p.1 #1 · Voigtlander NOKTON 35/1.2 ASPH - Version I vs II
I have been reading on various web sites that the Voigtlander NOKTON 35/1.2 ASPH version I was discontinued because it was too expensive to produce. Then the lens was redesigned and the second version is being sold now. Apparently, the first version is a little bigger and heavier than the second. However, I cannot find any information about differences in images that the two lenses produce. It would be very interesting to find out more and to see example images taken from each version, particularly direct comparisons if they are available.
p.1 #3 · Voigtlander NOKTON 35/1.2 ASPH - Version I vs II
Maybe they had to use a different type of glass or something, because I think the optical design is the same (with possible small tweaks of course). I've had both and didn't notice any difference. I've also seen a direct A/B comparison that didn't reveal any difference at all, even if it might be there.
I'd have a look at the 40/1.2 instead if you don't mind the slightly longer focal length. It's a much, much better lens in every respect. The 35 is nice for closeups but gives horrible bokeh at a bit of distance and isn't sharp at all wide open compared to the 40. And it's not about the camera sensor stack; it was like that on film as well.
p.1 #4 · Voigtlander NOKTON 35/1.2 ASPH - Version I vs II
I only have experience with the version II of this lens which I currently own. From what I read, the only difference between both versions is at the close focus range. The version II can go down to 0.5 m but 0.7 m is the closest a rangefinder M-camera can actually show. So far this hasn't been a dealbreaker for me to use the latest lens version. I am using it both with my M-series film cameras and on my A7R with Fotasy M/NEX adapter.
Main annoyance with this lens is simply that it does not come with its dedicated lens hood - it must be purchased separately for quite a high price tag. I got a cheap knock-off hood instead which works as well.
p.1 #5 · Voigtlander NOKTON 35/1.2 ASPH - Version I vs II
I've had both. They were the same, or at least, not distinguishable to my eyes on a 24MP sensor. Only have II, now. Went with the (slightly) smaller size & weight.
Anything with VM35 in the file name (probably also tagged) will be with my first version of the lens.
Thanks - this was really helpful. The two look pretty close as far as I can tell. I appreciate the links to sample photos.
---------------------------------------------
Makten wrote:
Maybe they had to use a different type of glass or something, because I think the optical design is the same (with possible small tweaks of course). I've had both and didn't notice any difference. I've also seen a direct A/B comparison that didn't reveal any difference at all, even if it might be there.
I'd have a look at the 40/1.2 instead if you don't mind the slightly longer focal length. It's a much, much better lens in every respect. The 35 is nice for closeups but gives horrible bokeh at a bit of distance and isn't sharp at all wide open compared to the 40. And it's not about the camera sensor stack; it was like that on film as well. ...Show more →
Yes, I read that the first version was too expensive for them to produce, so the lens was redesigned. However, it seems as though the redesign basically gave the same performance, although with the minimum focus distance advantage on the second version. I will indeed look at the 40/1.2. Thanks for the suggestion. I have the 40/1.4 (which I want to use as a travel lens since it is so small), but have not done anything with it yet other than a few test shots.
---------------------------------------------
retrofocus wrote:
I only have experience with the version II of this lens which I currently own. From what I read, the only difference between both versions is at the close focus range. The version II can go down to 0.5 m but 0.7 m is the closest a rangefinder M-camera can actually show. So far this hasn't been a dealbreaker for me to use the latest lens version. I am using it both with my M-series film cameras and on my A7R with Fotasy M/NEX adapter.
Main annoyance with this lens is simply that it does not come with its dedicated lens hood - it must be purchased separately for quite a high price tag. I got a cheap knock-off hood instead which works as well. ...Show more →
Thanks for the info and the bit about the hood, which I agree is kind of lame both to have to buy it separately and the super high cost. I also found a knock-off one that is available for about $40.
---------------------------------------------
MAubrey wrote:
I've had both. They were the same, or at least, not distinguishable to my eyes on a 24MP sensor. Only have II, now. Went with the (slightly) smaller size & weight.
Thanks for the letting me know that you could not tell any difference between the two versions. Exact same result as was posted above - consistency is good.
I really appreciate all of you chiming in on this with your experience with these lenses. Thanks so much.
