28mm Ultron vs 28mm Biogon ZM

P

paulcurtis

Member
Local time
10:32 AM
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
41
It's difficult to know where to post this, the zeiss forum or this one. It seems that this one gets more traffic though.

I got back from a trip and realised that i wanted a 28mm on my NEX, which would give be an effective length of around 42mm.

I went with a CV 12mm, CV 35 f1.4 and the Nokton 1.1

I found i very rarely used the f1.1, the 12mm is a lovely lens but the 35 was a little too long.

So i'm umming and ahhing about the CV 28 and the ZM lens.

I do find the CVs a little soft in the edges, and i'm looking for something i'll keep on most of the time. There's a pop to the ZMs and the DOF fall off seems, well, different.

However f2.8 vs f2. Well that's difficult. Also the MFD for the zeiss is 0.5m compared to 0.7 on the CV. And that is personally important to me. I'm always wanting the 35mm to be closer than 0.7.

So

Has anyone been in this situation before?

How is the ultron at 2.8 compared to the zeiss at 2.8?
Can the ultron be modified to take it closer than 0.7?

Part of me is swaying towards the ultron but this time i'd consider this zeiss because of that potential extra pop. Leica is way out of my range so i can't consider that.

any thoughts?

cheers
paul
 
I'd say, considering the NEX's high-ISO capabilities, go for the Biogon if you like the Zeiss look. Otherwise, if you think you absolutely need that extra one stop of speed, take the Ultron. Mind that the Biogon is a tad shorter than the Ultron also.
 
I agree with efix... f/2.8 doesn't matter when your camera goes up to a usable 6400. Zeiss no doubt.
 
Interesting timing. That review suggests that the biogon really doesn't work well on the NEX at all. I wonder if that's a bad sample, bad testing or the case across the board. Other (not nex) reviews have the edge to edge sharpness as being excellent on the M8/M9, which is partly what i'm looking for when compared to my existing lenses.

Anyone actually using one on a NEX?

cheers
paul
 
efix said:
Ah, another one of these pointless reviews that come without sample pictures ...
Click to expand...

Even when Photozone has sample pictures they are boring as hell.

But, if you want to know about sharpness, vignetting etc. of that lens on NEX you can check out the Photozone review. Or not.
 
I did attempt to use flickr too but found mostly Contax G lenses. As you've found there are some there but i can really tell anything from them. I will keep looking.

I know the ZM is the better lens, but is it the better lens on the NEX too. The photozone observations suggest 100% not.

I wish i could rent these lenses but in the UK i'm not aware of any lens rental companies doing M mount lenses.

cheers
paul
 
I had the 28/2.8 for about 5 years, mostly using for film. With film, I always wanted that extra stop to 2.0. But if the digital ISO is so good, it may be foregoable.
I now use the 28/1.9, but have mostly used it on digital: its a great lens for sure. Good used ones are usually 400-500$, I think there is one at KEH right now for $449.

The MFD for the zeiss 0.5m compared to 0.7 on the CV does not make a big difference to me.
 
I went with the ZM, which is a fantastic lens, but I am always trying to push it when the light goes away. That is more of an issue I have with the M8 than the lens, though!

Size, and contrast, and look made the decision for me - every time I entertain the thought of an ultron I know I would never be able to get over the lower contrast, etc. even if I could try one. It's just my personal taste.

This is a case where there are really 3 choices, and they're pretty different. Unlike other lens comparisons where you're reaching for slight differences in bokeh or resolution, here the differences are pronounced and you can figure out what you want pretty easily - though there isn't a perfect option for all of us (including myself).
 
Well i ended up with a 28 f1.9! I got it for a good price, not used it enough yet to form a solid opinion. I find it a little large, it is low contrast (but then everything is post processed anyway). It suffers from flare quite a bit which is perhaps one reason for the low contrast.

So i'm still curious about the ZM. I'd rent one but there's no where in the UK that i'm aware of that rents Zeiss or Leica.

How long is the lens, from the mount base to the tip?

cheers
paul
 
Hey Paul, I missed your original post, but I shoot with my 28/2 on a NEX-5 all the time. I think because it's a retrofocus design and the rear element is larger and doesn't protrude as far back, it might outperform the Zeiss at the edges. Focus shift is irrelevant here, and if you get the Hawk adapter that extends, you can focus down to around 10cm from the front element. The other nice thing about the Hawk adapter: it nails infinity focus with the Ultron.
 
6196554004_ff2b100926_z.jpg


Zeiss Biogon @ f2.8 and close focus.
 
The conclusion of this highly unscientific test. Either lens is very good, as good a 28 as you will ever need. This of course based on shooting film and black/white. I have no idea what happens with a digital camera!
The Ultron has the benefit of a stop faster - and I find that it is as sharp at f2 as the Biogon is at 2.8.
In the end it all comes down to which lens you like - ergonomics, looks etc. The Ultron leave you with some extra money for film, the Biogon requires that you fork out for a hood too.
Neither lens is particularly flare prone, the Biogon does not like strong light sources at the edge of the image field, the Ultron handles that well - but can blow highlight a bit if the contrast is too high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom