35mm Biogon f/2.0 vs. Biogon C f/2.8 Flare Comparison Images

B

bwcolor

Veteran
Local time
9:47 AM
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,347
Location
S.F. Bay Area
View My Gallery
All photos Neopan 1600 @ 640 in TMax Dev f/2.8+1/3 (incident metered). Shooting into the sun with the sun just above the rangefinder frameline. Images scanned at 4000dpi Nikon 9000ED (4 samples) // Auto Levels in PS3 // Slight Sharpening and Highlight reduction in Aperture // converted to JPG.

The area below the fence was in total shade. Focus on near corner of lower wood structure.

Biogon C f/2.8

1. Hood & Filter (B+W UV MRC)
2. Filter
3. Lens Only

Biogon f/2.0

4. Lens Only
5. Filter
6. Hood & Filter
 
Last edited:
Biogon C

Biogon C

5005006950_44c43e4010_b.jpg


5004397837_5abc82138e_b.jpg


5005011586_6d028a7f59_b.jpg
 
The f/2.0 lens is more flare resistant. The f/2.0 lens looks reasonable good without the hood, whereas the f/2.8 'C' needs all the help it can get and does better with the hood on. I can't see much of a difference between filter and no filter, but your mileage may vary. Of course, the 'C' with a hood is about the same length as the f/2.0 without. Seems like there is more contrast in the f/2.8 'C' lens in the areas with a minimum of flare.

What do you see?
 
I am interested in possibly getting one of these lenses, so this is an interesting comparison. I liked that you included a combination of hood and filter together with the bare lens in this flare test, but am wondering about the changing position of the sun (rising or setting) that may have had an unintended effect on the results. Since the angle of light has an effect on the amount of light entering the lens, wouldn't one want to keep this factor constant?
 
I posted in the order that they were taken, so the last photo posted, which also displays the least flare, was taken with the sun at the lowest point. From first to last photo was three minutes with the sun setting. Of course, the camera was mounted on a tripod.
 
Last edited:
main difference i see is the beams of light and more centrally confined flare of the biogon c, and the more diffuse, lower contrast flare of the biogon.
 
Yes, I left this out in that I don't shoot without a filter, but I knew that this might be of interest and that is why I shot filter on and off with no hood. I think that you could extrapolate the results.

Do you detect a difference between filter on and off? I thought that the difference was there, but not as big of a difference as I expected and this was a shooting condition that was rather extreme. In fact, when I look at the last two Biogon 'C' images and focus on the bottom of the wood base closest to the camera, I believe that the filter version has more contrast, but less detail in the grass at lower right. Perhaps, this was artificially induced when using "Auto Levels" in PS3. I regularly use this process when I am shooting day to day shots of the family, so I included this step for my own purposes.

When I go to the high resolution images and view the far left fence, swings and grass (lower right) the Biogon 'C' image has higher micro-contrast by a good bit. The f/2.0 version is simply a lower contrast lens as mentioned above. I do like both lenses, but I am a bit of a contrast freak, so the new lens in a welcome addition. Perhaps I will rely upon the hood alone for protection when using this lens.
 
Last edited:
bwcolor said:
The f/2.0 lens is more flare resistant.
Click to expand...

In this specific test it's pretty clear that the Biogon is a bit better than the Biogon-C, but it's important to note that flare is an enormously complicated set of phenomena. Small changes in the test setup (angle of incidence, light source in or just out of the frame, aperture, focal distance) can yield very different results. Erwin Puts has a few cogent things to say about these questions, and he points out that in most of his test cases the Biogon-C does better than the Leica Summarit – but not in all such cases.

Also: why did you bother with testing the effect of lens hoods, when the extremely bright light source (the sun) is in the field of view, where a hood could do nothing to help and might actually make matters worse?
 
Last edited:
Both of these flare significantly more, than both the V4 cron, and the cron asph, IMHO. Not hatin' just sayin'
 
I was expecting better than this, but on the other hand, I pointed the lens directly in the sun, at f/2.8+1/3 and was using a film/developer combination that was rather contrasty. I don't think that this combination would make anyone think that these lenses are flare free. I would not doubt that someone makes a lens that would flare less.
 
ampguy said:
Both of these flare significantly more, than both the V4 cron, and the cron asph, IMHO. Not hatin' just sayin'
Click to expand...
I can assure you that they don't. If there is one thing that Leica lenses significantly fall short at it's handling flare. Every Leica lens I've used flares worse than many 50 year old Nikon lenses and significantly worse than newer big name lenses.

Cron ASPH:

Untitled by NateGEO, on Flickr


Untitled by NateGEO, on Flickr



Untitled by NateGEO, on Flickr


Cron IV:

Untitled by NateGEO, on Flickr

On the other hand all of the Zeiss lenses (18/21/25/28/50) and many of the Cosina lenses I've tried handle flare like modern lenses should.
 
Thanks for the test, I'm a bit surprised the Biogon 2.8 flares more than the 2...😕
It's also interesting to see the different flare character of each lens...

Mister E said:
I can assure you that they don't. If there is one thing that Leica lenses significantly fall short at it's handling flare. Every Leica lens I've used flares worse than many 50 year old Nikon lenses and significantly worse than newer big name lenses.
Click to expand...

I was surprised about that too. I used a friend's black 50 cron with bult-in hood, and that thing flared in situations I thought should be very manageable (please excuse the pedestrian nature of the following illustrative shots):

Overcast day, sun not in the frame...:
kermen0-R3-005-1.jpg


kermen0-R3-007-2.jpg


Same day, according to the shadows the sun is behind me...:

kermen0-R3-013-5.jpg


Window to the left about 20cm/8" to the left of the frame:
kermen0-R3-035-16.jpg
 
morback said:
Thanks for the test, I'm a bit surprised the Biogon 2.8 flares more than the 2...😕
It's also interesting to see the different flare character of each lens...



I was surprised about that too. I used a friend's black 50 cron with bult-in hood, and that thing flared in situations I thought should be very manageable (please excuse the pedestrian nature of the following illustrative shots):
kermen0-R3-035-16.jpg
Click to expand...
This looks like a light leak.
 
Very interesting and useful thread! But more so about received wisdom than about lenses per se. To wit:

Initially, all the buzz was about the Biogon 35/2. Then forget that, all the buzz was about the C-Biogon 35/2.8 and its vaunted flare resistance. The narcissism of small differences. In their respective places, insert the older lens of your choice and its newer successor. In the world of internet buzz, hype and herd-think, many defacto lens champions have never met a lens they didn't like, so long as it was the latest. I think you learn more by trying out a lens and finding out how it works for you, than by relying on the received wisdom of self-styled netizen experts, and this thread illustrates that. Round of applause for all. 🙂 🙂
 
PMCC said:
Very interesting and useful thread! But more so about received wisdom than about lenses per se. To wit:

Initially, all the buzz was about the Biogon 35/2. Then forget that, all the buzz was about the C-Biogon 35/2.8 and its vaunted flare resistance.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's an accurate characterisation. People in this forum are not as stupid as you seem to think.

It is true that both lenses are flare resistant. Those of us who were (and are) particularly enthusiastic about the Biogon-C were driven by many factors: low distortion, very high performance even wide open, great color, low astigmatism, excellent bokeh, and low price compared even to the Summarit -- another wonderful lens, BTW. As are the current and previous Summicrons, the Summiluz ASPH, etc. The total package with both Biogons is just very, very good.

The world has not changed. All of these things are still true. Indeed, the review by Erwin Puts that was probably the strongest early statement about the lens's flare resistance, and even there magical properties were not claimed. Puts specifically pointed out that the lens can be induced to flare with the sun in the frame – as can nearly any lens. But you knew that, right?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom