Updated November 2022

Introduction

For decades, the Leica 35mm Summicron ASPH has been one of the most popular lenses for M mount. It’s renowned for its sharpness and compact size. In 2019 Voigtlander released the 35mm f/2 Ultron, which is even smaller, lighter, and far more affordable than the 35 Summicron. In fact, it’s one of the smallest lenses ever made for M mount. In this review I’ll compare the Voigtlander to its Leica counterpart. Many people assume that the Voigtlander must be inferior, but remember that the Leica 35 Summicron’s optical design is over 25 years old (from 1996). The truth is that this new lens from Voigtlander surpasses the Summicron and might have the best balance of size and image quality of any 35mm lens, if you don’t need f/1.4.

Build quality

With all-metal construction, the Voigtlander feels at least as solid as the Leica. The only criticism I can make is that if you want to use a hood, it attaches with a bayonet mechanism which isn’t quite as nice as Leica’s screw-on hoods.

Size and feel

The Voigtlander is smaller and lighter than the Leica, but both balance really well on an M camera. The Voigtlander saves extra space by tapering off a lot towards the front, giving it a slight cone shape.

I prefer the focusing experience of the Summicron, which has a focus tab and feels buttery smooth with minimal resistance. The Voigtlander uses a focus knob, has more resistance, and doesn’t feel quite as smooth as the Leica. This might improve with continued use.

Minimum focus distance

The Voigtlander is somewhat unusual in that it focuses down to 0.58m, closer than the 0.7m minimum of the Leica M rangefinder. This can be annoying on film Ms as it allows you to accidentally take a picture that’s out of focus. On cameras with liveview, the ability to go to 0.58m is a nice option for close-ups since 0.7m with a 35mm lens is very limiting. In fact, my M10’s rangefinder couples all the way down to 0.6m, so this lens feature works very nicely even without liveview.

Here’s a picture of some poke near minimum focus distance:

Image quality

Distortion: The Voigtlander appears completely distortion-free, whereas the Summicron has a slight amount of pincushion distortion. Neither lens has enough distortion to matter.

Chromatic aberration: Both lenses have minimal/none. Impressive.

Vignetting: Neither lens has excessive vignetting, even wide-open.

Bokeh: In the background at f/2, the Voigtlander produces “soap bubble” bokeh (outer edge of the circle is brighter than the center). This can add high-contrast edges to backgrounds and make them look busy:

Some people will find this very distracting and others won’t care at all. Personally, I found the Voigtlander’s rendering perfectly acceptable.

The 35 Summicron’s out-of-focus areas are very similar to the Voigtlander’s.

Sharpness, infinity:

Both lenses are sharp in the center at f/2. In the periphery, both lenses lose a little bit of sharpness at f/2 but in different ways. The Voigtlander retains resolution even into the corners but has a lot of scattered light that shows up as haloing around bright objects. The Leica simply loses resolution. At f/4, the Voigtlander becomes very perfect whereas the Leica is plenty sharp but still shows a little bit of resolution loss in the periphery.

To summarize, neither lens is perfect at f/2, but both are great for landscapes by f/4. This performance is good for a $699 lens, and disappointing for a $3695 lens.

Sharpness, mid-distance (1.5m):

The results here are pretty much the same as at infinity. Both lenses are excellent in the center. In the wide-open periphery, the Voigtlander looks like there’s vaseline over the lens, whereas the Leica loses resolution. The Voigtlander sharpens up more than the Leica at f/4.

One difference here is actually quite important, which is that the Voigtlander is perfect in the mid-frame whereas the Leica loses some sharpness. This is a common place to put your subject so it is disappointing that the Leica is unsharp here.

Sharpness, 0.7m:

The Voigtlander is a tad sharper here, but both lenses are good in the center at f/2. Neither lens seems to show significant focus shift.

Summary and recommendations

The Voigtlander 35mm f/2 Ultron is an excellent lens. Optically, it’s almost perfect, except for a slight lack of clarity in the edges at f/2. The background blur can also be slightly busy, but this never really bothered me and I like the overall rendering. The size, ergonomics, build quality, and price are all excellent as well. Most notable is the fact that the Leica Summicron 35 ASPH (review) costs literally five times more yet is not superior in any objective measure. In fact, the Summicron is larger, heavier, and worse in some aspects of sharpness.

If you are looking for a general purpose 35mm for M mount, the Voigtlander is a fantastic choice. There are a few strong alternatives to consider. If f/1.4 is desired and cost is not a factor, I would recommend the Leica 35 Summilux (review). The combination of f/1.4, great image quality, and excellent handling makes it my personal favorite for 35mm. Another strong alternative is the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 Biogon ZM, which is slower but offers image quality that is perfect by all accounts. It might be a slightly better choice if you’re looking for a compact 35 for landscapes and don’t need as much shallow depth of field.

If you’re instead looking for the highest possible performance in a 35mm lens, opt for the Voigtlander 35/2 APO, the Leica 35/2 Summicron APO, or the Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon (review). These lenses have amazing corner-to-corner performance even at large apertures, along with beautifully smooth bokeh. But they each have their downsides: the Voigtlander 35 APO and Zeiss 35/1.4 are large, and the Leica 35 APO is incredibly expensive ($8,195).

I eventually sold my Voigtlander 35/2 Ultron as I’m still married to my Leica 35/1.4 FLE. But balancing performance, size, and cost, the Voigtlander is hard to beat. For someone looking for their first 35mm lens, the Voigtlander 35/2 Ultron is at the top of my list of recommendations.

Good
Image quality
Size and feel
Build quality
Price

Bad
Messy background blur

Buy here

Making this website is my hobby and hosting it costs $200/year. If you decide to buy this lens and want me to get paid a commission, please complete your purchase using one of these links. Alternatively, you can buy something from my accessories page or buy me a coffee!

Additional reading

Review by Samuel Streetlife
Image quality comparison vs Voigtlander 35/2 APO by Fred Miranda

Other alternatives (not recommended)

Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 Nokton Classic
This is a very popular lens since it’s f/1.4, tiny, and cheap. It uses a vintage optical design from the 1960s. I only recommend it for those who intentionally want soft, dreamy images with lots of aberrations, and really messy bokeh. It also has strong focus shift, which is a pain to deal with on a rangefinder camera.

Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5
Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon
These lenses are okay but I haven’t found any reason to choose them over the Voigtlander 35/2 Ultron or Zeiss 35/2.8 Biogon.

Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 versions I-II
The version III of this lens is so much better that I don’t recommend anyone bother with versions I-II.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux Pre-FLE
I owned this lens before switching to the FLE version, and I don’t recommend it on digital because the focus shift is actually pretty bad. I had to compensate for this when shooting at f/2.8-f/4, and life’s too short for that.

TTArtisans 35mm f/1.4
7Artisans 35mm f/1.4
Phillipreeve.net has detailed reviews of both of these lenses. They’re both as large as the Zeiss 35/1.4, but with worse image quality, mechanical quality, and quality control. They are very affordable, but I would recommend saving up and buying a lens with fewer compromises.

More sample images