fredmiranda.com
Login

  

  Previous versions of Yogifi's message #16975264 « Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35 »
  

Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both to know for certain but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will be a nice alternative look with them too, plus hopefully appropriate for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y but hopefully an easy fix. I know it flares a lot and CA too.

I can see the FLE being a nicer daily carry not just for the size & weight but for more everyday pics. The sharpness on the Zeiss does create standout images but you don't always want that. I wonder how the FLE and 40 1.2 nokton differs for that. The nokton has real smooth bokeh and not overly sharp, did you ever try that or is it too tight for you? I remember you're big on 35s. The SE version is reasonably small! 35 SE is bigger than the 50mm SE unfortunately.


Jan 28, 2026 at 06:31 AM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both to know for certain but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will be a nice alternative look with them too, plus hopefully appropriate for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y but hopefully an easy fix. I know it flares a lot and CA too.

I can see the FLE being a nicer daily carry not just for the size & weight but for more everyday pics. The sharpness on the Zeiss does create standout images but you don't always want that. I wonder how the FLE and 40 1.2 nokton differs for that. The nokton has real smooth bokeh and not overly sharp, did you ever try that or is it too tight for you? The SE version is reasonably small! 35 SE is bigger than the 50mm SE unfortunately.


Jan 28, 2026 at 04:10 AM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both to know for certain but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will be a nice alternative look with them too, plus hopefully appropriate for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y but hopefully an easy fix. I know it flares a lot and CA too. Maybe the summilux with the extra grain of gold 200/portra 800 would be a little better, as from the few samples I've seen with portra 400 and the fle I feel like I might as well take a digital image.

I can see the FLE being a nicer daily carry not just for the size & weight but for more everyday pics. The sharpness on the Zeiss does create standout images but you don't always want that. I wonder how the FLE and 40 1.2 nokton differs for that. The nokton has real smooth bokeh and not overly sharp, did you ever try that or is it too tight for you? The SE version is reasonably small! 35 SE is bigger than the 50mm SE unfortunately.


Jan 27, 2026 at 08:01 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both to know for certain but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will be a nice alternative look with them too, plus hopefully appropriate for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y but hopefully an easy fix. I know it flares a lot and CA too. Maybe the summilux with the extra grain of gold 200 would be a little better, as from the few samples I've seen with portra 400 and the fle I feel like I might as well take a digital image.

I can see the FLE being a nicer daily carry not just for the size & weight but for more everyday pics. The sharpness on the Zeiss does create standout images but you don't always want that. I wonder how the FLE and 40 1.2 nokton differs for that. The nokton has real smooth bokeh and not overly sharp, did you ever try that or is it too tight for you? The SE version is reasonably small! 35 SE is bigger than the 50mm SE unfortunately.


Jan 27, 2026 at 07:54 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both to know for certain but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will be a nice alternative look with them too, plus hopefully appropriate for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y but hopefully an easy fix. I know it flares a lot and CA too. Maybe the summilux with the extra grain of gold 200 would be a little better, as from the few samples I've seen with portra 400 and the fle I feel like I might as well take a digital image.

I can see the FLE being a nicer daily carry not just for the size & weight but for more everyday pics. The sharpness on the Zeiss does create standout images but you don't always want that. I wonder how the FLE and 40 1.2 nokton differs on that. The nokton has real smooth bokeh and not overly sharp, did you ever try that or is it too tight for you? The SE version is reasonably small! 35 SE is bigger than the 50mm SE unfortunately.


Jan 27, 2026 at 07:53 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both to know for certain but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will be a nice alternative look with them too, plus hopefully appropriate for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y but hopefully an easy fix. I know it flares a lot and CA too. Maybe the summilux with the extra grain of gold 200 would be a little better, as portra 400 with it I feel like I might as well take a digital image.

I can see the FLE being a nicer daily carry not just for the size & weight but for more everyday pics. The sharpness on the Zeiss does create standout images but you don't always want that. I wonder how the FLE and 40 1.2 nokton differs on that. The nokton has real smooth bokeh and not overly sharp, did you ever try that or is it too tight for you? The SE version is reasonably small! 35 SE is bigger than the 50mm SE unfortunately.


Jan 27, 2026 at 07:53 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both to know for certain but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will be a nice alternative look with them too, plus hopefully appropriate for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y but hopefully an easy fix. I know it flares a lot and CA too.

I can see the FLE being a nicer daily carry not just for the size & weight but for more everyday pics. The sharpness on the Zeiss does create standout images but you don't always want that. I wonder how the FLE and 40 1.2 nokton differs on that. The nokton has real smooth bokeh and not overly sharp, did you ever try that or is it too tight for you? The SE version is reasonably small! 35 SE is bigger than the 50mm SE unfortunately.


Jan 27, 2026 at 07:49 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both to know for certain but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will be a nice alternative look with them too, plus hopefully appropriate for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y but hopefully an easy fix.

I can see the FLE being a nicer daily carry not just for the size & weight but for more everyday pics. The sharpness on the Zeiss does create standout images but you don't always want that. I wonder how the FLE and 40 1.2 nokton differs on that. The nokton has real smooth bokeh and not overly sharp, did you ever try that or is it too tight for you? The SE version is reasonably small! 35 SE is bigger than the 50mm SE unfortunately.


Jan 27, 2026 at 07:39 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both to know for certain but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will be a nice alternative look with them too, plus hopefully appropriate for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y but hopefully an easy fix.

I can see the FLE being a nicer daily carry not just for the size & weight but for more everyday pics. The sharpness on the Zeiss does create standout images but you don't always want that. I wonder how the FLE and 40 1.2 nokton differs on that. The nokton has real smooth bokeh and not overly sharp, did you ever try that or is too tight for you? The SE version is reasonably small! 35 SE is bigger than the 50mm SE unfortunately.


Jan 27, 2026 at 07:39 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both to know for certain but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will be a nice alternative look with them too, plus hopefully appropriate for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y but hopefully an easy fix.

I can see the FLE being a nicer daily carry not just for the size & weight but for more everyday pics. The sharpness on the Zeiss does create standout images but you don't always want that. I wonder how the FLE and 40 1.2 nokton differs on that. The nokton has real smooth bokeh and not overly sharp, did you ever try that or is too tight for you? The SE version is reasonably small! 35 SE is still bigger than the 50mm SE unfortunately.


Jan 27, 2026 at 07:38 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both to know for certain but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will be a nice alternative look with them too, plus hopefully appropriate for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y but hopefully an easy fix.

I can see the FLE being a nicer daily carry not just for the size & weight but for more everyday pics. The sharpness on the Zeiss does create standout images but you don't always want that. I wonder how the FLE and 40 1.2 nokton differs on that. The nokton has real smooth bokeh and not overly sharp, did you ever try that or is too tight for you? The SE version is reasonably small! 35 SE is still bigger than the 50mm SE.


Jan 27, 2026 at 07:38 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both to know for certain but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will be a nice alternative look with them too, plus hopefully appropriate for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y but hopefully an easy fix.

I can see the FLE being a nicer daily carry not just for the size & weight but for more everyday pics. The sharpness on the Zeiss does create standout images but you don't always want that. I wonder how the FLE and 40 1.2 nokton differs on that. The nokton has real smooth bokeh and not overly sharp, did you ever try that or is too tight for you? The SE version is reasonably small!


Jan 27, 2026 at 07:37 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both to know for certain but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will be a nice alternative look with them too, plus hopefully appropriate for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y but hopefully an easy fix.

I can see the FLE being a nicer daily carry not just for the size & weight but for more everyday pics. The sharpness on the Zeiss does create standout images but you don't always want that. I wonder how the FLE and 40 1.2 nokton differs on that. The nokton has real smooth bokeh, did you ever try that? Or too tight for you. The SE version is reasonably small!


Jan 27, 2026 at 07:36 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both to know for certain but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will be a nice alternative look with them too, plus hopefully appropriate for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y but hopefully an easy fix.


Jan 27, 2026 at 07:33 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will complement them nicely too, plus be decent for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y but hopefully an easy fix.


Jan 27, 2026 at 07:21 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will complement them nicely too, plus be decent for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y but might be easy fix.


Jan 27, 2026 at 07:21 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will complement them nicely too, plus be decent for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y.


Jan 27, 2026 at 07:19 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will complement them nicely too.


Jan 27, 2026 at 07:19 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small.


Jan 27, 2026 at 06:41 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe with the MP if I go insane.


Jan 27, 2026 at 06:18 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe with the MP if I go nuts.


Jan 27, 2026 at 05:47 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small.


Jan 27, 2026 at 05:40 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE is quite small.


Jan 27, 2026 at 05:39 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both but I quite like the 40 nokton f1.2 for smooth shots too.


Jan 27, 2026 at 05:38 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both.


Jan 27, 2026 at 05:33 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. I also do appreciate having a smoother render not just in bokeh but just everything a little less oomph so I appreciate preferences are different and it would be nice to have both.


Jan 27, 2026 at 05:29 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now.


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:50 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices, but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now.


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:48 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:







I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices, but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet.


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:48 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:
Jan 27, 2026 at 04:47 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not entirely sure. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it.
Right now it's a big upfront cost to find out if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:
Jan 27, 2026 at 04:46 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not entirely sure.
And it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance (as far as I can tell without having it, and to my tastes). So maybe in the future - by then they'd probably have ibis on leica and the midzone would be worse on Sony with an fle 3.

I don't think that would extend to pancakes, but who knows with enough time.


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:41 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not entirely sure.
And it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance (as far as I can tell without having it, and to my tastes). So maybe in the future - by then they'd probably have ibis on leica and the midzone would be worse on Sony with an fle 3.

I don't think that would extend to pancakes, but who knows with enough time.


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:38 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm lenses on film too, so I'm not entirely sure.
And it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance (as far as I can tell without having it, and to my tastes). So maybe in the future - by then they'd probably have ibis on leica and the midzone would be worse on Sony with an fle 3.

I don't think that would extend to pancakes, but who knows with enough time.


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:38 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm lenses on film too, so I'm not entirely sure.
And it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance (as far as I can tell without having it, and to my tastes). So maybe in the future - by then they'd probably have ibis on leica and the midzone would be worse on Sony with an fle 3.
And am I going to end up with pancakes in 10-20 years? I don't think so.. but who knows.


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:37 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii... but you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm lenses on film too, so I'm not entirely sure.
And it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance (as far as I can tell without having it, and to my tastes). So maybe in the future - by then they'd probably have ibis on leica and the midzone would be worse on Sony with an fle 3.
And am I going to end up with pancakes in 10-20 years? I don't think so.. but who knows.


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:25 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii... but you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm lenses on film too, so I'm not entirely sure.
And it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance (as far as I can tell without having it, and to my tastes). So maybe in the future - by then they'd probably have ibis on leica and the midzone would be worse on Sony with an fle 3. Maybe I'll grab it with the MP. A little less sharp might work out well on film for me.
And am I going to end up with pancakes in 10-20 years? I don't think so.. but who knows.


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:24 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii... but you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm lenses on film too, so I'm not entirely sure.
And it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance (as far as I can tell without having it, and to my tastes). So maybe in the future - by then they'd probably have ibis on leica and the midzone would be worse on Sony with an fle 3. Maybe I'll grab it with the MP. A little less sharp might work out well there.
And am I going to end up with pancakes in 10-20 years? I don't think so.. but who knows.


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:24 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii... but you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm lenses on film too, so I'm not entirely sure.
And it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance (as far as I can tell without having it, and to my tastes). So maybe in the future - by then they'd probably have ibis on leica and the midzone would be worse on Sony with an fle 3.
And am I going to end up with pancakes in 10-20 years? I don't think so.. but who knows.


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:22 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii... but you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm lenses on film too, so I'm not entirely sure.
And it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance (for my taste). So maybe in the future - by then they'd probably have ibis on leica and the midzone would be worse on Sony with an fle 3.
And am I going to end up with pancakes in 10-20 years? I don't think so.. but who knows.


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:21 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii... but you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm lenses on film too, so I'm not entirely sure.
And it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance (for my taste). So maybe in the future - by then they'd probably have ibis on leica and the midzone would be worse on Sony with an fle 3.
And am I going to end up with pancakes in 10-20 years? I don't think so.. but who knows.


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:19 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii... but you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm lenses on film too, so I'm not entirely sure.
And it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance (for my taste). So maybe in the future - by then they'd probably have ibis on leica and the midzone would be worse on Sony. And am I going to end up with pancakes in 10-20 years? I don't think so.. but who knows.


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:19 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii... but you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm lenses on film too, so I'm not entirely sure.
And it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance (for my taste). Am I going to end up with pancakes in 10-20 years? I don't think so.. but who knows.


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:18 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of brands... but you're probably right. It's the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm lenses on film too, so I'm not entirely sure.
And it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance (for my taste). Am I going to end up with pancakes in 10-20 years? I don't think so.. but who knows.


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:16 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of brands... but you're probably right. It's the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm lenses on film too, so I'm not entirely sure.
And it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance (for my taste). Am I going to end up with pancakes in 20 years? I don't think so.. but who knows.


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:16 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of brands... but you're probably right. It's the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm lenses on film though, so I'm not entirely sure and it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance (for my taste).

Am I going to end up with pancakes in 20 years?


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:16 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of brands... but you're probably right. It's the price.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm lenses on film though, so I'm not entirely sure and it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance (for my taste).

Am I going to end up with pancakes in 20 years?


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:15 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of brands... but you're probably right. It's the price.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm lenses on film though, so I'm not entirely sure and it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance (for my taste). I am going to end up with pancakes in 20 years?


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:14 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of brands... but you're probably right. It's the price.

I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm lenses on film though, so I'm not entirely sure and it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:







But it would be nice to know for certain. I imagine with over a longer period of time, I'd opt for a little smaller for a little worse performance. I am going to end up with pancakes in 20 years?


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:14 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of brands... but you're probably right. It's the price. I've been opting to carry the slightly bigger 35mm lenses on film too though, so I'm not entirely sure and it's a big upfront cost to find out if it would be the same with the fle vs distagon on sony. And it's not bad you know:
Jan 27, 2026 at 04:11 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. -- No, that's too far I think. If the bokeh was a bit smoother maybe if I was feeling like being foolish but really I'm so fine with the distagon on the a7cii.







Though I do notice when I put a Simera on how much lighter it is. But otherwise no real issue. It's the same with the fm2n. I could use a 35/2 or 40/2 ultron pancake but I'm currently happier taking the bigger 35 1.4 ais. It's in the small shoulder bag anyway. If it wasn't in the bag, the summilux size makes a lot more sense if I needed 1.4 and wanted manual focus. On a leica it's a slimmer body so even more important but that midzone dip in the youtube comparison was so stark - it doesn't seem to bother Jack Takahashi, who hated it with the 35 1.5 nokton. The lower weight probably makes it funner to use and tips the scale there in the end. On Sony it's a tough ask for the price while still compromising performance... my current reasoning anyway. If money wasn't an issue at all I'd get it and find out for certain.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the same sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in - mp and fm2n only in consideration at the moment).


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:05 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. -- No, that's too far I think. If the bokeh was a bit smoother maybe if I was feeling like being foolish but really I'm so fine with the distagon on the a7cii.







Though I do notice when I put a Simera on how much lighter it is. But otherwise no real issue. It's the same with the fm2n. I could use a 35/2 or 40/2 ultron pancake but I'm currently happier taking the bigger 35 1.4 ais. It's in the small shoulder bag anyway. If it wasn't in the bag, the summilux size makes a lot more sense if I needed 1.4 and wanted manual focus. On a leica it's a slimmer body so even more important but that midzone dip in the youtube comparison was so stark - it doesn't seem to bother Jack Takahashi, who hated it with the 35 1.5 nokton. The lower weight probably makes it funner to use and tips the scale there in the end. On Sony it's a tough ask for the price while still compromising performance... my current reasoning anyway. If money wasn't an issue at all I'd get it and find out for certain.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the same sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:04 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. -- No, that's too far I think. If the bokeh was a bit smoother maybe if I was feeling like being foolish but really I'm so fine with the distagon on the a7cii.







Though I do notice when I put a Simera on how much lighter it is. But otherwise no real issue. It's the same with the fm2n. I could use a 35/2 or 40/2 ultron pancake but I'm currently happier taking the bigger 35 1.4 ais. It's in the small shoulder bag anyway. If it wasn't in the bag, the summilux size makes a lot more sense if I needed 1.4 and wanted manual focus. On a leica it's a slimmer body so even more important but that midzone dip in the youtube comparison was so stark - it doesn't seem to bother Jack Takahashi, who hated it with the 35 1.5 nokton. The lower weight probably makes it funner to use and tips the scale there in the end. On Sony it's a tough ask for the price while still compromising performance... my current reasoning anyway.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the same sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:02 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. -- No, that's too far I think. If the bokeh was a bit smoother maybe if I was feeling like being foolish but really I'm so fine with the distagon on the a7cii.







Though I do notice when I put a Simera on how much lighter it is. But otherwise no real issue. It's the same with the fm2n. I could use a 35/2 or 40/2 ultron pancake but I'm currently happier taking the bigger 35 1.4 ais. It's in the small shoulder bag anyway. If it wasn't in the bag, the summilux size makes a lot more sense if I needed 1.4 and wanted manual focus. On a leica it's a slimmer body so even more important but that midzone dip in the youtube comparison was so stark - it doesn't seem to bother Jack Takahashi, who hated it with the 35 1.5 nokton. Size probably makes it funner to use and tips the scale there in the end. On Sony it's a tough ask for the price and still compromising performance.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the same sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 04:01 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. -- No, that's too far I think. If the bokeh was a bit smoother maybe if I was feeling like being foolish but really I'm so fine with the distagon on the a7cii.







Though I do notice when I put a Simera on how much lighter it is. But otherwise no real issue. It's the same with the fm2n. I could use a 35/2 or 40/2 ultron pancake but I'm currently happier taking the bigger 35 1.4 ais. It's in the small shoulder bag anyway. If it wasn't in the bag, the summilux size makes a lot more sense if I needed 1.4 and wanted manual focus. On a leica it's a slimmer body but that midzone dip - it doesn't seem to bother Jack Takahashi, who hated it with the 35 1.5 nokton, but that comparison with the distagon I dunno. Size probably makes it funner to use and tips the scale there. On Sony it's a tough ask for the price and still compromising performance.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the same sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 03:58 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. -- No, that's too far I think. If the bokeh was a bit smoother maybe if I was feeling like being foolish but really I'm so fine with the distagon on the a7cii.







Though I do notice when I put a Simera on how much lighter it is. But otherwise no real issue. It's the same with the fm2n. I could use a 35/2 or 40/2 ultron pancake but I'm currently happier taking the bigger 35 1.4 ais. It's in the small shoulder bag anyway.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the same sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 03:47 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. -- No, that's too far I think. If the bokeh was a bit smoother maybe if I was feeling like being foolish but really I'm so fine with the distagon on the a7cii.







Though I do notice when I put a Simera on how much lighter it is. But otherwise no real issue. It's the same with the fm2n. I could use a 35/2 or 40/2 ultron pancake but I'm currently happier taking the bigger 35 1.4 ais. It's in the bag anyway.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the same sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 03:46 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. -- No, that's too far I think. If the bokeh was a bit smoother maybe if I was feeling like being foolish but really I'm so fine with the distagon on the a7cii.







Though I do notice when I put a Simera on how much lighter it is. But otherwise no real issue. It's the same with the fm2n. I could use a 35/2 but I'm currently happier taking the bigger 35 1.4 ais and I just keep it in the bag anyway.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the same sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 03:45 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. -- No, that's too far I think. If the bokeh was a bit smoother maybe if I was feeling like being foolish but really I'm so fine with the distagon on the a7cii.







Though I do notice when I put a Simera on how much lighter it is. But otherwise no real issue.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the same sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 03:44 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. -- No, that's too far I think. If the bokeh was a bit smoother maybe if I was feeling like being foolish but really I'm so fine with the distagon on the a7cii.







Though I do notice when I put a Simera on how much lighter it is. But otherwise no real issue.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the sound sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 03:38 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. -- No, that's too far I think. If the bokeh was a bit smoother maybe if I was feeling like being foolish but really I'm so fine with the distagon on the a7cii.







Though I do notice when I put a Simera on how much lighter it is.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the sound sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 03:38 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. -- No, that's too far I think. If the bokeh was a bit smoother maybe if I was feeling like being foolish but really I'm so fine with the distagon on the a7cii.







It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the sound sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 03:36 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. -- No, that's too far I think. If the bokeh was a bit smoother maybe if I was feeling like being foolish but really I'm so fine with the distagon on the a7cii.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the sound sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 03:31 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. -- No, that's too far I think. If the bokeh was a bit smoother... but it's not (thankfully).

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the sound sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 03:23 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. -- No, that's too far I think. If the bokeh was a bit smoother... but it's not (thankfully ).

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the sound sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 03:22 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. -- No, that's too far.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the sound sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 03:20 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. -- No, that's crazy.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the sound sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 03:20 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

... Though now I'm thinking about it to replace the TTA 40/2 when I want small and don't need autofocus. :facepalm:

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the sound sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 03:19 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the sound sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option for film (at least of the bodies I know about and am interested in).


Jan 27, 2026 at 02:12 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30 at very good odds, or 1/60 being always perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the sound sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option with the fm2n or leica analogue.


Jan 27, 2026 at 02:11 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. Lenses but also the bodies. Focus accuracy and effect of mirror slap with the bodies.
I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens more reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30, or 1/60 being perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the sound sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option with the fm2n or leica analogue.


Jan 27, 2026 at 02:10 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30, or 1/60 being perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the sound sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option with the fm2n or leica analogue.


Jan 27, 2026 at 02:09 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens reliably.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30, or 1/60 being perfect with a 35mm lens.
My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the sound sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative. It doesn't really seem to make much difference with the mirror on or off - a bit hit or miss, at both 1/30 and 1/60.

I think I just got sloppy with the IBIS crutch making it something I don't even think about, don't have that option with the fm2n or leica analogue.


Jan 27, 2026 at 02:09 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - but I need to be careful. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30, or 1/60 being perfect with a 35mm lens. My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the sound sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative.


Jan 27, 2026 at 01:55 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - JUST about. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30, or 1/60 being perfect with a 35mm lens. My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the sound sound with the mirror slap so I'm hoping that will be indicative.


Jan 27, 2026 at 01:54 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - JUST about. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30, or 1/60 being perfect with a 35mm lens. My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference. Need to do some more testing with silent shutter mode. FM2n and A7cii make about the sound sound with the mirror slap.


Jan 27, 2026 at 01:54 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - JUST about. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30, or 1/60 being perfect with a 35mm lens. My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference.


Jan 27, 2026 at 12:44 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant. A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me. Perhaps that's being a bit silly, I'm not sure.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - JUST about. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30, or 1/60 being perfect with a 35mm lens. My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference.


Jan 27, 2026 at 12:42 PM
Yogifi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.

He does say f2 and it's fixed though.

With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.

But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.

And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.

Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.

As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:

“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”

I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.

On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.

A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant. A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.

I wouldn't get the FLE to use on Sony not because of performance but just mentally something's not sitting right with me.
It's so expensive and I'll be using it on Sony? It's like a weird mishmash and takes away some of the main benefit of the Sony: less cost, less to worry about. If I bought the FLE, I'd want a digital Leica, but I need that IBIS - and then the size difference is probably gone (hopefully not).

Good to know about the midzone dip being even better on Sony - though I don't have much complaints about the ZM either there so far. PCX I'm thinking about it as something that gives it a 1-stop advantage for longer distance scenes. 2 if push comes to shove. It's not going to be an APO that I can use at f2.8. The 35/1.7 I just can't find in black and good condition.

That kind of sucks also though - like why is the FLE midzone not as good on Leica, surely they ought to improve that on the next one. They cost enough and you're paying for 1.4.

Maybe if the a7c3 is 1cm thinner (which I doubt it will be) it would tip the scale and I'd wear it on the neck with the summilux and I'd get over the branding clash. I hope one day they manage it without losing IBIS. In the meantime I'm ... alright honestly. Just thinking about the 28mm apo-lanthar and I think I'm all set for digital. Maybe give the 11873 a try too.

It's the film stuff driving me crazy. I can just about do 1/60 without IBIS on the 35mm ZM Distagon (Sony) - JUST about. I'd love to be able to do 1/30 without IBIS on film with a 35mm lens.
I'm hoping the rangefinder would help with that as I've heard people saying they've gone down to 1/15. I'd be ecstatic with 1/30, or 1/60 being perfect with a 35mm lens. My hands aren't very shakey but I do see small movements, possibly more than others so I dunno if it will even make any difference.


Jan 27, 2026 at 12:42 PM





  Previous versions of Yogifi's message #16975264 « Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35 »