35mm Biogon vs Nokton 1.4... at f2

gavinlg

gavinlg

Veteran
Local time
9:36 AM
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
5,503
I know this sort of tech question gets knocked around a bit on this forum, but I'm trying to figure out if I should be spending for a biogon 35mm f2 or a nokton 35mm f1.4.

I realize the nokton has the barrel distortion, but it's so much smaller and it's faster. It will be my only lens for now.

What I'm interested in is comparative performance at f2. Samples, opinions, experiences are welcome.
 
You might start with Sean Reid's reviews. Probably worth the money if you're considering these lenses.

My own views, far far less informed than Sean's:

the Nokton is a tremendous value. The Biogon is (at least vs. a Leica lens) a very good value.

If you photograph mainly in color, and don't really need the extra stop, get the Biogon. The ZM lenses are just wonderful in color. In B+W? You *might* be happier with the Nokton.

If you regularly shoot highly detailed subjects (architecture, landscapes) on 100 speed film, perhaps with a tripod, you probably want the Biogon. In addition to its low distortion it has low coma & astigmatism, and very little curvature of field. The Biogon is really at its optimum from f/2.8 to 5.6, and is a bit weaker at f/2. At f/4 the Biogon has similar MTFs to the current 50mm sumicron or the 35 summicron ASPH, but with less curvature of field than either one. At f/4 and f/5.6 the Biogon's overall performance is eqalled by few other 35's, and it's probably surpassed by none of them.

The MTFs and other data for the Biogon are here. Ken Rockwell has a reasonably good nontechnical article on how to interpret MTFs here. The short version is that it is hard to criticize the Biogon on this basis.

If you tend to shoot handheld at ISO 400 or higher (especially B+W, especially Tri-X or HP5+), and you find yourself often using shutter speeds below 1/125, I can't think of a reason not to get the Nokton. At wide apertures, the difference in optical quality will have much less effect on IQ than a low shutter speed, and an extra stop is an extra stop.

If you to shoot in adequately bright but difficult light (say, sun in the frame, or lots of specular reflections e.g., bodies of water, or cars glinting in the sun), the Biogon will probably be better at suppressing flare.

You will probably also want to look closely at the rendering of both lenses, there are examples here and all over the web. In terms of bokeh at wide apertures, I don't think one lens has it over the other. They both have adequate, but not superlative bokeh (IMO). In the large majority of shots the backgrounds will be very nice with either lens, but both can be forced to misbehave. It's pretty easy to find examples of this, and once you have experience, you'll know what situations cause problems. They do render differently. You'll just have to look at examples to see what you prefer.

Look at your own best photos. Do you see usage patterns that might help you to steer your choices? For example: for many years I was on the fast lens bandwagon, but a big scanning project demanded a reevaluation: most of my best images, especially with the 35 and 50 mm lenses, were taken at middle apertures -- not wide open. FWIW, I currrently use a Biogon-C 35/2.8, which I love because of its rendering at f/2.8-5.6. (I'm thinking of getting the Nokton 35/1.2 or maybe the 40/1.4 for low light, but it's a lower priority. Since you asked about f/2, though, I cannot recommend the Biogon-C :p )

One last thing. I've assumed you're shooting film. With a digital sensor, I'd personally skew towards the Biogon. With film, the Nokton might more likely be my choice.
 
Last edited:
Thankyou all so far - semilog that was very helpful.

I'll be in Tokyo for 3 weeks in September with a certain photographic focus - I'll be using either my pentax 67 or a mamiya 645 for the main daylight portraits and switching to a rangefinder for nighttime and environmental style portraits. So in that sense - the nokton seems to be shaping up as the more suitable lens due to the speed. The way I figure it is that if they're similar in performance at f2 the nokton has the bonus of being optionally faster, as well as being cheaper and smaller. I have my medium format camera as my heavy hitter so not too worried about absolute optical performance if the differences are small.

Generally I stay below f2.8 on 35mm and I'd probably prefer to keep size to a minimum...

From what I've heard the noktons bokeh is quite good at f2 as well - anyone have any comments or samples with this?
 
I'm willing to bet I'd never know the difference between the MC and SC as you say Joe, but I tend to get a little OCD about stuff like that - the theoretical difference in the SC coating is too much for me to resist!
 
Two snaps, one each with both lenses wide open. The lenses have pretty different characters as you can see. OLy EP-2 mounted on a tripod, ISO 100.

First the Nokton SC @ f:1.4

4847607764_3bc71f5eed_b.jpg


Then the f:2 Biogon @f:2

4846985081_226955024a_b.jpg


In both cases the front element of each lens was in direct sunlight with no hood. I'd say they both handle flare reasonably well.


[EDIT: The EP-2 is a great vehicle for the 35/1.4 Nokton because TTL focusing and the EVF eliminate the focus shift issue.]
 
Interesting, in this sample the VC 1.4 has an out-of-focus-swirl in the off-center part of the picture that looks like motion blur - but isn't. If I remember right it was Yanidel here on RFF who said something to this effect about the corners of his VC 28mm f2.
 
Ljos: Yes, I noticed the same thing with the 35/1.4. The effect is even more pronounced in the original images. Shutter speed was quite high on these pix, making blur from actual motion unlikely.

Ben
 
Benjamin, I misremembered, it was jvr in this http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72505 thread about the VC 28mm f2:

"3) although (good) lens behave more or less the same way on perfectely focused zones, they seldom do the same on OOF and on the transition. Both my f2 and f1.9 Ultron have a way of rendering OOF zones in the corners that can be bothering, with images getting almost a "camera-shake" movement that's surprising (I have been complaining about this effect on my f1.9 Ultron since I subscribed to RFF and you may remember that."

Greetings, Ljós
 
In these particular comparison shots, Biogon is a clear winner for my liking. Nokton image is rather flat, bokeh not special, OOF area details smudged, colors slightly desaturated while Biogon has "pop", better depth presence (focus separation?) despite smaller aperture, good exposure and retained details in OOF (grass for example). Biogon scene is almost alive while Nokton is just a representation.

It may be the case in this scenery, more varied comparison shots may tell otherwise for some other subjects. Having said that, no wonder Zeiss Biogon's have a well deserved reputation.

Nokton's extra stop seems useful for the shutter speed only, I think Biogon is also a proof of that one does not need a 1.4 over 2.0 to get a pleasant background rendering.

As I am new to RF, those are my humble comments.
 
I, too, think the Biogon shot is better in many details; thanks for posting, Benjamin -- wonder what the Nokton would look like at f2?
 
Ben, did you take a shot with the Nokton at f/2? More DOF would show more detail, and the OP was interested in a comparison at f/2 ;)
 
Rarely will you see more details on SC vs. MC, so here is an example shot of the SC, that, in my experience would not be the same with the MC Nokton (see the book):

720462371_WtLpj-XL-1.jpg


Once you know what you are looking for, you'll see a bit of it in Benjamin's example photo, too. Some call it "smudged", others lower contrast great for B+W. Or "glow" if you like :)

BTW, the real competitor to the Biogon is the Color Skopar :)

Roland.
 
Last edited:
EDIT: Duuuhhh, Im an idiot...Thought we were talking about another Nokton.

Sorry to the OP and others following the thread!
set-72157622651960699
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom