

And what's super important: There's absolutely no focus shift at all, even when I adjust my RF for other lenses, the Distagon still focuses on point. The bokeh is super smooth - combined with the "3D pop" Zeiss lenses are known for - you get a very unique look. The sharpness at f1.4 is amazing and beats my beloved Leica Q or GM / Zeiss lenses for the Sony System I used to own. The Distagon is an outstanding glass, it is by far the best lens I have ever owned.


I definitely think this is the case for me (I got the Elmarit for it’s size and image quality). Hey thanks for the thoughtful response (with some links)! I think I’m leaning the direction you talked about at the end I’m leaning a lot more towards the ZM because like you say, the 28 Elmarit for the small lens stuff. You can use the 28 Elmarit for small lens stuff. That said if you like the look of the ZM and want to use it for portraits, I'd just go for the ZM directly. The FLE looks huge side by side, though it is a stop faster. Now I use the Ultron f2 almost all the time. I sold the ZM because I found it too bulky as my EDC. On my M10M it appears I'm able to focus with the rangefinder till the minimum focusing distance, but usually fall back on live view for shots closer than 0.7m. One thing which may be a dealbreaker is that the 35 Ultron II focuses to 0.58m and does not have a hard stop at 0.7m. The ZM is a bit more controlled but I wouldn't say it is immune as it does suffer from mechanical vignetting as well (correct me if I'm wrong). You can check out samples of the Ultron f2 bokeh (not shot by me). Before the 35mm APO from Leica and VM came out, I always felt that the best 35mm to combine with a 50APO and 28 Summicron v2 would be the ZM 1.4. They're both modern optics and are sharp wide open (ZM would probably be sharper particularly if you stopped it down). I never had the two lenses (ZM 1.4 and Ultron f2) at the same time but IIRC, compared to the ZM 1.4, the Ultron has swirlier bokeh, the rendering isn't as clean and it is more "characterful".
