2/35 ZM vs 1,4/35 Nokton for M6

[santino]

Hi!

I've got the 2/35 Biogon for three years and I'm quite satisfied with the images it produces but the built quality is imho terrible. :bang:

Can the 1,4/35 Nokton be compared to the Biogon when it comes to opticial/mechanical quality? My only CV lens is the super wide Heliar and I've had no problems so far.

A third option would be to sell the Biogon and use my good old J12 (with external light meter off course 😉)

What would you do?

 

[kshapero]

I am surprised about your build quality problems with the ZM, I have never heard this. I have the CV 35/1.4 and I am quite happy with it. But if were to do it over again I think I would get the ZM 35/2.

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

I'm curious too. What kind of build quality issues are you having? Lens wobble? Dry or stiff focus?

 

[santino]

it wobbles, starts to make randomly a scratching noise when focusing and infinity is a bit off with the M6 RF even though it's in mint condition - I'm just used to the Zeiss SLR lenses in Contax/Yashica mount and they are superb in every aspect. The 2/50 Summicron is also a piece of art, maybe I'm just expecting too much, the 2/35 Summicron is twice the price of the Biogon...

 

[the_jim]

The 2/35 Biogon is far better optically. Unfortunately, the build quality is a bit lacking as far as the "wobble issue." But it's a hit-or-miss affair, not a given. Some may never be affected. Otherwise, the ZMs are great lenses.

Far better is subjective. Check out this very informal test that I did:

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102753

Half way down the page I compare them at f/2 and then on the next page at f/5.6. Granted this only examines a sliver of how these lenses perform, but I feel it fair to point out that neither is 'far' better than the other. I like the size and the handling of the Nokton. Both are very good though. The black enamel on the Biogon looks very nice, but I prefer the focus action of the Voigtlander lens.

 

[robbeiflex]

Build quality on my Nokton 35 f1.4 SC is great. I don't have the Biogon but can compare to the Planar. The CV is a bit lighter (although it is smaller) but is solid, focuses smoothly, and the aperture ring moves easily and clicks positively at the f-stops, and half f-stops. Note that the aperture clicks are halves rather than thirds like the Zeiss.

If it's anything like the Planar then I would guess the Biogon has no, or at least less focus shift. The Nokton has, focus shift, but it's easy to test and adjust for it. On my M6 the the point I focus on is always in focus, but as the aperture gets smaller the DOF first increases forward and not back, then from f5.6 onwards evenly forward and back. You will find a lot of internet chatter on this topic but IMHO few people actually make these simple tests and then shoot accordingly.

Cheers,
Rob

 

[the_jim]

Build quality on my Nokton 35 f1.4 SC is great. I don't have the Biogon but can compare to the Planar. The CV is a bit lighter (although it is smaller) but is solid, focuses smoothly, and the aperture ring moves easily and clicks positively at the f-stops, and half f-stops. Note that the aperture clicks are halves rather than thirds like the Zeiss.

If it's anything like the Planar then I would guess the Biogon has no, or at least less focus shift. The Nokton has, focus shift, but it's easy to test and adjust for it. On my M6 the the point I focus on is always in focus, but as the aperture gets smaller the DOF first increases forward and not back, then from f5.6 onwards evenly forward and back. You will find a lot of internet chatter on this topic but IMHO few people actually make these simple tests and then shoot accordingly.

Cheers,
Rob

I find this interesting. I take it that you are shooting on film, right? As the link that I posted shows, my Nokton shows no focus shift...or at least non that I've ever seen...at any stop...ever. I always figured people shooting digital had more issues with this as film has depth and a sensor pixel is basically flat.

 

[the_jim]

Interesting test. In the Biogon's defense (or maybe not) I might point out that the Nokton was stopped down whereas the Biogon was wide open (which isn't as good as some other ZMs), at least on the first test.

Agreed. The test was just for funsies and hardly scientific. I like both lenses for different reasons, but end up using the lil' nokton more just because of it's handling and it's unique (read: flarey, barrel-distorted, crappy/strange out-of-focus, unpredictable) characteristics. Not everyone wants this though.

example @ f/2.8:

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimfischer/5637654001/] dad by jamesfischer, on Flickr[/URL]

not a great photo, but it shows some of those 'unique' qualities I'm talking about.

 

[robbeiflex]

I find this interesting. I take it that you are shooting on film, right? As the link that I posted shows, my Nokton shows no focus shift...or at least non that I've ever seen...at any stop...ever. I always figured people shooting digital had more issues with this as film has depth and a sensor pixel is basically flat.

I am shooting on film, and to be honest the front focus part of it may be due to the camera or the more important element behind the camera (me). :angel:
I tested my Planar on the same roll of film within a few minutes of testing the Nokton, and found a front focus of a few millimeters. Similarly with the Planar the front focus is within the DOF so that my images are always in focus, so no worries. If it were an M8 or M9 instead of an M6 perhaps I would be sending them off to be calibrated all together. 😎

Cheers,
Rob

 

[sanmich]

I tested my Planar on the same roll of film within a few minutes of testing the Nokton, and found a front focus of a few millimeters.
Rob

A front focus of a few milimeters??😱

 

[jsrockit]

Can the 1,4/35 Nokton be compared to the Biogon when it comes to opticial/mechanical quality?

I use both on a M9. The Biogon is, generally speaking, sharper, has less distortion, less CA, etc. It is my opinion that the Nokton is built better, but only time will tell. The Nokton has noticable barrel distortion, has a ton of CA wide open, but is super small. I use the SC version. With all that said, I prefer the Nokton... 😱

 

[robbeiflex]

A front focus of a few milimeters??😱

At the minimum focus distance of 70cm, yes. I don't see an issue with that, and if you saw how thick my glasses are I don't think you would either. 😛

Actually DOF at that point is 6.8 mm behind and 7 mm in front, so if a lens is within 2 or 3 mm is it not in spec? And if not then how do I know at that it's not my own technique that is the problem?

 

[santino]

getting the wobbling and focusing of my Biogon fixed could come close to a used Nokton, couldn't it?

 

[robbeiflex]

getting the wobbling and focusing of my Biogon fixed could come close to a used Nokton, couldn't it?

No idea, but maybe Zeiss can help you:

http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/other/service/repairs.html

Cheers,
Rob

 

[JayM]

I'm always surprised by the lack of PF from the Nokton (in my experience on the M8 and RD1 at least.) Wide open I've used it quite a few times indoors, etc with windows that are nuclear blown out. Not a bit of PF, which is strangely at odds with a review I read.

The Nokton 1.1 give a jaunty purple outline in all such instances. I'm keeping the 1.1 in my M9 hope chest but the crazy pf makes me wonder if I'll just go for something a little slower. Or maybe b&w film...

 

[the_jim]

I'm always surprised by the lack of PF from the Nokton (in my experience on the M8 and RD1 at least.) Wide open I've used it quite a few times indoors, etc with windows that are nuclear blown out. Not a bit of PF

PF?

I must be out of touch with the lingo, 'cause I was worried you were referencing the first two initials in the name of an absurdly mediocre chain chinese restaurant. Purple Fringing I take it?

Chromatic abberations will generally be more apparent on digital as the sensor lacks depth. Film doesn't render all the chroma at a singular point as there is an actual physical thickness to it. Viva film (until digital RFs develop better in-camera software work-arounds, as the big SLR players have)!

 

[andredossantos]

The Nokton is a lens that lots of people seem to love to bash. Yes, it has a lot of "character" but it seems to me a lens like the pre-asph Summilux has the same sorts of aberrations yet few would dare bash it. Another common thing said is that it has horrible bokeh (honestly, I never noticed that).

In the end, the Biogon is going to be a bit sharper and more clinical. The Nokton will have some distortion (and other aberration). Also, if you need speed the Nokton has that.

I sold my Nokton when I briefly stopped using 35mm RF's. I'm thinking of getting another.

 

[MCTuomey]

getting the zm fixed in the u.s. is about $180 (personal experience), if done by zeiss through Richard Schleuning.

i had both the nokton 35/1.4 SC and the zm 35/2 for a short while at the same time. i kept the zeiss because, well, i like having consistent handling and my other glass is zeiss or zeiss-like. yes, the nokton has CA wide open. so does the ZM at f2, just less. yes, the nokton has some distortion, but in my very limited use it didn't seem objectionable to me. the zm has no distortion to speak of, but i never look at the the images it produces and say, "wow, look at the lack of distortion." the zm 35/2 can produce some nervous bokeh (unlike the c-biogon 35/2.8), as can the nokton.

i think the decision should be based on size and speed, not imaging.

 

[MCTuomey]

Interesting test. In the Biogon's defense (or maybe not) I might point out that the Nokton was stopped down whereas the Biogon was wide open (which isn't as good as some other ZMs), at least on the first test. At f/5.6, the Biogon has more contrast and perhaps in part because of that - appears sharper. The optimum aperture is f/4.

a quick look at the zm biogon 35/2's mtf chart will show that f2 is not where it's strongest, resolution-wise. stopped down f4 and beyond it's really hard to fault. what's nice about the biogon is being able to use it wide open selectively for subjects like women over 30 that might need a gentler rendition and a bit of dof isolation.

 

[the_jim]

getting the zm fixed in the u.s. is about $180 (personal experience), if done by zeiss through Richard Schleuning.

i had both the nokton 35/1.4 SC and the zm 35/2 for a short while at the same time. i kept the zeiss because, well, i like having consistent handling and my other glass is zeiss or zeiss-like. yes, the nokton has CA wide open. so does the ZM at f2, just less. yes, the nokton has some distortion, but in my very limited use it didn't seem objectionable to me. the zm has no distortion to speak of, but i never look at the the images it produces and say, "wow, look at the lack of distortion." the zm 35/2 can produce some nervous bokeh (unlike the c-biogon 35/2.8), as can the nokton.

i think the decision should be based on size and speed, not imaging.

This is absolutely spot-on. Plus, distortion with the nokton is suuuper easy to correct in Photoshop.

I may be wrong, but it actually surprised me that this lens had so much distortion. One of the benefits of using a quasi-symmetrical, semi wide-angle designs is that they generally keep straight lines straight (i.e. the Biogon, the original Summilux, the C-Biogon 21mm, etc). I'm guessing the designers were forced into some kind of trade-off with the Nokton. Even though it's inspired by the ol-lux, it's performance is certainly different in some areas, especially wide-open.