Voigtlander Lens Buying Advice - Zf

[musicshootr]

I have a bit of extra money to spend and want to reward myself for taking on and completing a challenging project this summer. I initially wanted the 40mm f1.2 Voigtlander Z mount lens, but I am hearing that it often has aperture communication issues with the Zf and other Z mount cameras, and it is perma-backordered everywhere (possibly due to a stoppage of manufacturing due to the aperture fault?)

So, folks of DPR, especially those with Zfs, what do you recommend?

• Buy the 40mm 1.2 for its compact size and hope my copy doesn't have the aperture issue
• Pick up the 35mm f2 instead because it's close to the 40 in FOV and speed, but give up the compactness (I do like this lens's rendering)
  • For those who have this lens, how is it for taking photos of people? That's a lot of my photography.
  • How's the weight and balance on the Zf?
  • Any issues you can report?
  • I don't have any 35mm native Z lenses so this is a somewhat attractive option, but I want to hear from people who own it whether it is a landscape one-trick pony, or whether it is great for general shooting and images of people as well.
• Pick up the 50mm f2 because it's my favorite focal length, still pretty fast, but also give up some of the compactness of the 40 (I like this lens's rendering a LOT - tons of 3D pop)
  • For those who have this lens, does it feel big on the Zf?
  • How's the weight and balance with it?
  • Any issues you can report?
  • The biggest pitfall of this is I already own the 50 1.8, but I do think there may be some reason to own both - the 50 1.8 has weather sealing and is, generally, a faster shooter, while the 50 f2 is (a little) smaller and provides the manual focus experience
• Some other sort of option - I am up for suggestions, but I am not interested in TTArtisan, Meike, 7artisans... I am only looking for products of similar, for lack of a better word, provenance as Voigtlanders

I know I like manual focus, so that's not a big problem. I already shoot with a 50 1.4 and 35 3.5 FD lens sometimes, particularly for video. This lens purchase is mainly for stills, because using FD adapters for stills is infuriating (there are 2 aperture rings, one on the adapter and one on the lens, and it's frustrating to use. Also, these lenses are old and less reliable). My hope initially was to get a native, fast 40 to "split the difference" between 35 and 50 and possibly approximate the medium format look with the fast aperture in at-a-bit-of-a-distance portraiture (i.e. not super close up - think torso and above), but the communication issues with aperture that are being reported with that lens concern me because incorrect aperture apparently affects the metering and IBIS performance compared to when the aperture is communicated accurately.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Mizar11]

I have a bit of extra money to spend and want to reward myself for taking on and completing a challenging project this summer. I initially wanted the 40mm f1.2 Voigtlander Z mount lens, but I am hearing that it often has aperture communication issues with the Zf and other Z mount cameras, and it is perma-backordered everywhere (possibly due to a stoppage of manufacturing due to the aperture fault?)

Other than a reference on reddit from a couple years ago, where do see this fault being so widespread?

Voigtlander does limited runs of all their lenses. Speculating that they've stopped manufacturing due to some 'fault' is pure speculation.

So, folks of DPR, especially those with Zfs, what do you recommend?

• Buy the 40mm 1.2 for its compact size and hope my copy doesn't have the aperture issue

I wouldn't call the 40 1.2 compact in any sense. Because of the metal build, it is relatively substantial. The Nikon 40 and 28 SE variants, as well as the 26, are pretty compact and light if you are looking for a light, compact set-up.

• Pick up the 35mm f2 instead because it's close to the 40 in FOV and speed, but give up the compactness (I do like this lens's rendering

F2 is not close to f1.2. These are two very different lenses. The 40 f1.2 is generally thought to be 'less sharp' at f1.2 - f1.4 although I don't think that is a good characterization of its performance. It looses acuity and has some 'glow' below f2.8 but some of that can be modified in post. At 2.8 and above it is uniformly sharp with typical Voigtlander color and contrast. A lot of folks refer to the 40 f1.2 has having 'dual character' because of its performance above and below f2.8.

The 35 f2 is sharp from f2 on. The V35 has a smaller diameter than the 40 (of course) but is not significantly different in weight. Again, because of their construction, Voigts are 'substantial' lenses.

I don't generally shoot people with a 35 unless my intention is to include more surrounding context. Even 50 seems to me to be an unflattering FL unless you are standing back some. The distortion just bothers me when I get close to 'portrait' framing. But if it works for you. . .

The Voigt 50 is sharper than the Nikon S 50, but I think you'd only notice if you compare them head to head. I like the Voigt 50 only because I enjoy the manual focus experience and because of the edge to edge performance it works well for panoramas. But the Nikon S50 is certainly sharp enough.

Why would aperture affect IBIS?

 

[rhlpetrus]

I am in the same exact situation, just got the Zf and I'm shopping for a fast WA prime, but, as you have found, the VL 40 f/1.2 is backordered everywhere, I'm on the waiting list at B&H.

I have also thought of getting the VL 35 f/2 ApoLanthar, which is likely a better lens optically, and may well end up getting it.

Meanwhile, I'm ordering the new 16-30mm f/2.8 by Tamron, as I like to shoot WA most of the time, to go along with the 24-70 f/4 S kit that came with the Zf.

I hadn't heard of connecting issues fo the 40 1.2 with Zf or other Z body. Could you furnish a link to any post/review about that?

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[musicshootr]

I have a bit of extra money to spend and want to reward myself for taking on and completing a challenging project this summer. I initially wanted the 40mm f1.2 Voigtlander Z mount lens, but I am hearing that it often has aperture communication issues with the Zf and other Z mount cameras, and it is perma-backordered everywhere (possibly due to a stoppage of manufacturing due to the aperture fault?)

Other than a reference on reddit from a couple years ago, where do see this fault being so widespread?

I have seen this mentioned other places than Reddit. It's been mentioned on Fred Miranda and in YouTube and Facebook comments discussing this lens. If I hadn't seen multiple people expressing concern about it, I wouldn't be concerned myself, but I have.

Voigtlander does limited runs of all their lenses. Speculating that they've stopped manufacturing due to some 'fault' is pure speculation.

It is speculative, I agree, but it is a little weird that nowhere has a single copy of this lens to the point that CameraQuest, Voigtlander's US distributor, is selling a used copy for the new-copy price. The 27mm f2.8 Fujifilm lens is the only other lens I've seen this badly backordered, and that lens has issues - the autofocus motor dies in some of them. That is why I wonder if trying to fix this hardware or firmware issue is why the stream of 40 1.2s has slowed to a stop. Alternatively, it might be a tariff thing; maybe they quit sending copies to the US until the tariffs were more finalized.

So, folks of DPR, especially those with Zfs, what do you recommend?

• Buy the 40mm 1.2 for its compact size and hope my copy doesn't have the aperture issue

I wouldn't call the 40 1.2 compact in any sense. Because of the metal build, it is relatively substantial. The Nikon 40 and 28 SE variants, as well as the 26, are pretty compact and light if you are looking for a light, compact set-up.

I loathe the 40 f2 so that is not a lens in consideration for me whatsoever. I have the 26 and it's not meeting my needs - too wide. Compared to the 50 1.8, my smallest Z lens, the 40 1.2 is compact. It's shorter than the 50 1.8 by a lot. I care more about size than weight.

• Pick up the 35mm f2 instead because it's close to the 40 in FOV and speed, but give up the compactness (I do like this lens's rendering

F2 is not close to f1.2. These are two very different lenses. The 40 f1.2 is generally thought to be 'less sharp' at f1.2 - f1.4 although I don't think that is a good characterization of its performance. It looses acuity and has some 'glow' below f2.8 but some of that can be modified in post. At 2.8 and above it is uniformly sharp with typical Voigtlander color and contrast. A lot of folks refer to the 40 f1.2 has having 'dual character' because of its performance above and below f2.8.

For my purposes, F2 is close enough to f1.2 on a lens where the f1.2 is dreamy and uncorrected. I often don't want that look (though the low aperture would be nice in low light). Other than low light shooting, I would be shooting the 40 1.2 at f2.8 or above most of the time for sharpness and correction reasons. That is why I'm sort of thinking moving to the 35 f2 wouldn't be a big loss, other than that the 35 f2 is physically bigger.

The 35 f2 is sharp from f2 on. The V35 has a smaller diameter than the 40 (of course) but is not significantly different in weight. Again, because of their construction, Voigts are 'substantial' lenses.

I don't generally shoot people with a 35 unless my intention is to include more surrounding context. Even 50 seems to me to be an unflattering FL unless you are standing back some. The distortion just bothers me when I get close to 'portrait' framing. But if it works for you. . .

The Voigt 50 is sharper than the Nikon S 50, but I think you'd only notice if you compare them head to head. I like the Voigt 50 only because I enjoy the manual focus experience and because of the edge to edge performance it works well for panoramas. But the Nikon S50 is certainly sharp enough.

Why would aperture affect IBIS?

It's a distance-scale issue. As explained on a Fred Miranda discussion of the 40mm f1.2 and its issues, if aperture is reported incorrectly to the body, distance to subject is also communicated incorrectly, dropping the IBIS performance from 5 stop to 3 or fewer.



I am bolding my comments because the site threw a CSS error when I tried to comment.

 

[musicshootr]

I'm at work and can't do a deep dive and a brief attempt to retrace my steps was not successful in locating the comments I've seen about it. I did copy and paste one to send to a friend in Facebook messenger when talking about availability of this lens so I have that but I couldn't tell you whether I saw it on Youtube or Reddit.

"The 40 1.2 lives currently on my Zf. It is copy number 4 after the previous ones were all exchanged due to the same failure, where the aperture at some point stopped to be communicated correctly. This must be the reason why they are out of stock anywhere for some time, I guess they are figuring out a solution. Previous to the 40 I had both of the APO and I am planning to repurchase the redesigned version II of the 35, that should arrive to dealers stock soon"

I also saw a thread where people were talking about taping up the contacts on the 40 to avoid miscommunication because all shots were being communicated as being shot at f2 but I can't find that either - this device is not the one I was using when I found these threads so they're not in my history and I am at work so I can't really go retrace every story and post I read about this lens over the past several weeks.

 

[musicshootr]

I was able to find the thread talking about aperture miscommunication, this lens, and IBIS, but the user appears to have been using a Sony https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1576295/

 

[Nebido]

I loathe the 40 f2 so that is not a lens in consideration for me whatsoever. I have the 26 and it's not meeting my needs - too wide. Compared to the 50 1.8, my smallest Z lens, the 40 1.2 is compact. It's shorter than the 50 1.8 by a lot. I care more about size than weight.

The 35/2 Apo Lanthar Z (first version) is also very compact compared to a Z 50/1.8 S, even though it weighs only 63g less.

Here is a comparison: on the left is the Z 50/1.8 S, on the right side is the Voigtlander 35/2 Apo Lanthar Z on my old Z6, middle Canon New F-1 & Canon FD 85/1.2 L.



Regarding the FD adapter mentioned in your initial post.

If you have high-quality FD lenses, it is worth buying a decent adapter.

I personally use one of the two “peace of mind solutions,” the Novolfex FD to Z adapter, a high-precision lens adapter that precisely compensates for the flange focal distance differences between the two systems, has zero play, and effectively suppresses any flare issues (matte interior).

The other peace of mind solution would be Rayqual.

My budget recommendation is the K&F II.

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/adapters-manual-lenses-sony-a7-series-guide/#Canon_FD

_____

When it comes to Voigtländer lenses, it depends on what the lenses are primarily used for.

The Apo Lanthars are outstanding in terms of resolution, sharpness consistency right to the outer edges, resolution of the finest details such as foliage, correction of all significant aberrations/color aberations (apart from vignetting), and that directly at the maximum aperture of f/2.

They are therefore ideal for landscape photography, architecture, cityscapes, nightscapes, and panoramic photography.

Of course, they are also suitable as all-rounders for travel and hiking, but their strengths lie in the areas mentioned above.

What sets them apart from competing products is that they achieve this extremely high level directly at maximum aperture.

Added to this is the special punch, contrast, and extremely harmonious and vivid color reproduction that characterizes many Voigtlander lenses.

The 40/1.2 Nokton has a completely different character wide open.

It is, of course, much faster and therefore much more difficult to correct at full aperture.

In addition, this is not the focus of development, as it is with Apo Lanthar lenses.

Aberrations such as SA glow, CA, LoCA, which many refer to as character traits.

When stopped down, it changes its character significantly from around f/2.8 and also takes on a more modern, clean, high-resolution look.

So it's more in demand if, on the one hand, I want the speed and the associated separation capability, and on the other hand, I don't have any problems with the flaws that come with such a compact design for a 40/1.2.

If I even want to specifically have the SA glow and field curvature effects, color aberrations don't really bother me wide open.

Whereas with Apo Lanthar lenses, the focus is on minimizing exactly these aberrations and optical flaws as much as possible, even at maximum aperture.

The image field curvature of the Apo Lanthar is negligible; it perfoms here as a flat-field lens.
For this reason, and thanks to its floating group design, it delivers also outstanding performance at the minimum focusing distance.

Here are a few panorama shots taken with the Nikon Z6 & 35/2 AL-Z, watch @ 100%.

View attachment add00e33262b4e85ab89da9a608d0124.jpg

View attachment 2de2b3ab38d34d8c8d132114c736cada.jpg

View attachment 3a4fb42e13364e6b92c6033493703a7f.jpg

 

[Bruno Zarokian]

I own all these lenses. Anecdotally I have never had any issue with any Voigtlander lens, but that's only a small sample size of just me and a few lenses.

The key thing to keep in mind with the VC lenses is that APO and Nokton lenses are very different, optimised for different parameters. From what you are describing, the 40f1.2 seems like the lens you are looking for. It is great for people and a joy to use. The APOs are not optimised for people or close distance. The transition zone can be harsh. That said they really are outstanding when used for what they deliver on, and you can certainly take people photos with them, they just would not be my top picks for situational portraits. Vignetting is high on all VC lenses btw, you have to be able to live with it.

Then you also have the 50f1.0 Nokton. Heavy-ish even on a Z8, probably pretty awkward to hold on a Zf, but definitely a special lens.

 

[jjz2]

I have a bit of extra money to spend and want to reward myself for taking on and completing a challenging project this summer. I initially wanted the 40mm f1.2 Voigtlander Z mount lens, but I am hearing that it often has aperture communication issues with the Zf and other Z mount cameras, and it is perma-backordered everywhere (possibly due to a stoppage of manufacturing due to the aperture fault?)

So, folks of DPR, especially those with Zfs, what do you recommend?

• Buy the 40mm 1.2 for its compact size and hope my copy doesn't have the aperture issue
• Pick up the 35mm f2 instead because it's close to the 40 in FOV and speed, but give up the compactness (I do like this lens's rendering)
  • For those who have this lens, how is it for taking photos of people? That's a lot of my photography.
  • How's the weight and balance on the Zf?
  • Any issues you can report?
  • I don't have any 35mm native Z lenses so this is a somewhat attractive option, but I want to hear from people who own it whether it is a landscape one-trick pony, or whether it is great for general shooting and images of people as well.
• Pick up the 50mm f2 because it's my favorite focal length, still pretty fast, but also give up some of the compactness of the 40 (I like this lens's rendering a LOT - tons of 3D pop)
  • For those who have this lens, does it feel big on the Zf?
  • How's the weight and balance with it?
  • Any issues you can report?
  • The biggest pitfall of this is I already own the 50 1.8, but I do think there may be some reason to own both - the 50 1.8 has weather sealing and is, generally, a faster shooter, while the 50 f2 is (a little) smaller and provides the manual focus experience
• Some other sort of option - I am up for suggestions, but I am not interested in TTArtisan, Meike, 7artisans... I am only looking for products of similar, for lack of a better word, provenance as Voigtlanders

I know I like manual focus, so that's not a big problem. I already shoot with a 50 1.4 and 35 3.5 FD lens sometimes, particularly for video. This lens purchase is mainly for stills, because using FD adapters for stills is infuriating (there are 2 aperture rings, one on the adapter and one on the lens, and it's frustrating to use. Also, these lenses are old and less reliable). My hope initially was to get a native, fast 40 to "split the difference" between 35 and 50 and possibly approximate the medium format look with the fast aperture in at-a-bit-of-a-distance portraiture (i.e. not super close up - think torso and above), but the communication issues with aperture that are being reported with that lens concern me because incorrect aperture apparently affects the metering and IBIS performance compared to when the aperture is communicated accurately.

Thanks in advance.

I've used voigtlander before but I prefer Sigma I series lenses and rendering, plus you get autofocus through megadap adapter.

I don't need a fast prime like 1.2 though, I prioritized size, aperture ring, and with AF.

 

[rcower]

I got the Voigtlander 35/2 Apo Lanthar, it's a very sharp lens. Feels solid in the hand, I can't think of anything negative to report.

 

[Tapper123]

FWIW I've owned the VL 40 f1.2 for about 5 weeks, bought new from B&H, and it's been great on my Zf. No issues, superb build, gorgeous rendering. I think the size and weight are well matched for the Zf. Sure, it's heftier than f2 lenses, but it's f1.2 so of course.

I didn't even know there was some issue, but it seems to be with one used on a Sony: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1576295/

Are there examples of that issue with a Nikon?

I have a bit of extra money to spend and want to reward myself for taking on and completing a challenging project this summer. I initially wanted the 40mm f1.2 Voigtlander Z mount lens, but I am hearing that it often has aperture communication issues with the Zf and other Z mount cameras, and it is perma-backordered everywhere (possibly due to a stoppage of manufacturing due to the aperture fault?)

So, folks of DPR, especially those with Zfs, what do you recommend?

• Buy the 40mm 1.2 for its compact size and hope my copy doesn't have the aperture issue
• Pick up the 35mm f2 instead because it's close to the 40 in FOV and speed, but give up the compactness (I do like this lens's rendering)
  • For those who have this lens, how is it for taking photos of people? That's a lot of my photography.
  • How's the weight and balance on the Zf?
  • Any issues you can report?
  • I don't have any 35mm native Z lenses so this is a somewhat attractive option, but I want to hear from people who own it whether it is a landscape one-trick pony, or whether it is great for general shooting and images of people as well.
• Pick up the 50mm f2 because it's my favorite focal length, still pretty fast, but also give up some of the compactness of the 40 (I like this lens's rendering a LOT - tons of 3D pop)
  • For those who have this lens, does it feel big on the Zf?
  • How's the weight and balance with it?
  • Any issues you can report?
  • The biggest pitfall of this is I already own the 50 1.8, but I do think there may be some reason to own both - the 50 1.8 has weather sealing and is, generally, a faster shooter, while the 50 f2 is (a little) smaller and provides the manual focus experience
• Some other sort of option - I am up for suggestions, but I am not interested in TTArtisan, Meike, 7artisans... I am only looking for products of similar, for lack of a better word, provenance as Voigtlanders

I know I like manual focus, so that's not a big problem. I already shoot with a 50 1.4 and 35 3.5 FD lens sometimes, particularly for video. This lens purchase is mainly for stills, because using FD adapters for stills is infuriating (there are 2 aperture rings, one on the adapter and one on the lens, and it's frustrating to use. Also, these lenses are old and less reliable). My hope initially was to get a native, fast 40 to "split the difference" between 35 and 50 and possibly approximate the medium format look with the fast aperture in at-a-bit-of-a-distance portraiture (i.e. not super close up - think torso and above), but the communication issues with aperture that are being reported with that lens concern me because incorrect aperture apparently affects the metering and IBIS performance compared to when the aperture is communicated accurately.

Thanks in advance.

 

[cubivore]

i too have had no problems with my 40mm 1.2. i also have the 75mm 1.5. they're both great, but i use the 40mm more. there's probably low stock bcus they're maybe halting production for the rumored new v2 that might only be L mount for now, but might trickle down to z mount. they're heavy and feel great. i wouldn't worry about the size of any of them

 

[CliveTJ]

No problems here with the 40mm 1.2 or 35 and 50 APOs.

 

[rhlpetrus]

I loathe the 40 f2 so that is not a lens in consideration for me whatsoever. I have the 26 and it's not meeting my needs - too wide. Compared to the 50 1.8, my smallest Z lens, the 40 1.2 is compact. It's shorter than the 50 1.8 by a lot. I care more about size than weight.

The 35/2 Apo Lanthar Z (first version) is also very compact compared to a Z 50/1.8 S, even though it weighs only 63g less.

Here is a comparison: on the left is the Z 50/1.8 S, on the right side is the Voigtlander 35/2 Apo Lanthar Z on my old Z6, middle Canon New F-1 & Canon FD 85/1.2 L.



Regarding the FD adapter mentioned in your initial post.

If you have high-quality FD lenses, it is worth buying a decent adapter.

I personally use one of the two “peace of mind solutions,” the Novolfex FD to Z adapter, a high-precision lens adapter that precisely compensates for the flange focal distance differences between the two systems, has zero play, and effectively suppresses any flare issues (matte interior).

The other peace of mind solution would be Rayqual.

My budget recommendation is the K&F II.

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/adapters-manual-lenses-sony-a7-series-guide/#Canon_FD

_____

When it comes to Voigtländer lenses, it depends on what the lenses are primarily used for.

The Apo Lanthars are outstanding in terms of resolution, sharpness consistency right to the outer edges, resolution of the finest details such as foliage, correction of all significant aberrations/color aberations (apart from vignetting), and that directly at the maximum aperture of f/2.

They are therefore ideal for landscape photography, architecture, cityscapes, nightscapes, and panoramic photography.

Of course, they are also suitable as all-rounders for travel and hiking, but their strengths lie in the areas mentioned above.

What sets them apart from competing products is that they achieve this extremely high level directly at maximum aperture.

Added to this is the special punch, contrast, and extremely harmonious and vivid color reproduction that characterizes many Voigtlander lenses.

The 40/1.2 Nokton has a completely different character wide open.

It is, of course, much faster and therefore much more difficult to correct at full aperture.

In addition, this is not the focus of development, as it is with Apo Lanthar lenses.

Aberrations such as SA glow, CA, LoCA, which many refer to as character traits.

When stopped down, it changes its character significantly from around f/2.8 and also takes on a more modern, clean, high-resolution look.

So it's more in demand if, on the one hand, I want the speed and the associated separation capability, and on the other hand, I don't have any problems with the flaws that come with such a compact design for a 40/1.2.

If I even want to specifically have the SA glow and field curvature effects, color aberrations don't really bother me wide open.

Whereas with Apo Lanthar lenses, the focus is on minimizing exactly these aberrations and optical flaws as much as possible, even at maximum aperture.

The image field curvature of the Apo Lanthar is negligible; it perfoms here as a flat-field lens.
For this reason, and thanks to its floating group design, it delivers also outstanding performance at the minimum focusing distance.

Here are a few panorama shots taken with the Nikon Z6 & 35/2 AL-Z, watch @ 100%.

View attachment add00e33262b4e85ab89da9a608d0124.jpg

View attachment 2de2b3ab38d34d8c8d132114c736cada.jpg

View attachment 3a4fb42e13364e6b92c6033493703a7f.jpg

Thanks, very good post and excellent samples. I might go for the AL 35 f/2 after all. How many shots for these panoramas? Done horizontally or vertically?

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[Nebido]

Thanks, very good post and excellent samples. I might go for the AL 35 f/2 after all. How many shots for these panoramas? Done horizontally or vertically?

Thank you very much.

They were taken vertically with a tripod and a Novoflex VR-SYSTEM SLIM (super light multi-row nodal adapter).









I can't say exactly how many images there are, because I also used image averaging to simulate a slight ND filter effect.

Each image of the respective panorama was taken eight times and then layered and stacked using Photoshop.

But in all three cases, they are multi-row panoramas, i.e., three rows and certainly around 6-8 per row.

Today, I would develop the images differently.

At the time, DXO had changed its preset for the powerful “Lens Softness Compensation” (lens profile-based intelligent + selective sharpening) after a patch.

The default setting with DXO was always 0, but despite the zero value, it already sharpened the image, and after the patch, the value was increased to 1.

At the time, I didn't notice this, but today I know better and would definitely remove it.

The images are therefore oversharpened, which the Apo Lanthar absolutely does not need, due to the botched PP in DXO at the time.

But I didn't feel like repeating the PP for 3 panorama rows of up to 8 images including image averaging.

3 rows of 8 images is already 24 images, which then have to be multiplied by a factor of 8 due to AHDR technique.

 

[jwilton]

I have purchased the Voigtlander Z40 f1.2 and have become smitten by the Voigtlander lenses.

I am impressed with the metal build, and I know it is controversial given a recent thread on this forum, the manual f-stop ring. It doesn't bother me that the Nikon Zf has more than one way to perform the same function (depending on the lens used) even though if a future version of this camera were ever to come out, there could definitely be some improvements made to the camera UI.

With that said, using the Zf with the 40 f1.2 is like using my older FM2 with a f mount lens. I really like it and I'm comfortable manually focusing the lens, especially with the manual focus assistance that the Zf has.

I like the Voigtlander 40mm so much that I purchased the 35mm APO Lanthar as well. I have ordered the Z 28mm which I hope to receive perhaps by November from B&H per their back order status projection.

The 40mm is now my favorite on camera lens on the Zf with the 26 f2.8 pancake in the bag as well for AF and a wider option (we'll see what happens but I plan to carry the 28mm when I use a backpack and perhaps the 40mm and the pancake in a smaller carryout bag) for walk about travel photo use.

I visited family this weekend for a family birthday and used the Nikon 35mm f1.8 S when I needed to know that AF would help me. Moreover, with cell phone photos being the norm, my family members expect photographs to happen quickly. Later after lunch I recruited family members with more patience for photos with the 40mm f1.2.

The rendering of the 40 f1.2 is more pleasing to me especially with out of focus areas in the photo. The color of the lens is subtile in difference but lovely. I find that I need to use f2 or 2.8 and that images using f1.8 and more open difficult to focus. With portraits and a subject 3 to 4 feet away (and quickly zooming into 100%) I find that in post the "look" at f 1.8 or more becomes just too out of focus for my preference. Perhaps my technique will improve. However, in black and white at f1.4 and f1.2 photographing still objects at a distance of 3 -6 ft away, I found the rendering quite interesting as an effect.

The 35mm f2 APO Lanthar is a different lens altogether. It is heavier and more precise to focus. The helpful salesman on the phone (who uses a Nikon D850 and Zeiss Otus glass) noted that the 35mm APO Lanthar is sharper as it approaches infinity which makes sense. To give a short summary (and where I directly compared it to the Nikon Z 35mm f 1.8)_ I found them comparable at f/8 and f/11 on a tripod with the nod going to the Voigtlander in microcontrast and rendering. Below f/8 I liked the look of out of focus areas more on the Voigtlander I would imagine that using a Z camera with a 45mp sensor (like the Z7 I sold to move to the Zf with primes) would even show more what the 35mm APO Lanthar is capable of.

I found the best with overall sharpness using f8 or f11 with the 35mm APO Lanthar focusing a little more behind the first object (let's say in a landscape image) that I wanted to appear very sharp. I also found that using a tripod and focus preview at 100% was best as the "green focus box" allowed for a little too much wiggle room for critical focus. I have not compared the 40mm f 1.2 and the 35mm APO Lanthar at lets say f 8 and f 11 and I don't intend to. They are different lenses that I will use for different purposes.

I intend to keep the 40mm f 1.2, the 35mm f 2 APO Lanthar, and the Nikon 35mm f 1.8 S and use them for what they seem to do best despite the financial folly of doing so and the fact that I will have three (or more eventually ) lenses very close to each other in focal length.

I hope this post is useful because I found little information differentiating these lenses online before I did what I do best, which is buying too much camera stuff.

 

[CliveTJ]

I’ve ended up with 35mm f2 APO, 40mm f1.2 and 50 f2 APO. Plus pre-AI 85mm, 105mm, 135mm - 400% zoom is great for these lenses. It’s addictive!

 

[TheSoaringSprite]

I have a bit of extra money to spend and want to reward myself for taking on and completing a challenging project this summer. I initially wanted the 40mm f1.2 Voigtlander Z mount lens, but I am hearing that it often has aperture communication issues with the Zf and other Z mount cameras, and it is perma-backordered everywhere (possibly due to a stoppage of manufacturing due to the aperture fault?)

I've never had a problem with the Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton on my Z8.

So, folks of DPR, especially those with Zfs, what do you recommend?

• Buy the 40mm 1.2 for its compact size and hope my copy doesn't have the aperture issue
• Pick up the 35mm f2 instead because it's close to the 40 in FOV and speed, but give up the compactness (I do like this lens's rendering)
  • For those who have this lens, how is it for taking photos of people? That's a lot of my photography.
  • How's the weight and balance on the Zf?
  • Any issues you can report?
  • I don't have any 35mm native Z lenses so this is a somewhat attractive option, but I want to hear from people who own it whether it is a landscape one-trick pony, or whether it is great for general shooting and images of people as well.
• Pick up the 50mm f2 because it's my favorite focal length, still pretty fast, but also give up some of the compactness of the 40 (I like this lens's rendering a LOT - tons of 3D pop)
  • For those who have this lens, does it feel big on the Zf?
  • How's the weight and balance with it?
  • Any issues you can report?
  • The biggest pitfall of this is I already own the 50 1.8, but I do think there may be some reason to own both - the 50 1.8 has weather sealing and is, generally, a faster shooter, while the 50 f2 is (a little) smaller and provides the manual focus experience
• Some other sort of option - I am up for suggestions, but I am not interested in TTArtisan, Meike, 7artisans... I am only looking for products of similar, for lack of a better word, provenance as Voigtlanders

I know I like manual focus, so that's not a big problem. I already shoot with a 50 1.4 and 35 3.5 FD lens sometimes, particularly for video. This lens purchase is mainly for stills, because using FD adapters for stills is infuriating (there are 2 aperture rings, one on the adapter and one on the lens, and it's frustrating to use. Also, these lenses are old and less reliable). My hope initially was to get a native, fast 40 to "split the difference" between 35 and 50 and possibly approximate the medium format look with the fast aperture in at-a-bit-of-a-distance portraiture (i.e. not super close up - think torso and above), but the communication issues with aperture that are being reported with that lens concern me because incorrect aperture apparently affects the metering and IBIS performance compared to when the aperture is communicated accurately.

Thanks in advance.

I have a sample gallery dedicated to the Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 at this link and also a gallery dedicated to the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar II at this link . You can decide for yourself which one appeals to you more. The 40mm is going to be better for people stuff.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

I have a bit of extra money to spend and want to reward myself for taking on and completing a challenging project this summer. I initially wanted the 40mm f1.2 Voigtlander Z mount lens, but I am hearing that it often has aperture communication issues with the Zf and other Z mount cameras, and it is perma-backordered everywhere (possibly due to a stoppage of manufacturing due to the aperture fault?)

So, folks of DPR, especially those with Zfs, what do you recommend?

• Buy the 40mm 1.2 for its compact size and hope my copy doesn't have the aperture issue
• Pick up the 35mm f2 instead because it's close to the 40 in FOV and speed, but give up the compactness (I do like this lens's rendering)
  • For those who have this lens, how is it for taking photos of people? That's a lot of my photography.
  • How's the weight and balance on the Zf?
  • Any issues you can report?
  • I don't have any 35mm native Z lenses so this is a somewhat attractive option, but I want to hear from people who own it whether it is a landscape one-trick pony, or whether it is great for general shooting and images of people as well.
• Pick up the 50mm f2 because it's my favorite focal length, still pretty fast, but also give up some of the compactness of the 40 (I like this lens's rendering a LOT - tons of 3D pop)
  • For those who have this lens, does it feel big on the Zf?
  • How's the weight and balance with it?
  • Any issues you can report?
  • The biggest pitfall of this is I already own the 50 1.8, but I do think there may be some reason to own both - the 50 1.8 has weather sealing and is, generally, a faster shooter, while the 50 f2 is (a little) smaller and provides the manual focus experience
• Some other sort of option - I am up for suggestions, but I am not interested in TTArtisan, Meike, 7artisans... I am only looking for products of similar, for lack of a better word, provenance as Voigtlanders

I know I like manual focus, so that's not a big problem. I already shoot with a 50 1.4 and 35 3.5 FD lens sometimes, particularly for video. This lens purchase is mainly for stills, because using FD adapters for stills is infuriating (there are 2 aperture rings, one on the adapter and one on the lens, and it's frustrating to use. Also, these lenses are old and less reliable). My hope initially was to get a native, fast 40 to "split the difference" between 35 and 50 and possibly approximate the medium format look with the fast aperture in at-a-bit-of-a-distance portraiture (i.e. not super close up - think torso and above), but the communication issues with aperture that are being reported with that lens concern me because incorrect aperture apparently affects the metering and IBIS performance compared to when the aperture is communicated accurately.

Thanks in advance.

I have a few friends who love the 40 f/1.2 lens and would recommend it (not me, I don't have one, and not sure I'd spend $800 on one necessarily). But I think it will depend on what you want. Although if the Voightlander 40 is hard to get, you could get the Viltrox 40 or the Nikon 40 to hold you over. They aren't of course in the same class necessarily but they would hold you over perhaps for not much money. Otherwise if you're not married to a 40mm focal length, any of the 35's or 50's are good too (I have the 50 1.8 S and love that lens, partially because it's really sharp but not super expensive). I am looking at the 35 1.8 S though, but that may be down the road for me. But if you want a 40 to hold you over, the viltrox or Nikon are good cheap options.

 

[jwilton]

Yeah. I'm telling myself I don't need the 50mm APO because I have the Nikon Z50 f1.8. We will see how long my willpower lasts...