[0.4 oz / 11.0 g] using this on film Leica and fuji xpro2 . the lens renders images beautifully with a very smooth bokeh and great subject isolation. The microcontrast is like a classic zeiss optic. Highly recommended ; new lens is a fraction of a cost of even a used summilux 35.

[0.4 oz / 11.0 g] This inlay fits the Milvus 1.4/50 lens perfectly. It inserts in any of the positions of the carrying case and will hold the lens upright. The only thing missing is some sort of identification on top of the inlay so one knows which lens to put in which position; otherwise does the job as advertised.

[0.4 oz / 11.0 g] The best described in http://rangefinder.yodobashi.com/lens/carlzeiss_wide_e.html This very best lens captures the reality with the highest fidelity, and it represents ZEISS philosophy !!! I used Hasselblad with three lenses. Zeiss CF's 40, 80, 150mm and to be honest I miss their drawings even today. Some Zeiss lenses are special, and this new 35mm distagon is real example of mature optical formula with strong Zeiss character. There is very nice balance of sharpnes wide open and bokeh. I am impressed with this lens on my M monochrome and can't wait to use it on my film body with Kodak film. I have used Leica 28cron, 50lux asph, 35 summilux asph FLE, and personaly like this lens way better then 35 lux fle. You can find some of my recent photos here, https://www.flickr.com/photos/mattassano/

[0.4 oz / 11.0 g] This Zeiss lens is an amazing performer, I sold my Lux FLE and kept this. It just has a very special rendering at 1.4, there's a glow that I didn't get from the Summilux. It's at least as sharp and keeps high micro-contrast all the way through the apertures. it's a wonderful street, hiking, landscape and even portrait at f1.4-2.
This and the .95 Noctilux will always be in my bag.

[0.4 oz / 11.0 g] Its hard to mention anything revelatory given how well reviewed this lens is, so apologies it you've heard it all before. It is an excellent lens, perhaps the sharpest one I own at present with a subtly different character from modern Leica offerings. While I do own a 35mm Summilux, from a rendering perspective any comparison would be silly, as my copy is a pre-ASPH version from 1969. So I can't comment on how much more or less the current Leica brings to the party. Back on the Zeiss, I find there really are only 2 negatives and a few nits. For an M-mount optic, the lens is large and heavy. The other knock is noticeable vignetting when shooting wide open. Finder blockage is minimal and while others find it a boon, I'm not all that fond of the 1/3 of stop aperture clicks. My objection is that it substantially increases the amount of twist necessary to effect a change of a couple of stops over Leica's half stop system. Really speed vs control. The plus list is a bit longer. Subjectively sharpness, color rendition, bokeh, micro contrast are all wonderful. The blend of these characteristics borders on magical. All the detail without any harshness. When used with the M10 the result can be quite sublime and smooth enough to feel more analog than digital. The focus ring is wonderfully smooth, neither too quick nor too long in throw. Just right to be easily focused when wide open. Build quality and feel is impressive, easily up to the standard of comparably price Leica offerings. If you are well off enough to be considering an FLE, I'd suggest you might consider buying this and a nice used early Summilux instead. The Zeiss will satisfy your desire for a more modern rendering while the Summilux can compliment it with that special Leica glow. The early Summilux is tiny, sharp as a tack when stopped down and offers a completely different look when wide open. Pair them and you can go small, large, old, new, sharp, dreamy for around a grand less the the latest Summilux.

[0.4 oz / 11.0 g] Being a 35mm FOV junkie, I've owned the much vaunted V4 35 Summicron, 35 ASPH Cron and a 35/2.8 Summaron. Last year I rented the Zeiss 35/2.8 C-Biogon. It's a stunning lens, light and inexpensive. A no-brainer if you can live with a slower 35. It's better than the Leica ASPH Cron. I also purchased this lens and relegated the Leica Cron to the back bench. Enter the ZM 35/1.4. Again, I first rented this lens. It's bigger and heavier than the C-Biogon by a substantial margin, but if you need those 2 stops or want that beautiful DOF, that's the price you pay for this lens. There is a little more VF blockage but I quickly adjusted. I also do not use the hood. The weight of this lens seems to be at the rear of the lens, making it still feel pretty well balanced on an M body. This lens (and the C-Biogon) do not suffer from focus shift. At 1.4 you can nail focus with this lens. The build quality is first rate, and seems a notch above my Biogon and 50 Planar. This lens enters Leica build territory where my other Zeiss lenses do not. The 35 Distagon also does not extend when you focus. The focus feeling is perfect. Not too loose or tight allowing for fine focus. The 1/3rd f-stops are nice and feel positive and tight. Great haptic feedback on this Distagon. I've never had the chance to use the Leica 35 Summilux, which is smaller and lighter, but twice the price. Bottom line: If you want the best 35 ever made for the M mount, and want a fast 35 this may be it. You could buy this lens, add in the 35 C-Biogon for times you don't need the speed or want the light weight, and still save over $2k on a new Summilux 35. Not sure what made genius at Zeiss approved this lens. Just glad they did.

[0.4 oz / 11.0 g] Very sharp, very contrasty, perfectly smooth bokeh, even for a 35mm. The build feels pretty much perfect, and focusing is precise. It's a big lens on a rangefinder, but the performance more than makes up for it. It is as good on film as it is on the M 240. Being that it's a Distagon design, it also performs pretty well on Sony bodies. Of course, it was made the M mount, and it's best on a Leica or Zeiss Ikon. For a fast 35 your only other options are the Leica, and 2 Voigtlanders (not counting the 'classic' 35/1.4 because it's a special effect lens in essence, and the modern optics just do a different thing). Vs the 35/1.2: The Zeiss is sharper with more modern Bokeh, and better contrast. Though if you like classic character you may prefer the 35/1.2. Size is the same. Vs. the 35/1.7: I would say this lens is the only real competition. It's a lot cheaper and has 85% of the performance. But it's not a 35/1.4, and doesn't have the Zeiss signature with color images. Vs. the Leica: The Summilux FLE is very good, but not better. It's main advantage is size. Is that worth double the money? Not to me. I'm going to get years and years of use out of this lens in both professional and artistic applications, and I can't really imagine wanting more from a 35/1.4. Buy with confidence.

[0.4 oz / 11.0 g] Zeiss makes several excellent rangefinder lenses, and the new Distagon is no exception. The Distagon ZM is incredibly sharp, even wide open. Color rending is superb, and micro-contrast is fantastic. Subjectively I would say this lens has that 'Zeiss' look: punchy colors and a bit higher contrast. My only minor complaint about the Distagon is the odd shape: the lens has a mild barrel-like design. It's also on the larger size for a rangefinder lens. That being said, it's still much smaller than most modern SLR lenses. Of course, comparisons to the Leica Summilux-M are inevitable, but I personally have not used that lens. I think Zeiss does a great job at offering alternative to Leica's products. The Summilux-M costs more than twice as much as the Distagon. Is the performance worth the price? Personally, I think the Distagon is a winner.

[0.4 oz / 11.0 g] I've used this lens for about a month shooting up and down the coast of central California. This lens is extraordinary. It is highly resolving and sharp with zero vignetting, even at f1.4. Shot wide open the lens has a gorgeous band of sharpness and bokeh galore. Shot at f5.6, it's incredibly sharp throughout the range. The construction was stellar. The click stops on the aperture ring click positively into place and the focus is buttery smooth. I wasn't expecting it to be this good to be honest with you. It's as good as, or dare I say, even better than my Leica lenses.