Introduction

Many people are still looking for a small yet fast 35mm lens for their fullframe E-mount cameras (especially those who need AF). I have found what I am looking for in the Voigtlander 35mm 1.7 VM + 5m PCX filter, but many people don’t want to bother with this mod and prefer a native solution. So how does the modded 35mm compare to Voigtlander’s native 40mm 1.2 Nokton E?

Specifications

Voigtlander 40mm 1.2 Nokton E Voigtlander 35mm 1.7 Ultron VM + 5m PCX Optosigma + Fotodiox Adapter Diameter 70mm 58mm Length 59mm 68mm Filter Thread 58mm 52mm (with PCX setup) Weight 410g 320g (with PCX setup and adapter) Max. Magnification 1:6.2 1:10,6 Min. focus distance from sensor 35cm 50cm Number of aperture blades 10 (straight) 10 (straight) Elements/ Groups 8/6 10/8 (incl. PCX filter)

Voigtlander 40mm 1.2 Nokton E, 1099$ new: amazon.com | B&H | ebay.com | ebay.de (affiliate links)

Voigtlander 35mm 1.7 Ultron VM, 809$ new: amazon.com | B&H | ebay.com | ebay.de (affiliate links)

Build quality/Handling

Being from the same manufacturer there are many similarities, so I will mainly talk about the differences.

Many people don’t like the knurled focus ring of the 35mm, personally I doesn’t bother me at all, but it seems I am the only one. Resistance of the focus ring is higher on the 40mm, but the reason might simply be that it is a new lens which hasn’t been used much yet. Focus throw is similar on both.

The 35mm offers 1/2 stop click stops while the 40mm offers 1/3 stop click stops.

The 40mm features electronic contacts, so you will have full Exif readout and the camera will know which focal length to use for IBIS.

You can also declick the aperture for video usage.

Vignetting

Voigtlander 40mm 1.2 Nokton E Voigtlander 35mm 1.7 Ultron VM + 5m PCX Optosigma + Fotodiox Adapter f/1.2 3.2 EV - f/1.4 2.6 EV - f/1.7 2.1 EV 3.1 EV f/2.0 2.0 EV 2.3 EV f/2.8 1.7 EV 2.0 EV f/4.0 1.5 EV 1.6 EV f/5.6 1.4 EV 1.6 EV f/8.0 1.4 EV 1.6 EV

These values are for the extreme corners of the A7rII (on the A7s vignetting is about ~0.3 EV less). Both lenses show comparably strong vignetting, no wonder given the small size.

Stopped down to f/2.0 the differences are not field relevant, but the difference of 1.0 EV at f/1.7 is definetly visible.

Sharpness Infinity

Center

100% crops from center, A7rII

At f/1.2 the 40mm 1.2 is rather soft at infinity, even in the center. It reaches its peak performance at f/4.0.

The 35mm starts strong and reaches its peak performance between f/2.8 and f/4.0 (pay attention to the interference patterns on the silo). Stop down to f/5.6 or further and you already start to loose resolution due to diffraction on the 42mp sensor of the A7rII.

Midframe

100% crops from midframe, A7rII

Both lenses show a midzone dip, but while it is slight on the 35mm it is pretty obvious on the 40mm. The 40mm really needs stopping down to f/2.8 for usable midframe resolution at infinity and peak performance is reached between f/4.0 and f/5.6.

The 35mm is also a bit soft in the midframe but still usable for web resolution and small prints. Stopping down to f/2.8 improves the resolution a lot and peak performance is also reached between f/4.0 and f/5.6.

Corner

100% crops from corner, A7rII

The extreme corners of the 40mm never reach excellent figures. The lens exhibits focus shift and field curvature issues and if you focus for the center the corners will be sharper in a plane behind that. With my combination of lens and camera I am at the infinity hard stop from f/4.0 onwards for a sharp center, so I can’t focus at that differnt plane behind with maybe better corner performance.

Keep in mind though: one rarely has something important in the extreme corners and the performance, especially at f/5.6 and f/8.0, will be sufficient in most situations.

The 35mm with the PCX filter behaves quite differently: already at f/1.7 the corners are absolutely usable and not worse than the 40mm at f/5.6. Peak performance in the corners is reached between f/5.6 to f/8.0.

I cannot stretch enough what a remarkable performance the 35mm 1.7 Ultron + 5m PCX shows here. I have yet to find another 35mm lens which shows such a flat field at f/1.7 (hint: none of the native options so far).

