that the SL suffers problems with troublesome rangefinder lenses vs the M. Conversely, some more recent retrofocus M designs (such as the newer Leica M 28/1.4 Aspherical), perform noticeably better on the SL vs M (which is an interesting development). Thus, I suspect that the most sure way to guarantee the ZM 35/1.4's best performance would either be on a digital M (obviously) or a modified Sony (vs the SL). Just something to consider.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I have not seen anything thus far indicating that the ZM 35/1.4 would perform better on an SL (with regard to smearing or induced field curvature) vs an unmodified Sony A7x. So far, the tests I have seen (Sean Reid's) which compare the Leica digital M to the SL show that the SL suffers problems with troublesome rangefinder lenses vs the M. Conversely, some more recent retrofocus M designs (such as the newer Leica M 28/1.4 Aspherical, perform noticeably better on the SL vs M (which is an interesting development). Thus, I suspect that the most sure way to guarantee the ZM 35/1.4's best performance would either be on a digital M (obviously) or a modified Sony (vs the SL). Just something to consider.
Well I think it is an interesting question whether the ZM 35 f/1.4 is more like the Leica M 35 f/2 ASPH and Leica M 28 f/2.8 ASPH or more like the Leica M 28 f/1.4. The former two certainly seem to be a bit better on the M240 than the SL and the latter one seems to be a bit better on the SL than the M240. I expect that the ZM 35 f/1.4 will be somewhere in between. It certainly did loads better on the unmodified Sony A7 series camera than the M 35 cron ASPH or the 28 cron ASPH, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was not as good on the SL as the 28 lux ASPH either. We will have to wait for more clear tests, and that will include performance on the SL and M240 vs. the modified A7 series cameras. Until we have more tests all we can do is guess and my guess is the ZM 35 f/1.4 will perform about the same--and very well--on the M240, SL, and modified A7 series cameras. We'll see in time, though, and I am in no hurry as I have to save to buy the lens (and whatever camera I eventually get anyway).
p.1 #10 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
I am still debating which lens to purchase. If the main problem with the Voigtlander is vignetting I can adjust for that in LR. Additionally. I would suspect that the lens will behave better with a modified A7 series thin Kolari Vision sensor stack modification. Hopefully there would be no more issue with an A7r than with an A7.
Finally, I will still have my Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lens and from the reports by Charlie and Nico (as I recall) the lens performs much better into the corners by around f8 on an A7 series modified sensor stack. So, when I need something extremely small and light this lens would also be available for my usage.
p.1 #11 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
naturephoto1 wrote:
I am still debating which lens to purchase. If the main problem with the Voigtlander is vignetting I can adjust for that in LR. Additionally. I would suspect that the lens will behave better with a modified A7 series thin Kolari Vision sensor stack modification. Hopefully there would be no more issue with an A7r than with an A7.
Finally, I will still have my Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lens and from the reports by Charlie and Nico (as I recall) the lens performs much better into the corners by around f8 on an A7 series modified sensor stack. So, when I need something extremely small and light this lens would also be available for my usage.
The higher resolution of the A7r will show any issues to a greater degree than on the A7 so there is a question if it's to be used on an unmodded sensor (which I don't think you are considering). It's likely though that this lens will perform noticeably better on the modded A7x.
You may even want to revisit this thread and, in particular, note this response by SteveDK about the ZM35/1.4:
"I also have the 35mm/1.4 Distagon ZM, which is very good, though less compact by far. I also prefer the C-Biogon 35mm to the Distagon 35mm stopped down to f/8-f/11. Ironically the Distagon is better corrected even at these apertures, but the one under-corrected aberration, Secondary Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration, can stick out like a sore thumb visually, causing cyan-green fringing on objects behind the plane of focus, annoying on tree branches and pine needles, etc. The forte of that lens really is the wider apertures, so I see the C-Biogon and Distagon 35mm ZM lenses as different purpose tools now. The C-Biogon is the better general purpose daylight optic, while the Distagon is better for low light, indoor and cinematic type renderings."
In that same thread, Ron (rscheffler) suggests that he finds the new CV 35 1.7 better than the C-Biogon above for across the frame performance so that Voigtlander may be the one to try on a modded Sony.
"I have the C-Biogon, but have not had the chance to use the Summarit. The 35mm I currently use is the new Voigtlander 35/1.7 Ultron.
It might be worth considering. You can buy the black version from Leicashop in Austria for about ~$650 US delivered, so the price is very attractive right off the bat.
Performance-wise, I feel it outperforms the C-Biogon for across frame sharpness and is also 1.5 stops faster, without being terribly larger. It's about the same diameter, but somewhat longer, and as a bonus for you, uses 46mm filters. Already just a couple stops down and it's very sharp across the frame, whereas from earlier tests, I found the C-Biogon needed more stopping down to bring up the edges."
p.1 #12 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Rich, they are both very good lenses, but the ZM35/1.4 is designed to go head to head with the $4500 Leica FLE, and by most reports it's a tossup. That is some seriously tall cotton.
The only weakness of the ZM35 I saw on a thin stack is that bright lights take different shapes across the frame wide open. It's not the same lens on the stock sonys, but usable for some, because naturally the centers are great. Most Sony shooters seem to prefer the FE 35/1.4, which is telling.
Phillip: check me here, did I hear you sent the CV 35/1.7 back because of some decentering? Both are Cosina lenses but the CV do have a reputation for copy variation, at least with some lenses.
For me the only reason to prefer the Ultron over the Distagon, I think, is money. In this case, I think you get what you pay for
The talk about wide open rendering is interesting but personal. What I've seen from Edward and others, the Distagon is fine WO. More than fine, excepting the bokeh, but few 35s do that very well. Maybe the Sony/Zeiss does, the Rx1, but most of the great M 35s can be harsh in certain situations (please tell me the exceptions).
Also for you I think the speed is a real plus, like having an extra lens. Your priority may be the landscapes, but the A7r is not fantastic with high ISO, and F/1.4 with the 35 FL DOF would be socially useful.
A true all around great lens.
PS Tariq has a great post up there. SteveDK sounds like he has had a very close look and the green fringing at f/8 is surprising to me. I saw wonderful long landscapes by Edward, with no hint of this, but I did not peep.
So maybe it's not so simple after all
Maybe Edward will chime in here about the CA of the ZM 35/1.4 in landscape mode. I never heard that before.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The higher resolution of the A7r will show any issues to a greater degree than on the A7 so there is a question if it's to be used on an unmodded sensor (which I don't think you are considering). It's likely though that this lens will perform noticeably better on the modded A7x.
You may even want to revisit this thread and, in particular, note this response by SteveDK about the ZM35/1.4:
"I also have the 35mm/1.4 Distagon ZM, which is very good, though less compact by far. I also prefer the C-Biogon 35mm to the Distagon 35mm stopped down to f/8-f/11. Ironically the Distagon is better corrected even at these apertures, but the one under-corrected aberration, Secondary Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration, can stick out like a sore thumb visually, causing cyan-green fringing on objects behind the plane of focus, annoying on tree branches and pine needles, etc. The forte of that lens really is the wider apertures, so I see the C-Biogon and Distagon 35mm ZM lenses as different purpose tools now. The C-Biogon is the better general purpose daylight optic, while the Distagon is better for low light, indoor and cinematic type renderings."
In that same thread, Ron (rscheffler) suggests that he finds the new CV 35 1.7 better than the C-Biogon above for across the frame performance so that Voigtlander may be the one to try on a modded Sony.
"I have the C-Biogon, but have not had the chance to use the Summarit. The 35mm I currently use is the new Voigtlander 35/1.7 Ultron.
It might be worth considering. You can buy the black version from Leicashop in Austria for about ~$650 US delivered, so the price is very attractive right off the bat.
