Rogrund
Antti Sivén
Beautiful pictures, leicashot!
dyao
Well-known
The Biogon's build quality is not all that great either. The front element is known to develop a wobble (easily fixed with a lens spanner) and the focus ring can develop a bit of 'play' (mine has this and my repair guy says it's not worth fixing.)
Also, I've dented the focus ring on my Biogon within a few months of owning it - I think it's made of aluminum or some equally soft metal.
Also, I've dented the focus ring on my Biogon within a few months of owning it - I think it's made of aluminum or some equally soft metal.
Richard G
Veteran
Size and the focus tab matter to me. I can carry a capped version IV Summicron on an M6 in the palm of my hand, lens facing the palm. That's small. I like the Zeiss lenses, and would happily take the 2 or 2.8. I cannot imagine buying the 2.0 ASPH.
tanel
Established
Hm, alright. Let's bring in the C-Biogon 2,8. Smaller, less expensive but slower. Considering that I do live in a place where there isn't always that much light available, does f2 vs f2,8 make that big of a difference in rangefinder system?
I do love Zeiss rendering, and I could buy Zeiss as new. Then again, Summicron falls into same prize range and its f2.
Does that play any role in real life? Sometimes. Having shot years with Canon FD glass, both 1,8 and 2,8.. there is a difference for me in there. But this is SLR world, so...
I do love Zeiss rendering, and I could buy Zeiss as new. Then again, Summicron falls into same prize range and its f2.
Does that play any role in real life? Sometimes. Having shot years with Canon FD glass, both 1,8 and 2,8.. there is a difference for me in there. But this is SLR world, so...
Yes, what I said about the construction, but also the image quality. I sold mine, don't regret it, but often have the urge to go out and find a version 3 copy.
If the lens you are looking at is local, you can see it, mount it on your camera, check out how it is now. Never mount or dismount the lens by holding the hood or front module of the lens. When mounted, are all the markings centered? If it is the rectangular hood (the proper one for the lens) does it mount straight or with a tilt? Is there any play in the barrel, wiggle it a little before you take out your cash?
I sent mine to Sherry Krauter for repair and spoke to her regarding the problem. She was very non-complementary regarding this lens in particular. But, if the front module is loose, it does not normally effect the focusing or optical alignment of the lens. It is also a simple repair, but the repair simply is to re-glue the thing back together, so it is always possible that it will happen again.
Since I am the one who is causing your new questions, I just want to be clear as to what I am saying and offer whatever I can for your consideration.
dyao
Well-known
With 400 speed film I find myself limited to 1/60 or 1/30 shutter speeds at f/2 when I'm indoors. Expect to use 1/30 or 1/15 if you use the 2.8, which may be a problem if you are trying to capture motion indoors
agricola
Well-known
leicashot - you win.
I use the 2.8 and love it. It is one of the few hype lenses that lives up to its price tag IMO. That said, yes... a stop is a big deal in low light. I use this lens in sunlight only really...but that's because the high ISO on my M8 sucks.
ferider
Veteran
Reg. Biogon build quality, google "Biogon wobble".
If you want small and sharp (nicer bokeh than v4) I recommend the Color Skopar. Very underrated lens.
If you want good build quality and f2, I recommend the Summicron v3. Very sturdy - much better built than v4.
If you want small and sharp (nicer bokeh than v4) I recommend the Color Skopar. Very underrated lens.
If you want good build quality and f2, I recommend the Summicron v3. Very sturdy - much better built than v4.
Turtle
Veteran
Biogon f2, 2.8 or Sumamrit-M. All well built, with better flare resistance, nice contrast, good handling etc
Personally I cannot fathom why anyone would drop $1400 on a V4 all things considered, but hey, its a legend, right? I think people get caught up on these things and fixate on irrelevant image characteristics rather than on making interesting images.
Personally I cannot fathom why anyone would drop $1400 on a V4 all things considered, but hey, its a legend, right? I think people get caught up on these things and fixate on irrelevant image characteristics rather than on making interesting images.
kipkeston
Well-known
I had both at one point. I prefer the IV because of ergonomics, and what I think is a more neutral image. Sharpness very similar. IV sharper at f/2, biogon sharper at f/8. The biogon put a sheen or a light shiny coat on images. Maybe it was just my copy. The IV has really stunning total gradation.
Oh, my IV was loose when I got it. DAG got it back in order and if it comes lose again, I'll just send it away. The biogon had no wobble, but the 50/2 planar I had did.
Oh, my IV was loose when I got it. DAG got it back in order and if it comes lose again, I'll just send it away. The biogon had no wobble, but the 50/2 planar I had did.
Last edited:
venchka
Veteran
Not for me
Not for me
I wouldn't own one for that very reason.
Throw the Konica 35mm/2.0 UC-Hexanon and M-Hexanon lenses in the mix.
leicashot: Wonderful use of a very nice lens. I often wonder why I have avoided that lens. Perhaps it's time to consolidate my random overlapping and duplicated hodge podge lens assortment. Follow the advice given by the kindly old Leica Gnome many eons ago: "First you will want 35-50-90." It was true in the Dark Ages. It's true today.
What to sell? What to sell?
Not for me
I wouldn't own one for that very reason.
Throw the Konica 35mm/2.0 UC-Hexanon and M-Hexanon lenses in the mix.
leicashot: Wonderful use of a very nice lens. I often wonder why I have avoided that lens. Perhaps it's time to consolidate my random overlapping and duplicated hodge podge lens assortment. Follow the advice given by the kindly old Leica Gnome many eons ago: "First you will want 35-50-90." It was true in the Dark Ages. It's true today.
What to sell? What to sell?
Last edited:
Have you had a chance to compare it to the 2.8? If so, what did you think?
ferider
Veteran
Check how small a 35/2 can be:
This is my v3. Built like a rock.
Roland.
This is my v3. Built like a rock.
Roland.
they all grow when you hood them Roland. So small becomes a little bigger. That is why to me the size of a lens is less of a concern to me, and why I just have stuck with my Ultron.
Turtle
Veteran
As an example, the Summarit-M and biogons are somewhat different in the way they render, but out of a whole bunch of prints on the wall you'd fare very badly trying to pin the lens against the print. In real life we tend not to do side by side comparisons as the final output so many lens differences vanish. Handling, value and other characteristics (like flare resistance, 1/3 or 1/2 stops) etc might be more important. The 35 f2 biogon seems big next to a summarit-M, but in real use it makes little difference. If you want tiny for sliding underneath a jacket get a 35 pancake II. All the aforementioned have remarkable flare resistance, but the 35 biogon seems almost impervious to flare... its remarkable.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Buy the f/2.8 for whenever you can use it, it's an excellent lens; and then buy a f/1.2 Nokton whenever you want a fast lens (as in really fast).
leicashot
Well-known
Fpr those interested in the Nokton 35/1.2.
1. I believe it has the best build quality of all Zeiss and VC lenses, coming very close to feeling like a black paint Leica lens.
2. It's weight is more of a problem for me than it's size.
3. Comparing the 1.2 and 1.4 image, there is a minimal 'real' difference in brightens of the final image so I never looked at the 1.2 aperture as being an 'effective' advantage over a 1.4 lens, and see little DOF difference when comparing images shot at 1.2 and 1.4. The image at 1.4 is a tad sharper with a little more contrast.
4. When I owned the Biogion-C and the Nokton I compared the two at f/2.8 and found:
- The Biogon-C had MUCH more vignetting
- Sharpness was a tad better on the Nokton. Colors were still a little more punchy on the Biogon-C
- Contrast was a little higher on the Biogon-C
- Flare is well controlled with both lenses but never directly compared.
- Distortion is better controlled with the Biogon-C but never noticed it with the Nokton. This is usually more a concern for 28mm and wider lenses. I only ever noticed distortion on a 35mm lens when using the new Summarit.
The only image quality weakness of the Nokton is that has lowish contrast wide open. Sharpness is not that far behind the Summilux ASPH, more so at f/1.4 where contrast picks up a little. Out of camera images compared to the Summilux Asph lack that 'punch' you come to expect from modern Leica lenses, which can also be a good thing too.
I know I'll own the Nokton again soon, and the sooner the better cause I'm really missing it!
Hope this helps guys
Kristian
1. I believe it has the best build quality of all Zeiss and VC lenses, coming very close to feeling like a black paint Leica lens.
2. It's weight is more of a problem for me than it's size.
3. Comparing the 1.2 and 1.4 image, there is a minimal 'real' difference in brightens of the final image so I never looked at the 1.2 aperture as being an 'effective' advantage over a 1.4 lens, and see little DOF difference when comparing images shot at 1.2 and 1.4. The image at 1.4 is a tad sharper with a little more contrast.
4. When I owned the Biogion-C and the Nokton I compared the two at f/2.8 and found:
- The Biogon-C had MUCH more vignetting
- Sharpness was a tad better on the Nokton. Colors were still a little more punchy on the Biogon-C
- Contrast was a little higher on the Biogon-C
- Flare is well controlled with both lenses but never directly compared.
- Distortion is better controlled with the Biogon-C but never noticed it with the Nokton. This is usually more a concern for 28mm and wider lenses. I only ever noticed distortion on a 35mm lens when using the new Summarit.
The only image quality weakness of the Nokton is that has lowish contrast wide open. Sharpness is not that far behind the Summilux ASPH, more so at f/1.4 where contrast picks up a little. Out of camera images compared to the Summilux Asph lack that 'punch' you come to expect from modern Leica lenses, which can also be a good thing too.
I know I'll own the Nokton again soon, and the sooner the better cause I'm really missing it!
Hope this helps guys
Kristian
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
There are some long threads here comparing the two Biogons.
The f/2.8 lens is smaller and lighter. A lot smaller. It's almost as small as the Color-Scopar, and similar in size to the Summicrons. The f/2 is a bit bigger, though not nearly as large & heavy as a Summilux ASPH.
The f/2.8 has almost no distortion, comparable to the Summicron-ASPH. The f/2 has, effectively, no distortion at all (depending on focal distance). If you shoot rectangles, stop reading now and get the f/2 Biogon.
From 2.8 both lenses are similar in resolution, with the edge going to the f/2.8 lens, especially in the corners. Both lenses out-resolve any film that I personally use by f/4, and both are darned good at 2.8.
The f/2.8 probably has less field curvature, and a bit less astigmatism. Going by the MTF charts, both lenses exhibit less astigmatism than any of the Leica 35's.
The f/2.8 vignettes a little more than the f/2 when wide open, and even at f/5.6, it has a bit more falloff than the f/2 does af f/4.
The above qualities are measurable. The following comments are subjective.
The overall rendering of the f/2.8 lens is spectacular.
The 2.8 has — this is my opinion — nicer bokeh than the f/2 biogon, especially at f/2.8 and f/4, and nicer bokeh at these apertures than the Leica Summicron v. 4 or ASPH.
The 2.8 might be my favourite lens, ever. And that includes my beloved old Summilux ASPH. I like its rendering better than any modern Leica 35 except the Summarit, which I think is one of the most under-appreciated lenses that Leica has ever made. But the Biogon-C has less field curvature and less distortion than the Summarit, and it's less expensive.
Chris C. has commented that the Biogon-C is well-matched to the current 50mm Summicron-M in its rendering, and I totally agree with his assessment. But the Biogon-C is even better. It has better bokeh under a wider range of conditions, less field curvature, and is less prone to flare.
Last edited:
Semilog, I own and love the 2.8 and was just curious what DN thought compared to the f/2...
and it is not almost as small as the color skopar... not even close!
and it is not almost as small as the color skopar... not even close!