Sharpness Close up

Center

100% crops from center, A7rII

To my knowledge both lenses do not feature a floating elements design so one should not expect record breaking performance here. Wide open the 40mm shows lots of glow. At shared apertures the performance is similar, but despite using the VM-E close focus adapter to get to 35cm the 35mm looks slighty clearer to me.

You can get better close up performance when using diopters, especially with the 40mm 1.2. David is already preparing a post discussing this.

Far midframe (12mm from center)



100% crops from midframe, A7rII

The midframe performance wide open is certainly not something to write home about with either lens. Both should be stopped down to f/4.0 to yield good resolution.

Coma

100% crops from corner, A7rII

At f/1.2 the coma correction of the 40mm looks rather bad, which was to be expected. Most very fast lenses struggle a lot here. But even at shared apertures the 35mm looks much better and despite not showing an excellent performance (best in this range would probably be the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art) I have already used it for wide open milky way shooting.

Flare resistance

Stopped down (typical landscape usage) the lenses both perform on a high level. At wider apertures (f/1.2 to f/1.7) I encountered obstrusive ghosts with the 40mm, shading the lens with my hand helped quite a bit.

The 35 on the other hand can encounter a loss in contrast with strong stray light, see bokeh scene 4 (this might also be due to the PCX filter).

Bokeh

Scene 1

For these shots I have removed the vignetting in all shots and got closer with the 35mm to keep subject size in line.

Scene 2

Here camera position remained unchanged when switching for the 35mm.

Scene 3

I got closer with the 35mm and adjusted vignetting in the wide open shots.

Scene 4

I shielded the 40mm with my hand because of ghosts all over the frame. I did not do this with the 35mm and we see a loss of contrast because of stray light.

Scene 5

Here I also got closer with the 35mm to keep subject size in line.

Scene 6

In this comparison I added the Zhong Yi Mitakon 50mm 0.95 Speedmaster.

Scene 7

In this comparison I added the Zhong Yi Mitakon 50mm 0.95 Speedmaster.

Scene 8

In the set before I noticed the highlights in the backgorund of the 50mm 0.95 take on a not so nice shape with some “bokeh spill” at these distances, stopping down to f/1.2 solves this issue.

The shots from this comparison can be found in full resolution in this album.

Chromatic aberrations

lateral CA

Both lenses only have minor lateral CA which are easily corrected in post (or in camera for Jpegs).

longitudinal CA

close up

50% crops from center, A7rII

As we have already seen the sharpness of the 40mm at minimum focus distance isn’t that great.

The correction of loCA looks pretty similar to me at shared apertures in this comparison.

Strong backlight



100% crops from center, A7rII

Wide open the 40mm shows quite a lot of color fringing. At shared apertures in the center they behave quite similar, but if you examine the full res samples you will see that the 35mm looks better in the midframe and towards the corners.

The shots from this comparison can be found in full resolution in this album.

Conclusion

If I was a lens manufcaturer I would be embarassed how great a performer the 35mm 1.7 for M-mount in combination with a 5m PCX filter is. This modded lens has a flatter field than either of the 3 native 35mm 1.4 lenses stopped down to f/1.7 and probably also better flare resistance.

But back to the comparison at hand:

For landscape and architecture use I prefer the 35mm 1.7. The extreme corners of the 40mm never reach the same level of detail. Of course for many subjects the extreme corners are not overly important, so you might want to compromise here.

For environmental portraits the decision is not that easy. The 40mm is obviously capable of producing more blur and while it is comparably smooth (unlike the 35mm 1.4 Nokton E Classic) the aspherical lens elements can lead to rather obvious onion ring structures in light circles you won’t find with the 35mm 1.7.

I shoot a lot of portraits in cities with such backgrounds so it matters to me, but maybe it doesn’t matter to you.

The difference in focal length is bigger than it looks on paper (some people claim the 40mm to actually be more like a 43mm) so if you want a 35mm the 40mm might not be the ideal choice.

Personally I considered replacing my VM 35mm 1.7 + 5m PCX with this lens to have full exif readout and not having to fiddle with the IBIS focal length setting.

But after having used both side by side I will stick to the VM 35mm 1.7 + 5m PCX.

Voigtlander 40mm 1.2 Nokton E, 1099$ new: amazon.com | B&H | ebay.com | ebay.de (affiliate links)

Voigtlander 35mm 1.7 Ultron VM, 809$ new: amazon.com | B&H | ebay.com | ebay.de (affiliate links)

Other Articles