>>3650176> there are some great alternatives to that lens for 1/5 the price or even cheaperI was looking at the 7Artisans 35mm f/2, which is like $285, significantly cheaper. But I didn't like a few things about the lens. The markings look shitty compared to the Leica lens. I didn't like that it could arrive requiring tweaking in order to function properly (it comes with a screwdriver and there's a hole for adjustment in the barrel). It has barrel distortion that isn't corrected, whereas the Leica lens is well corrected and shows straight lines properly. The field of view on the 7Artisans lens is narrower than the Leica lens, closer to a 40mm, according to the review and photos on Leica Rumors. And the 7Artisans lens is more prone to flaring, and flares noticeably when it does. Outside of those nitpicks, it's remarkably close to the Summicron in performance, but those things would have bothered me and I would've ended up still wanting the Summicron.
I looked at the Voigtlander lineup but they are more of an apples to oranges comparison to the 35mm Summicron. They have a vintage quality of rendering to them, and their bokeh looks different in a way that I don't find aesthetically appealing (especially the Nokton 35mm f/1.4). Overall, they all have a different look than the Summicron, and I preferred the Summicron's look.
I also looked at the Zeiss 35mm f/2, but it's significantly larger than the Summicron, and I don't like the way it looks as much, especially with the silver threading at the front of the lens. It also has a different rendering than the Summicron, although it isn't as drastic of a difference as the Voigtlanders and it's a very competent performer optically. It mostly came down to looks.
> an extra $2k thrown into my investment portfolio and shooting with a lesser voigtlander or canon/nikon lens compels me way more than a leica lens doesCanon and Nikon don't make 35mm M mount lenses as far as I'm aware so I'm not sure what you mean by that.
