Voigtländer Ultron 35/1.7 vs. Zeiss Biogon 35/2

K

KalleBlomquist

Newbie
Local time
10:19 AM
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
9
View My Gallery
Hello,

I am using an Ultron 35/1.7 on my M6 and I like this lens. But anyhow, I am interested in other 35mm lenses in terms of image- an build-quality.
So for me, an affordable alternative would be the Zeiss Biogon 35/2.

But what can this lens do, that the Ultron cannot?

I mostly shoot street, reportage and people with my M6, so I'm especially interested in contrast (!), bokeh, image qualitiy at large apertures, useability and build-quality of the biogon. And this in comparison to the Ulton.

Is a change wothwhile?

So could someone of you tell me something about this?
Would be nice!

Thank you very much and best regards! 🙂

...sorry for my bad english!
 
I have both of those lenses and the differences in image quality are subtle. Ultron image quality is roughly comparable to the pre-Asph Summicron, more classic. Biogon is roughly comparable to the ASPH version of the Summicron, more modern. Build quality feels better with the Biogon - they are heavier, use more brass, less aluminum. If I had the Ultron only, I would not change/upgrade to the Biogon unless the Ultron was broken or maybe unless I needed to match color rendition with my other Zeiss lenses.

Later today I can post two jpgs of the same scene with both lenses and you can see for yourself whether there is a difference that the internet will show.
 
Thank you for your reply!

Yes, maybe I do like the "modern look" more. You're talking about more contrast, more sharpness, right?
Color rendition isn't very important for me, because i'm mostly choose b/w and I do not have other Zeiss lenses.

Benjamin Marks said:
Later today I can post two jpgs of the same scene with both lenses and you can see for yourself whether there is a difference that the internet will show.
Click to expand...

This would be very kind of you!

Cheers
 
OK. I have taken one shot each with the Ultron at f:2 and the Biogon at f:2 with a Leica M9 set to RAW and Auto WB. The Ultron of course is a half-stop faster, but you want as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as possible. I put the camera on a tripod, set the ISO to 160, metered manually f:2 at 1/30 of a second, imported into LR4, converted to JPG with standard for screen sharpening. The original DNG/RAW files are 7.6 MB, a little large for e-mailing, but the JPGs are about 1.1 MB each -- I can e-mail them directly to you if you supply me with an e-mail address. Point of focus is the first candle stick.

What I see in LR4: first off, the Ultron is a couple of mm longer than the Biogon. Not much, but the pix don't lie. The Biogon has slightly higher contrast (compare the Christmas trees in the background). The Biogon suppresses chromatic aberration/sensor bloom and handles flare a little better (look at the window mullions, the flare where the sunlight is hitting the first candle stick or the reflections off the foreground chair edges at 1:1). The Biogon has slightly better sharpness in the corners (look at the B&W photo on the wall in the upper left-hand corner of the picture). Bokeh might be a draw -- the term is subjective anyway. Neither is objectionable in my view. All of this is what you would expect from the price differential, I think (US $400 vs. US$1100).

So that's the pixel peeper analysis. Having said this, the differences are pretty subtle when looking at the picture as a whole. As I said, if it were me, I might just stick with the Ultron, which is a fine lens, particularly at the price.

Ultron:

35%20Ultron%20%40%20f2-XL.jpg




Biogon:

35%20Biogon%20%40%20f2-XL.jpg



P.S. Having converted the DNGs to JPGs, posted them to Smugmug and linked to RFF, I am hard pressed to see a difference between the pictures above on my monitor (laCie 319). I'd be interested to know whether anyone else can perceive the differences at this screen size. The differences ARE there when I view the native files in LR4 side-by-side here at home; the differences are also easy to see on Smugmug by toggling back and forth between the two photos. Smugmug links are:

http://benmarks.smugmug.com/Recent/Recent-Photographs/22155420_x7tFMF#!i=2301387348&k=Ws6zwZb

and

http://benmarks.smugmug.com/Recent/Recent-Photographs/22155420_x7tFMF#!i=2301387402&k=5N48Vzt

- BM
 
No, not that I have seen. Bokeh is pretty neutral and it is pleasing, at least to my eye.

EDIT: I chose the boring scene above because it had the random pattern of the Christmas tree in the background and the backlit window mullions. I think you'd see "drunken" bokeh if it was there to be seen.
 
Thank you very much!!!
I think your right with what you said. The contrast and the corner sharpness seem to be the most interesting things here for me.
And for me, the contrast looks very better with the ultron, not only on the tree... 🙄

Thank you again for the comparison!
 
I've seen the larger files of this two images now and for me, here the Zeiss looks very, very good in terms of flare-control, distortion and contrast!
In the middle, both lenses seem to be very sharp at f/2.

I like the image-quality in both of these pictures but I think the Zeiss is the clearly crisper one! 🙂
 
Ultron v. Biogon

Ultron v. Biogon

I sold my Ultron and now own a Biogon. Ergonomics, build quality and above all, minimum distance to focus decided it for me. A wide angle lens that requires one to step back just doesn't make it if 35mm is one's 'go to' normal lens. Frankly, of the two shots presented, the Biogon does look better to me. Contrast is one thing information in the shadows is another.
 
The flare-control of the Biogon is better, see the window frames. I suppose both lenses are clean.
Stopped down a bit more the Ultron is excellent, very good for landscapes and such, but in a case like this I would prefer the Biogon.

Erik.
 
Thank you all, for your responses!

Would you recommand to use the Biogon with it's lenshood or is it so inured to diffused light, that the hodd is not that important?
The lens is not that small and the lenshood doesn't make it smaller.

patrickjames said:
Make a great image and no one will care what lens you used. (Maybe some people will care, but you can safely ignore them).
Click to expand...

And of course, that's right!
 
KalleBlomquist said:
.................. Would you recommand to use the Biogon with it's lenshood or is it so inured to diffused light, that the hodd is not that important?
The lens is not that small and the lenshood doesn't make it smaller. ..................
Click to expand...

I use lens hoods on all my lenses but one of the reasons is that I seldom use lens caps or filters even for transport.

PatrickJames makes some excellent points. While I have experience with the 35mm f2.0 Biogon, I do not with the CV 35mm f1.7. My current photo exhibit, which is 10x12.5 or 9x13.5 prints, was shot with: 28mm Biogon, 35mm f2.0 Biogon, 28mm f2.8 Hexanon, 28mm f3.5 CV, and one with a 21mm CV. If you would ask a viewer if the photos were shot with 5 different lenses or all with the same lens, they would have a 50/50 chance of getting the answer right even considering the different focal lengths.
 
By looking at the comparison pictures I'd say that the difference is perceptible when you have the images up close and side by side but negligible for most real-life uses - assuming your final product is a print or web-sized image. If anything, I might even prefer the Ultron's way of handling highlights but that's just me.

The Ultron is a fraction of a stop faster and the Biogon focusses 20cm closer. Sounds like a draw to me. If I were you, I'd keep the Ultron and set the money aside for something that makes a noticeable difference - like a different focal length, significantly faster (f/1.2 Nokton) or smaller lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom