Voigt 35/1.2 or 25/0.95

[so 650]

Probably hypothetical, since each involves prices that would hurt, but which would you prefer on micro 4/3? I prefer the 35 mm focal length over 25 most of the time, and these are pretty comparable in size and cost. With the adapter, size and cost of the 35 become palpably more than 25. Any real advantage to a dedicated micro 4/3 lens rather than adapted? What to do?

 

[Brian S]

Do you use a Leica mount camera? If so, get the 35/1.2.

If not, get the 25/0.95.

 

[blacvios]

I am also in the same situation as you, although i have a Leica M system. The 25f0.95 looks very tempting and i think will be a better match for the GH2 than the 35f1.2

 

[Brian S]

The 35/1.2 is huge on an u43 compared with the 50/0.95.

 

[PeterB666]

I have been using the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 for since the beginning of November and I couldn't live without it. It makes a great night time and walkabout lens. A 35mm is too long for general use on MFT cameras.

While the 25mm Voigtlander is physically long with the supplied lenshood, it makes a natural handle for carrying the lens.

 

[usayit]

The 35/1.2 is huge on an u43 compared with the 50/0.95.

I agree.... Mine feels big even on an M body. I'd go with the 35mm nokton only if you also intend on using it also on an m body.

 

[Kosta]

The weight is pretty similar, but the 35mm will need an adapter, will have a not-so-usable focal length for close indoor and walkaroud (compared to the 25mm on m4/3), but is probably the better investment if you are planning to use it on M-mount cameras as well.

i looked at that too, but am more than happy that i purchased the 25mm 0.95. it is solid gold.

 

[Luckypenguin]

50mm focal length lenses for 35mm film cameras come a close second to hydrogen as the most common element in the universe - because they provide the most natural field-of-view for the human eye. Therefore, if intended for use the lens on m4/3 only, the CV 25/0.95 would unquestionably be the one I would choose over the 35/1.2 to provide the same FOV.

 

[Gwendal]

Haven't tried the 0.95, but the 1.2 has a nice advantage : its dreamy "soft focus" effect at full aperture, in some lighting conditions. It's heavy and big though... maybe you should try (if you haven't done already of course) a cheap legacy lens of about the same bulk before going that route ?

 

[Orientator]

I would agree that the 25mm is a much more usable focal length on mft. If you aren't sure about the focal lenght, try the Olympus Zuiko Auto-W 1:2,8/35 mm (with OM-adapter) which is available at ebay for a about 20 €.

Stefan

 

[pdh]

I think the OP is after a very fast lens @35mm, as he stated his alternatives were f/0.95 and f/1.2, rather than a reasonably fast f/2.8

 

[Orientator]

Yes. I meant the 2.8 Oly just to try out if the focal lengh is a really good prime length.

Stefan

 

[PeterB666]

Or you could just set the kit zoom to 35mm to set out that focal length (likewise 25mm).

 

[so 650]

Thank you all for the insight. While various contingencies regarding availability of lenses and cash work themselves out, I'll keep framing at 25 & 35 with the kit zoom and narrow down my preference.

 

[Kosta]

i think that is your best bet, good luck! hope we have been of good help to you! merry xmas/holiday season

 

[soundimageplus]

25mm closer focusing.

One further advantage is the closer focusing on the 25mm Voigtlander Nokton. It focuses to 0.17 metre (6 inches) whereas the 35mm f1.2, like most m-mount lenses doesn't focus very close at all .7 metre (2 feet)

Though not at macro levels it does make the lens even more useful.