Performance-wise, I feel it outperforms the C-Biogon for across frame sharpness and is also 1.5 stops faster, without being terribly larger. It's about the same diameter, but somewhat longer, and as a bonus for you, uses 46mm filters. Already just a couple stops down and it's very sharp across the frame, whereas from earlier tests, I found the C-Biogon needed more stopping down to bring up the edges." ...Show more →
The one problem with Steve DK's quote is that longitudinal CA (secondary included) decreases exponentially, and I mean that in the mathematical way, as you stop down. No lens has longitudinal CA stopped down to f/8-f/11 to speak of. So I'm not sure what he is referring to. From what I have seen the lens is brilliant stopped down and on a modded camera has a very flat field almost no CA wonderful colours and nice bokeh, but that just may be my taste, YMMV. It doesn't have longitudinal CA stopped down to f/8, however, and that is a fact.
p.1 #14 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
uhoh7 wrote:
For me the only reason to prefer the Ultron over the Distagon, I think, is money. In this case, I think you get what you pay for
looks to me like the cv has noticeably smoother bokeh in a number of situations at a cost of slightly lower contrast and bite. the smaller size is another reason to prefer it...
p.1 #15 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
sebboh wrote:
looks to me like the cv has noticeably smoother bokeh in a number of situations at a cost of slightly lower contrast and bite. the smaller size is another reason to prefer it...
What do you think of the secondary CA issue Steve DK mentions with the ZM 35/1.4, which gets worse as it stops down?
p.1 #16 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
That's how ZM35D looks like on stock A7RM2 (with Zeiss UV filter in path). If I felt unhappy with this combo, mounting ZM35 on Kolari modded A7R would give me slight better results in extreme corners. However, I don't bother. http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/20151024_0226_1920.jpg
p.1 #18 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Steve Spencer wrote:
The one problem with Steve DK's quote is that longitudinal CA (secondary included) decreases exponentially, and I mean that in the mathematical way, as you stop down. No lens has longitudinal CA stopped down to f/8-f/11 to speak of. So I'm not sure what he is referring to. From what I have seen the lens is brilliant stopped down and on a modded camera has a very flat field almost no CA wonderful colours and nice bokeh, but that just may be my taste, YMMV. It doesn't have longitudinal CA stopped down to f/8, however, and that is a fact. ...Show more →
It could simply be that Steve DK referred to the wrong technical form of aberration he is seeing (most likely I suppose). Since I have not used the lens, I don't know how it behaves in tricky lighting stopped down. Maybe if Edward sees this, he will comment.
p.1 #19 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
sebboh wrote:
looks to me like the cv has noticeably smoother bokeh in a number of situations at a cost of slightly lower contrast and bite. the smaller size is another reason to prefer it...
Lower contrast and bite is how I see it too. Color is also different from what I'm used to with Leica M. I haven't been using my ZM glass much recently, but it too has its own set of color and contrast characteristics.
I've found on the M240 that the persistent vignetting can be cleaned up pretty easily in post and wouldn't deter me from the lens as a primary negative trait.
p.1 #20 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
rscheffler wrote:
Lower contrast and bite is how I see it too. Color is also different from what I'm used to with Leica M. I haven't been using my ZM glass much recently, but it too has its own set of color and contrast characteristics.
I've found on the M240 that the persistent vignetting can be cleaned up pretty easily in post and wouldn't deter me from the lens as a primary negative trait.
Hi Ron,
I would presume that I should be able to increase the contrast a little in LR to help with the lower contrast recorded by the Ultron. Speaking about the color produced by the Ultron is it closer to what you see from your Leica M glass than the Zeiss glass? As you know I do have a large # of R lenses to fit into my kit and I also have the M WATE and the 90mm f2.5 Summarit to use at the extremes for something like a 4 or 5 lens kit. At this point, my R28mm f2.8 V2 and my R 50mm f2 Summicron would be the other 2 lenses for a 5 lens kit.
Of course, all of the Zeiss glass would have a different color "look" than I am accustomed to seeing as would be the normal Zeiss "look".
Of course the smaller size and weight of the Ultorn as compared to the Zeiss 1.4 ZM Distagon as well as the price differences are a plus. As I recall there is about a 5 ounce difference in weight between the lenses.
