Real Life Lens test: 35 Biogon vs CV 35 PII

Avotius,

Good pics! I agree with Joe that subjective observations are valuable. For myself, tab focus works well: my two main RF lenses even have infinity lock. :) Based on image rendition, the most intriguing lens from Cosina is the Nokton 35.
 
Once again, excellent images! I haven't used the PII but have the Biogon and have had a number of summicrons. To me the the Biogon is the winner but I would'nt be ashamed of the PII.
 
Aviotus, have you seen your CV 35mm flare? I have the Skopar for Nikon mount and I've had some flare when a bright light is just in the frame. Just curious.
 
MikeL said:
Aviotus, have you seen your CV 35mm flare? I have the Skopar for Nikon mount and I've had some flare when a bright light is just in the frame. Just curious.
Click to expand...


yes once or twice, even with the hood, but I found it causally to be very mild and easily correctable with photoshop
 
x-ray said:
Once again, excellent images! I haven't used the PII but have the Biogon and have had a number of summicrons. To me the the Biogon is the winner but I would'nt be ashamed of the PII.
Click to expand...


Thanks a lot. I think that adding a biogon to my set wouldn't be so far fetched, but im still not convinced on it wide open though I dont have enough wide open shots to draw a general conclusion. But really, I gave the biogon a good chance because of all the comments you made about it, see how it pans out (still got a roll sitting here waiting to be done)
 
Avotius said:
CV's black finish is pretty lousey indeed. My PII already has paint coming off the focus tab and underneath is white, im wondering if the white is some sort of primer because I thought these lenses were made of brass?
Click to expand...

Nope. Aluminum.

The only CV lenses that Cosina specifies as brass are the 28/3.5 & the 50/2.5. I think that the 25/4 was also brass, but it has been discontinued so the specs are no longer available on the Cosina website. The 25/4P that has replaced it is not speced as brass.
 
Last edited:
The low contrast that you see at f2 might be more a function of subject and poor lighting more so than the lens. Take the lens and shoot on a tripod at f2, 2.8 and 4 and see how it looks. I think you'll find it's more a function of lighting conditions and subject contrast.
 
x-ray said:
The low contrast that you see at f2 might be more a function of subject and poor lighting more so than the lens. Take the lens and shoot on a tripod at f2, 2.8 and 4 and see how it looks. I think you'll find it's more a function of lighting conditions and subject contrast.
Click to expand...


Thats what I was thinking too, for the most part where I was using f2 was in very poor lighting areas, like the one of the bowl, that was a on purpose test of very bad lighting to see what would happen, needless to say it was icky. In your opinion might that be flare in the last image of the lady's back? I was not trying to get it to flare but it seemed to anyway in this situation.
 
I handled the PII before I bought the Biogon and I found it to be too small for my hands, where as the Zeiss was comfortable. Wide open the contrast is a little lower, but it's certainly no slouch. For 35's I still prefer my Nikkor 35mm f/1.4, but I digress. Here is a wide open shot from the Biogon - contrast is pretty neutral, which I think suits this image.

406368195_76d25d1178.jpg
 
the_jim said:
I handled the PII before I bought the Biogon and I found it to be too small for my hands, where as the Zeiss was comfortable. Wide open the contrast is a little lower, but it's certainly no slouch. For 35's I still prefer my Nikkor 35mm f/1.4, but I digress. Here is a wide open shot from the Biogon - contrast is pretty neutral, which I think suits this image.

406368195_76d25d1178.jpg
Click to expand...


Its a very nice shot, I was not getting contrast results from the one I was using, and I have a lingering feeling that the copy of the lens I was using was somehow not up to spec maybe because it seemed that it should perform better then my cv pII....hm....things to think about
 
Avotius said:
I have considered the 1.7 but not the 1.2 (size). But every photo I look at online taken with the 1.7 fails to impress me, been looking at more summilux photos but those dont impress me either. I think im being really picky.
Click to expand...

Here are my online shots taken with Ultron 35mm /1.7 lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/tags/ultron35mm17/

In some shots I have compared it to vintage S-mount Nikkor 3.5cm/1.8 from 1950's. Sorry about these dull newspaper and brick-wall shots :rolleyes: :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/445099132/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/445104007/
 
This might be useful to some. Last week I purchased the 35/2 biogon for my m6. Great lens in every respect but physical size. I like to carry my camera on my shoulder just about everywhere. I found that this large $900 lens swinging around off my shoulder was keeping my camera at home more than I like it to be. Also, it protrudes into the 35mm framelines more than I'm comfortable with. I'm now looking for a smaller, les expensive "everday" lens.
 
shango said:
This might be useful to some. Last week I purchased the 35/2 biogon for my m6. Great lens in every respect but physical size. I like to carry my camera on my shoulder just about everywhere. I found that this large $900 lens swinging around off my shoulder was keeping my camera at home more than I like it to be. Also, it protrudes into the 35mm framelines more than I'm comfortable with. I'm now looking for a smaller, les expensive "everday" lens.
Click to expand...


If you're looking for a everyday 35, you really can't go past the voigtlander 35 f2.5 PII... it's very small and very easy to handle. I had one and loved it. Very contrasty and very sharp at all apertures.

f5.6
1051973962_3b92d4ea06_o.jpg


Wide open
1051938178_fb83abd73a_o.jpg
 
Avotius, I know these are test shots, but they are beautiful nonetheless. I also prefer the shots made with the Biogon, they are a tad softer and yet at the same time sharp.

The CV is not bad, but the sharpness kinda "sting" compared to the soft area, it's not as smooth transition as the Biogon.

For that matter, all Zeiss glass has that smooth transition characteristics. Hope this comment make a little sense :D
 
Avotius,

When I built my first Bessa T kit, it was with a 35/1.7 and it was rather than carrying at 35 'Cron. It did a fine job of filling in from my perspective. The mounting is one of the early designs but seems sturdy. I replaced it with a CV 40/1.4, more from a physical perspective (I love speed and it's so small) than any unhappiness with the 35/1.7.

I like the build of the PII as it is the same approach as the 40/1.4. For the price of the Biogon you can own the 35/1.2 and a 35/2.5 PII!

B2 (;->

BTW, please keep sharing your shots, they are wonderful!!
 
Avotius,
I cannot comment on the CV 35 PII lens, because in this fl I use the CV Nokton 35/1.2 ( a very good lens BTW), plus the Biogon. What I have seen though, is that leaving apart the sharpness question, and both Nokton and Biogon are darn sharp, the Biogon has more three dimensional rendering and a softer passage in and out of focus. You will probably notice a bigger difference overall, if you try to shoot them on a film like Delta 100. This 3d effect and soft transition, are the hallmark of Zeiss design, this is why so many people have an emotional reaction, as opposed to "MTF appraisal" reaction when they see the shots. I am sure there would be scope in having the Nokton, Biogon and CV pancake, plus maybe the old Summilux and one of these soft Canon lenses as an all round 35 lens park... BTW, about the contrast: if you want to maximize it, you have to use the lens shade.
 
Last edited:
I have the LTM version of the P-II and value for money, nothing can compare. I also have the Ultron f1.7 and find it a bit like the 50mm Nokton a bit harsh, perhaps because of the ASPH elements. IMHO once any of these lenses get stopped down to about f8, thier unique qualities seem to vanish and they all look similar. I would base my decision on how you like the 'look' wide open and I think most would choose the Biogon for this over the P-II, or the Gen IV 'Cron (sorry to throw it in).
Andrew.
 
mfogiel, the difference between the CV and Biogon is clearly visible in the photos posted on this thread. Your description of "three dimensional rendering and a softer passage in and out of focus" for the Biogon is exactly right, to which I would like to add "plasticity of drawing". I did own a CV Classic f2.5 for a bit and sold it -- didn't like the build 'quality' (an early CV effort) or the hardness of rendition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom