It really is the best 35mm for M, if you can live with the bulk, and you like technically perfect lenses. It also has very impressive characteristics in terms of distortion, CA, contrast, flare resistance and "3D pop". The sharpest fast 35mm lens for M Mount, but with a heavy penalty in size and weight compared to Leica glass. which to me feels like worse build quality and disappointing for such an expensive lens. Aperture clicks are less satisfying and i find at the far ends (2 and 16) there is almost a half click wider. I have found the focus resistance to be loose. stupid expensive when compared to other brands small light but does have some finder blockage (due to the wider frame lines mostly). Sharp and high contrast at all apertures.
You will find this on most if not all ZM glass. With practice you barely notice after a while. Aperture clicks are also more satisfying. I prefer this level of resistance to any Leica lens i have tried. It is not a good flare - in fact it is by far the worst part about the lens. Does flare when shooting towards a light source. small light with minimal to no finder blockage Sharp and maintains sharpness at all apertures The biggest difference is price and flaring. The difference however isn't that great in many respects. Having experienced both brands of glass there is for sure higher general IQ in Leica. I have read the f1.5 is noticeably softer wide open (which you may like. I have the Zeiss 50mm f2 Planar which I specifically chose over the faster f1.5 to ensure i had sharper images when wide open. Also curious about the 25 2.8, which I've heard great things about! Oh, and 21mm!! How does the Zeiss 21 compare to the beloved Leica SE 21 3.4 ASPH?
Curious how the Distagon 35 1.4 compares to the FLE (and even the pre-FLE and pre-ASPH), and how the Sonnar 50 1.5 compares to the Summilux. I'm really just concerned with optical quality and best performance- I don't let size/weight/price dictate what lens I will buy, and that can go either way (cheaper or more expensive, even if substantially more/less). Would be curious to hear your thoughts on it- specifically if you ever sold your Leica glass in favour of the cheaper Zeiss. Being fairly new to the brand, I'm not sure who/what to trust as I've had nothing but the best experience with Zeiss glass on my 35mm/DSLR system, where the brand is considered the pinnacle by many. There's a lot of Leica purists who talk down Zeiss and say the only reason to buy into an M is for use of native glass. I'm intrigued by some of the Zeiss offerings- specifically, the Distagon 35 1.4 and Sonnar 50 1.5-, but am finding it difficult to get an honest answer re: performance differences when compared to the equivalent Leica lenses.