Zeiss ZF 35mm f/2 vs. Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2

[john_vo4]

<p>I'm looking for a manual focus lens in this range (on a DX body) and can't quite decide which of these to go for. I was hoping that any of you who have either lens or have made the same decision can offer some advice as how they square up in terms of optical quality, bokeh, etc.</p>

<p>Obviously, the CV is cheaper, but is the Zeiss worth the premium? Any words of wisdom and/or sample shots would be greatly appreciated.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I found a very nice Nikkor 35mm f2 AIS for less than $200. You might want to put that on your list also</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 35mm ZF is an exceptionally sharp and contrasty lens, throughout the aperture range from f/2 to f/11, has very good field flatness and the corner sharpness is exemplary even at wide apertures. But I think it's a little *too* contrasty for available light people photography, and I often use the 28mm f/2 Ai-S Nikkor instead for this application, although technically the 35mm ZF is far sharper. I just prefer a lower contrast for people photos in high-contrast low light, and the Nikkor gives just that. But if you don't mind the high contrast the Zeiss is exceptionally good and above all, consistent.</p>

<p>I have not used the Voigtländer.</p>

[arthuryeo]

<p>Carl,<br>

As far as my experience is concerned, the Nikkor 35mm/2 AFD is one of the weakest lenses among the Nikkors in terms of resolution. From what I read, the Nikkor is not of the same league as the Zeiss 35mm/2 ZF.</p>

 

[dan park]

<p>I use an old 35 f2 auto-o nikkor all the time. It's one of my favorite lenses. I've got a couple shots (on a full frame camera) that I will include below. I find it to be sharp enough and you get decent subject isolation and good lowlight functionality at f2.<br>

ISO 1600 @f2<br>

<img src="http://s127.photobucket.com/albums/p147/dap7298/_MG_9453.jpg" alt="" /><br>

ISO 3200 @f2<br>

<img src="http://s127.photobucket.com/albums/p147/dap7298/88_filtered.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Don't know about the other lenses but this $120 dollar ebay special is treating me just fine.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I don't think the 35/2D is a bad lens, I would rate it better than the other autofocus wide angle primes in terms of image quality. Its center performance is very good, while in the corners you have softness until about f/4 or so (on 35mm film). On the D200, it easily beat the 17-55/2.8 set at 35mm in terms of detail reproduction when used at equal apertures; at f/2 there is quite a bit of CA when used with that camera. I sold mine to obtain a lens that I could actually manual focus consistently (the Zeiss 35mm). This happened a few months before I got my first FX camera so I can't comment on the 35/2D's performance with FX. The 35/2D has a delicate colour rendition which I liked very much. I think given its cost and size, it's a good lens. It just depends on which characteristics you value most, which lens to get.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I love my Nikon 35mm f2 AI lens. It's sharp and lightweight, and only cost me $150 in near mint condition. They can be found for a lot less too if you're patient. I'd sold my last one (my current 35mm f2 is my third one, and this time I'm keeping it) recently and regretted it when I bought my D700 and could shoot full frame again.</p>

<p><img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/449771449_ha3o5-L.jpg" alt="" /> <br /> Nikon D700 with Nikon 35mm f2 AI lens 1/250 at f5.6 at ISO 400</p>

[leonard_forte1]

<p>"As far as my experience is concerned, the Nikkor 35mm/2 AFD is one of the weakest lenses among the Nikkors in terms of resolution."<br>

I disagree. I have a nikon 35mm f/2 AFD and find it quite sharp, good resolution and colour.</p>

[anthony_bez]

<p>I have just purchased a 35mm f2 O, like Dan's.<br />I bought it on the recommendation of Bjorn Rorslett, he gives it his highest mark 5. But he states the AF versions are a simpler design, and suffer from corner softness.</p>

<p>He and other testers I've read, concur that the new DX f1.8 is a superior lens to the f2 AFD. So I imagine the new 35mm f1.4 FX will be stellar :-)</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Arthur, the only reason I mentioned the Nikkor AIS is because there seems to be a value consideration vs the Voigtlander. I don't have any problems with my 35mm but that is me. I have not used the Zeiss but I know the price is much more than I would consider. Just an option.</p>

[certain_ratio]

<p>The Zeiss ZF 35mm is my favourite lens I own. It's hard to put into words here, but the sheer 'life like' clarity of the lens is simply breathtaking at times. I could go on, but I won't.<br>

Never tried the Voigtlander alas.<br>

What I would say though, for the sheer quality of the images. It beats hands down anything I have ever seen on either a Nikon or Canon.</p>

 

[philippartridge]

<p>Both your stated options will deliver a different look compared with the old Nikkors; many photographers really like the Zeiss look for the 3D, clarity and photorealism. This is the big reason Sony's A900 is rated highly by many experienced shooters, the new ZA Zeiss lenses...I have the 58/1.4 Nokton SL Voigtlander, very nice build and performance - it is for high definition landscape use, so res and micro-contrast at mid apertures are all important.</p>

<p>Looking at Ilkka's notes, I guess it depends on what your subject material (and budget) is..I have the 28/2 AIS as well, which delivers nice results but I would swap it for a Distagon in a heartbeat! I am developing a serious dislike for the old-school AF Nikkors - so cheaply made, they feel like toys after a Zeiss or Voigtlander. You could try looking at Photozone's reviews, and take a wander over to Fred Miranda's Alt gear forum for many threads and sample images on these two you are looking at. You will find very few complaints re the Voigtlander range, they have some great (now unavailable) longer lenses which have a cult following, and can be had second-hand, like an unreal 125 macro and a fabulous small 180mm f4, reportedly better than the 180/2.8. Stephen Gandy's Cameraquest site is the place to inquire about these VL options. Most folks here or most Nikon fora cannot envison much other than a Nikkor, sadly. I give it to Thom Hogan, who uses a ZF 18 and ZF 25 for landscape use, so that's a pretty good recommendation from a known Nikon guy.</p>

<p>Final note: the CZ 35/2 is regarded as one of the best of their modern lenses and it has to be said that they still make fabulous digital-targeted wide angles (18,21,25,28,35) unlike, ahem, Nikon, who are content to pump out giant kilo plus 'pro' zooms - you will certainly need a pro porter to cart these numbers up a decent mountain; Galen Rowell would not approve. Zeiss go their own way in design, they are of the opinion that zooms are inferior to primes for top performance, despite the rave reviews their old and new zooms get (24-85N, CY 35-70/3.4 and the Sony 24-70/2.8). If you get hooked there are several other fabulous CZ lenses (100 makro esp.) and and a 21mm Distagon in ZF/ZE has just been announced - a lot of folks are wetting their pants over it in anticipation as the old Contax CY mount one was so extraordinary...some serious lens junkies out there. Also check out 16:9 for lots of information and tests, a fair and well-informed site also. Absolute last note: not all of today's (and yesterday's) favourites will look so hot on the 24Mp bodies - by buying a Zeiss or high res VL you are future-proofing if you need highly detailed (large print) output in the future, and resale value is of course assured. regards.</p>

[akira]

<p>How about the newly announced 35/1.8? It is not a manual focus lens, but you CAN manual-focus seemingly without any problem. It is optimized for DX format and thus should be superior to the current AF-D 35/2.0 in terms of image quality.</p>

[jiajun_yang]

<p>i have a question?can the nokton lens use on NIkon body??coz i dont see any like VF lens before.</p>

[jay_moynihan]

<p>I do not have either of the lens you ask about. I am using the Nikkor (35mm f/2 AF D). My copies are very sharp ( across the field, area of edge softening very small, low to zero CA, good tonality). That on D60/D200's as to my experience.<br /><br />But i have read a couple of comparisons of the two you are curious about. BTW: both are reviewed (as is the nikon model) at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests</a><br>

Anyway, the Zeiss has higher resolution measures, but the difference seems to be mostly noticable as you move to the edges, not so much the center. Both seem to be very good, as is the Nikon, but the Zeiss does have the edge. <br />Oh, yeah, the Zeiss is "contrasty" i have read. I mention that since not all like or want that. I like that though. Sigh, it is a spendy little puppy:)</p>

[ron_scubadiver1]

<p>IMO a Sigma 30 f/1.4 would be a nice choice, even if it is AF.<br>

As far as Zeiss 35 vs the 40 goes, the Zeiss is big, heavy and expensive but reputed to have amazing IQ. Someone I know just started using the 40 on FX and is raving about it. Only thing is the 40 is a tad long for a normal lens on DX, but it shure is compact.</p>

[eric_pelve]

<p>The Zeiss 35mm ZF is indeed contrasty and amazingly sharp. Its most noticeable characteristic like other Zeiss ZF lens is that it offers some warmer tone pictures, as if they were glowing like the photo below.It reminds me of the time I was reviewing my Fuji Velvia slides on a lighbox with a loupe and I remember the WOW effect everytime....</p>

<p>I do not have the Voigtlander 40mm but the 58mm instead. The voigtlander 58mm Nokton is very sharp but the color although more vivids are more "metallic" in my opinion.</p><div></div>

[det_riedel]

<p>Since this lens is supposed to be connected to a DX Camera (here Nikon), it depends if it is a D40/D40X/D60/D3000 or the D200/D300/D700/D3 and the newer versions.<br /> Why? Since the entry level camera's do not have a menu where you can enter parameters to use the light meter! The D200/D300/... do have that. That means you can use a lens without a chip (ignoring AF right now)<br /> <br /> The Ultron 40mm has a chip, but not the Nikon AI-S lenses and neither the Zeiss.<br /> For that reason, the Ultron is an interesting option besides the Nikon AF-D lenses.<br /> <br /> The quality of the lenses has been already discussed here.<br /> Photozone has some testing done on the lenses discussed here. <br /> <br /> See:<br>

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests<br /> <br /> Mfg. DET</p>

 

[hwa_goh]

<p>Hi there,<br>

Just a note which may be slightly off topic, but in regards to the 35mm f/2AFD.<br>

I have been and still am a full time working photographer after 20+years, and with especially extensive experience of the Nikkor 35s. I've had the 35/2 in it's various guises (AI, AIS) as my primary lens since the mid 80s when at school with it mounted on FM/FM2s. Since the AF age (and I stuck with Nikon thru it's pretty bad early AF days even though sometimes I would be issued with AF superior EOS kit), I've had to switch to the AF version. After many copies of both the AF and the MF lenses and thousands and thousands of shots, I have noticed that the AF version is in fact inferior to any of the MF versions. Even the Series E f/2.5 is better or equal wide open (admitedly f/2 vs f/2.5).<br>

The faults are generally softness off centre (esp wide open) and terrible durability.<br>

Having said that, I still have 3 copies of the AFD, as I it is the only thing that will AF from Nikon in it's class. Terrible that there aren't any good Nikkor AF primes, though the 24/1.4AFS does look well sexy.<br>

In reality though, pretty much all my work now is done on zooms as the nature of shooting on a daily basis, different scenarios are met easiest by the modern fast (and expensive) zooms. I do carry multiple primes on jobs where I can get away with it, such as with assistants, or out the back of a car, but running round with multiple DSLRs, large zooms, multiple SBs and baterries etc give my back enough as it is.<br>

Shooting on my MF bodies though, I use the old AIS ones, tough and sharp. Though I am about to get a Ultron40, as it does sound good. The problem with the 35/2AIS is that it is bit big and heavy.<br>

So I shouldn't be disappointed by it's quality then?<br>

Thanks</p>