Zeiss Biogon 35mm vs CV Nokton 35 f1.2

Zeiss Biogon 35mm vs CV Nokton 35 f1.2

  • Total voters
    118
oh no...here comes the wrench in the works he he:
DISCLAIMER: only if price and size come into the equation: how about the nokton 40 1.4? 52.5 VS 60mm but low light work is still very much available. Also at a fraction of the cost, plenty of BOKEH and one of the smallest Cvs out there.
I used (borrowed) the CV 1.2 for a lilttle while, and loved it. But i the end, I ended up carrying the nokton 40 with me most of the time, I found the 1.2 just too large as a main lens. I also came from a CANON DSLR, 1DsMkI but I got used to the smaller CV glass very fast :)

oh the options....:D
 
While the CV40 is the lens I use most, and although I have both the CV pancake skopar and a Canon 35mm, I'm impressed enough with the 35 1.2, despite its size, that if one came around with the right price, and I had the money when the right price came up, I would go for one.

In terms of blocking the lens, have a look at Sean Reid's article on fast lenses on the R-D1 in Luminous Landscape:
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/fastlensreview.shtml
 
I'd look at the 35/1.4 lens as the best of both worlds.

You'd have some money left over for a Nikkor 85/2 black too!

B2 (;->
 
I have seen nothing in the character of the 35/2 Biogon that matches that of the either the CV 1.2 which I hope to own or try someday, or the Cron asph 35/2 which I own (check my 2nd to last posting on my blog).

I like the speed and character of the 35/1.2, but find it hard to shell out $800 for such a short warranty period compared with the build quality of the German Leica lenses.

Of the 3 people I know with this lens, 2 have had the aperture blades just fall out during normal use. No dropping or bumping, just falling out, meaning I can't justify buying this lens used. But that's just me, I'm sure these are isolated cases.
 
Why doesn't this poll include the M-Hexanon 35? it is a fine lens, I am using it with Epson R-D1. My friend says, using it with M8, it has more contrast and better clearness than Leica Lux 35 asph.

Cheers,
dacaccia
 
I don't know that I would receommend the 35/1.2 as your FIRST or your ONLY 35mm, unless you plan to use 1.2 to 1.4 A LOT. For a FIRST or ONLY 35mm, I would get something smaller. In reality, stopped down, they are all very, very good lenses. Eventually, you'll probably end up getting both lenses anyway.
 
To answer somebody's above question, the 35 1.2 blocks the vf on the R-D1 a bit, but it's not terrible.

I've had my R-D1 about almost two weeks now. I've switched to my 35mm ultron as my walkaround because the 1.2 on the R-D1 is just a big combination for me. But I'm not in love with the ultron and may try the new 1.4. It seems to draw like a cross between the ultron and the 1.2. I won't be parting with the 1.2. Any time I know I'll be taking shots that lens is coming with me, but as the lens that sits on the camera stuffed daily into my bag walking to work, the ultron is it for now. If I really want small, I'll put on my 35 3.5 elmar - that's tiny, near weightless lens. That's almost practical given the changeable ISO on the R-D1, but I don't like how it handles....
 
best bang for your buck if you want a fast wide.

best bang for your buck if you want a fast wide.

I got mine used for $700 something off ebay and used it extensively for night time photography for 3 months in Vietnam. Here's my favorite pic taken with the nokton: This was taken at f1.2 using superia 100, must have been around 1/15 of a second or something close.



I wound up selling it after the trip because I needed the extra money but also decided that it's easier to carry different speed films than lug around the nokton. It's huge and heavy, but nice, I miss it. It would complement a Noctilux nicely I think if you're into available dark shooting.
 

Attachments

  • wind mil toys on a bicycle, Nha Trang.jpg
    wind mil toys on a bicycle, Nha Trang.jpg
    60.3 KB · Views: 0
First of all, I think it is safe to say that a 35mm lens on a R=D1 is not a wide lens due to form factor it is about a 53mm lens. And for price and compromise, I seem to be happy with my
VoigtlanderUltron35mmf1.7.
2560152783_7565352bf7.jpg


2560152999_01ef05ee85.jpg

 
ampguy said:
I have seen nothing in the character of the 35/2 Biogon that matches that of the either the CV 1.2 which I hope to own or try someday, or the Cron asph 35/2 which I own (check my 2nd to last posting on my blog).

I like the speed and character of the 35/1.2, but find it hard to shell out $800 for such a short warranty period compared with the build quality of the German Leica lenses.

Of the 3 people I know with this lens, 2 have had the aperture blades just fall out during normal use. No dropping or bumping, just falling out, meaning I can't justify buying this lens used. But that's just me, I'm sure these are isolated cases.
Click to expand...

You can add me to the list of people who had the aperture blades go wonky in the 35/1.2. For no reason at all, they just fell out of place and formed a teardrop shape. I had to send the lens to Stephen Gandy for repair.

The suck part of it all is that I bought the lens used for a good deal, and by the time I finished repairing it, I had spent more than a new one. :-\

Don't take this as a testament to my dissatisfaction with the lens, though. It's an awesome lens, and actually, I probably count it as my favorite of all my lenses.
 
Finally last week I got my 35mm f1.2. Yes, is huge but I am used to my Nikon D80 gear so I don't mind the extra size, -even though is like 3 times bigger than my 35mm 2.5 PII- I think is worthy.

This is one of my first shots with the 1.2; raw, wide open at iso 800. I will try to do some more tests today and post them if I find them interesting.

Have a great Sunday,
Ricardo
 

Attachments

  • mariana-bn2.jpg
    mariana-bn2.jpg
    152.6 KB · Views: 0
Black lens for starters and then the biogon because it is more of a general use lens. The 35 1.2 is too big to be carrying about for everything. I know it would get on my nerves.
 
Once you mount a lens bigger than, for example, a CV 35/2.5, collapsible Elmar 50, or 40mm Rokkor, then all this size discussion is a moot point. A CV 35/1.2 is big, by RF standards, but then, so is an Aspherical 35mm Summilux. Neither is compact, and both will have you asking the question when you walk out the door, "should I bring my camera with me?"

39mm filters are one of the chief advantages of rangefinder shooting. :D
 
kshapero said:
First of all, I think it is safe to say that a 35mm lens on a R=D1 is not a wide lens due to form factor it is about a 53mm lens. And for price and compromise, I seem to be happy with my
VoigtlanderUltron35mmf1.7.
2560152783_7565352bf7.jpg


2560152999_01ef05ee85.jpg

Click to expand...
Famous last words. A couple of weeks ago, via a severe GAS attack I sold my Ultron and bought a CV 35/1.4. Then last week I went on a two week vacation in the Berkshire Mts and forgot it.
 
Has anyone noticed that the percentage of votes for each lens add up to 103.48%? I only went as far as graduate-level inferential statistics, so someone may know better than I; but offhand I would say there is something wrong with that: seems like they ought to add to 100%, or at least 99.997 or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom