Best 35mm (Summicron vs Summilux vs Distagon vs Ai-S)?

[jimlizard]

Hi,

After solding my 5D and all of my manual focus equipment to buy a Leica M8 and some lenses, I decided to invest in a Canon 5D Mark II, because I'll give stock photography a try and I need a high resolution camera.
Now I'm thinking in another MF set to go with the new 5D.

35mm is my favorite focal distance for general use so, I think I'll start from there. I used to have a Leica Summicron-R 35mm f/2.0 E55, which was simply brilliant and my favorite lens!
I think they don't come any better at this focal distance, but I would like to try something different. I also would like something to open at f/1.4, to use in very low light conditions and because I love a beautiful bokeh and shallow dof.

The first options that came to my mind were:

Leica Summilux-R 35mm f/1.4
Carl Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4
Nikon 35mm f/1.4 Ai-S

I believe the Nikkor should be the worst of them - although excellent - so, it's my last choice.

About the Summilux-R, i read that it hits the 5D's mirror. Is that true?

If that's the case, I'm almost alone with the Distagon 35mm f/1.4. Is it sharp enough wide open?
Anyone can tell how does it compare with the Summicron-R 35mm E55? It would be great if it was at least as sharp as the Leica, but I don't know if that's true.
Both have different types of bokeh and colour rendition, but that's not a problem, since I like both in those areas.

By the way, I believe the Distagon works ok with the 5D Mark II, with no need to shave the mirror. Am I right?

Thank you for your opinions!

[Orio]

The Distagon 1.4 does not hit the mirror of the 5D.

As for comparisons, I read once an online article comparing the Distagon with the Summilux, and the verdict was in favour of the Distagon, mainly for the wide open performance.
I do not have the link unfortunately, but perhaps you can find it with some googling.

I think it's not really appropriate to compare the Distagon 1.4 with the Summicron (f/2). With lenses of such speed, one stop difference means a world apart, as it's a lot more difficult to correct successfully a f/1.4 lens than a f/2 lens.

WIth regards to the bokeh of the Distagon 1.4/35, well it's very personal, I love it, but some people hates it. It certainly is much different from the bokeh of the Summicron. Here's a photo I took with the Distagon 1.4/35 wide open which shows well the peculiar bokeh:

http://www.oriofoto.net/temp/BRIXELLUM_2008_2_CASTRUM/slides/BRIX08_B_40.html

Another one, also wide open:

http://www.oriofoto.net/temp/BRIXELLUM_2008_2_CASTRUM/slides/BRIX08_B_38.html

and yet another one also wide open:

http://www.oriofoto.net/temp/BRIXELLUM_2008_3_PARADE/slides/BRIX08_C_40.html

this one is not wide open but still with the typical bokeh:
http://www.oriofoto.net/temp/BRIXELLUM_2008_3_PARADE/slides/BRIX08_C_30.html

this one is stopped down:
http://www.oriofoto.net/temp/BRIXELLUM_2008_3_PARADE/slides/BRIX08_C_05.html

[berraneck]

Somewhere on forum i saw comparison of nikkor vs. distagon.. search more carefully. nikkor was wide-opened really awful for me, on the other hand i couldn´t believe my eyes on photos from wide-open distagon

[Attila]

[Orio]

However I have seen a few pictures from the Nikkor 1.4/35 and I liked them.

But I have not tried the lens myself so I can not speak.

[Attila]

[jimlizard]

Thanks a lot for your help and opinions!
Orio, your answer was very useful and it was great to see some more samples. I love the typical Zeiss bokeh and this case is no exception.

[Orio]

If you want sharp, then the lens for you is the R Elmarit 2.8/35 last version.

[Orio]

[Orio]

Read here how Leica copied Glatzel's Distagon 2/35 for Zeiss Contarex to make their Summicron-R 2/35

http://www.luciolepri.it/lc2/marcocavina/articoli_fotografici/Leitz_35mm_R_first_series/00_pag.htm

(article by Marco Cavina)

[Esox lucius]

I've posted some Nikkor 35/1.4 AiS samples, can be found here

http://forum.mflenses.com/nikkor-35mm-f-1-4-ai-s-samples-original-size-f-5-6-t16965.html

(The flagpole shot is misfocused, don't pixel peep it.)

The Nikkor has a central bright spot (internal flare) wide open, and while it delivers tremendous sharpness at f/4 to f/5.6 it slightly declines at f/8 and smaller. If you're looking for f/1.4 to f/2.8 performance it does not belong in your comparison of options, this lens needs to be stopped down to f/4 but boy, does it sing at f/4 to /5.6! Like Bjorn Rorslett said, it's a very temperamental lens that is to be used accordingly, it delivers when used right only.

[LucisPictor]

If I were you, I would decide on the basis of availability, condition and price.
Each of these lenses will satisfy your needs.

[pirius]

I wonder how these lenses compare to Flektogon 35 2.4. Is it too far behind Contax 35 1.4? Smaller aperture - yes, but stopped down?

[poilu]

[Orio]

[pirius]

Thanks! Yes, I have 5d Mk2 and I've bought a Flek recently. Now I am thinking if Distagon 35 1.4 or even EOS 35L will be worth of having as well. Well, maybe if there happens to be another $550 Distagon on eBay

Now, I was actually wondering more about image look than per-pixel sharpness. I've been comparing Canon EF 50 1.4 to Contax Zeiss 50 1.4 recently and on the screen at 100% Canon may sometimes look sharper when I slightly misfocus with manual Zeiss, but in print Zeiss simply blows Canon out of the water. Canon prints look flat, yellowish and boring, whereas Zeiss prints are punchy and 3D-looking, even if not perfectly in focus. You are right - this is not quite as apparent on the computer screen.

So that's what I was wondering about - how Flektogon looks in print comparing to Distagon 1.4? I might even buy both to compare but you guys already have them, so...

[LucisPictor]

[metallaro1980]

[fourmix]

yep...but when you buy a f/1.4, IMO it's to be used at wide apertures.
If you want to make f/5.6; f/8, f/11...etc...better to buy f/2.8 version (more compact, cheaper...etc)

[poilu]

[Orio]

There are things in an image that the MTFs can not measure.

[larsr]

I was going to ramble a lot, but I'll just save it since I seem to represent a very different discipline..

Question is: WHO is going to care about the quality. You or your client? Whether someone other than you might actually consider purchasing your work and simultaneously be extra picky about LPM performance and MTF scales - then yes, I suppose you might want to dosh out bags of money for, say, a small red emblem.

While I do clearly see why there is a difference between a manually focused lens worth 20€ and a manually focused lens worth 200€, I would advise against jumping in the high roller train just for the sake of getting something that's hella expensive just because it is considered that quality and price always, irrevocably, walk hand in hand.

That's, at least the way I see it, how most fashion photogs seem to think of. They have the zillion-dollar Hassies, spend ruthless amounts of time shooting photos (maybe even some coke up the nose) - and where do the photos end up? Photoshop, that's where. Could they have shot the same stuff with a cheaper Canon or Nikon outfit using the same high-key studio lights? Yes.

You need to find out if you are really doing photography just to suit your own pixel-peeping needs (you care) or if you are possibly selling your work in the form of prints (you care, customer doesn't) or subcontracting to some magazine (you care, customer might care but probably doesn't) etc etc. Don't stare at the megapickle amount. Some cameras have 10 megalomaniac pickles, some have 24. So? What you shoot is more important than what you shoot it with. Even National Geographic, who are known to be rigorous about their imagery and for example permit only rudimentary postprocessing, print unsharp or misfocused photos. Why? Because what's IN the photos is much bigger and more important than whatever you shot it with.

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king"