Any concensus on the Voigtlander or Biogon 35mm lenses?

CSG123

CSG123

Established
Local time
8:55 AM
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
128
View My Gallery
I really would like a 35mm for my M4 and Leica glass is pretty much out of the question based on what their various 35mm lenses seem to command. The Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 and 2.5 are both pretty reasonable and new besides. While I won't say I'll never shoot color my interest in film cameras is, so far, strictly b&w.

What are the thoughts on these two lenses or the Zeiss Biogon?
 
CSG123 said:
I really would like a 35mm for my M4 and Leica glass is pretty much out of the question based on what their various 35mm lenses seem to command. The Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 and 2.5 are both pretty reasonable and new besides. While I won't say I'll never shoot color my interest in film cameras is, so far, strictly b&w.

What are the thoughts on these two lenses or the Zeiss Biogon?
Click to expand...

The CV 1.2, 1.4, 1.7 and 2.5 lenses all have good reputations.

The ZM Biogons (2.0 and 2.8) are a little bigger and a lot more expensive than the equivalent CV lenses, and in general they show a higher level of correction for certain aberrations.

In particular, they have very flat fields and almost no geometric distortion, and they might be better (higher contrast and resolution) at wide apertures.

For most photos, these differences will not matter. I use the ZM Biogon-C 2.8 because I usually shoot at 2.8-5.6, it's small, it has almost no distortion, and it has almost no defects. I just don't have to think about it. I also am in love with the bokeh of the Biogon-C at 2.8. But that's a very subjective preference.

I'm certain that my photography would not suffer if I had to switch to any of the CV 35's. Among the CV's my first choice would probably be a used Ultron 1.7, second choice would be the 2.5.

I should add that there are ergonomic differences (focus tabs or not, etc.) between the different lenses that are not a big deal to me, but for some here are make-or-break.
 
Last edited:
I was particularly thinking of the CV 1.4 as it fits the price point quite well and offers fast glass. I was comparing it to the Biogon 2.0 which is approaching twice the price and getting into used Leica territory. I do have a DR Summicron and Summitar for classic Leica lenses but the 35mm Leica glass is just stupidly expensive these days used or new.
 
The 35/2.5 is a great lens at a great price. It imparts much contrast to the film, so I tend to add some exposure and develop less in relation to film from other lenses. No need for apologies here.
 
You can fix barrel distortion in LR3 so it's not a major issue to me. For me 35mm is a bit narrow for landscapes in any event. Thanks for the link to the flickr group.

What's MF/LF?
 
I went through the same decision recently and settled on the 35/1.4. For me, speed, cost, and size were the prime factors in my decision. This is my one lens, one body combo so it had to be fast, light, and compact. I scan all my film so I can fix any bothersome barrel distortion in post. You can find the Nokton for under $450 used if you're patient. I ended up with an MC lens but SC sounds like what you'd want.

If you're particular about bokeh, the 35/1.4 might not be for you (though some people love its signature here). I'm not thrilled by it after looking through a LOT of samples, but considering my shooting style it won't show up in 95% of my pics. The pros simply far outweigh the cons for me.
 
I've standardized my lenses around the ZMs because I like zeiss rendering very much. I also prefer consistent handling and, usually, a bit larger lens to fit my hands/fingers. That's just me.

If I were shooting a fair amount in color, then my recommendation would be to look hard at zeiss. I'm one of those people who think zeiss does wonderful things with color, especially greens and blues. I also fancy that ZM lenses hold highlights a bit better.

But I've used several of the VC 35's - was then and could now be very happy with the Ultron (both imaging and form) or Nokton (imaging yes yes, form not so much to its very diminuitive size).

If you have $400-500 to spend, then it's easy. Get a VC. The Ultron if you want/need smoother bokeh. The Nokton if you like more sharpness wide open and small form factor.
 
Last edited:
What's the issue with bokeh and the 1.4? Looking at Huff's photos on his review it seemed to be quite close to the Summicron's.
 
Some people don't like the bokeh of the Nokton 1.4. It does not concern me, but I guess if you're after a classical look or something, then it might bother you.
 
Search flickr for "35 1.4 nokton bokeh" and you'll see some worst-case scenarios for this lens.

In a nutshell: at close focus, point light sources at infinity produce circles with bright edges and sometimes a bullseye spot in the middle. When this effect is aggregated (skylight through foliage, for example) the bokeh can appear "busy" as opposed to "smooth". Whether you like it/hate it/don't care is really up to you.
 
CSG123 said:
What's the issue with bokeh and the 1.4? Looking at Huff's photos on his review it seemed to be quite close to the Summicron's.
Click to expand...

I think the Ultron offers a smoother blur in more conditions than the Nokton, that's all. I didn't mean to imply it's anything as large as an "issue." More of a subjective distinction between the two. There are other decision points, some of which have been mentioned, pretty much all of which you can decide fairly objectively between the two, unlike bokeh:

-- size
-- availability
-- distortion
-- flare resistance
-- speed
-- sharpness (wide open)
 
Disclaimer: I don't own nor have I even seen this lens, but......

I do own 2 Konica lenses: 28mm M-Hexanon & 35mm UC-Hexanon. If the Konica 35mm M-Hexanon lens is anywhere near as good as my 2 Konica lenses (both build and optical quality), it deserves consideration. Assuming the price meets your budgetary constraints.
Actually, 3 Konica lenses including the stellar 50/3.5 lens on my father's Konica I.
I am a fan of Konica optics. YMMV.
 
the Nokton 35f1.4 SC is my "primary" lens. I have other 35's )lot's), but the one that is on one camera body and always along is the 35f1.4! It is just a very good lens. As for the Bokeh issue - not a big deal in my book. Distorsion is there - but that's the case with most fast 35's anyway and you have to look for it in most cases.
For the money - the 35f1.4 tops the chart. I did try the new 35f1.4 Asph from Leica lsat month. Probably sharper at close focus (floating element) - but the Bokeh from that one was ugly! You also get about $3400 left over when you buy the 35f1.4 instead!
Check Flickr's "Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f1.4 SC (or MC) " for samples of this lens. There are plenty.
 
Here's a vote for the Biogon 35/f2. Terrific lens, crisp and sharp...many people say "too sharp," but then they unsharp-mask the hell out of softer images.

Also, nine elements, 1/3-stop increments, flare-resistant, and reasonably-sized (not tiny for RF lenses, but tiny compared to other mount 35mm lenses).

If you need a few examples, I can provide.
 
I had the Nokton SC 1.4 for a while and eventually sold it. It is, to me, a character lens. The lens is never all that sharp when compared directly with a Summicron 35, or Biogon 35. That isn't to say it isn't sharp, it just isn't as sharp as the Summicron/Biogon at any aperture. However, it has a bloomy/flarey look that you cannot get from either of the other two lenses.

A couple of shots from the Nokon wide open on an M8.


L1000346 by mjnewhook, on Flickr


L1000316 by mjnewhook, on Flickr
 
Maybe it's me but I'm having a hard time finding many specific image examples of bokeh issues with the Nokton 35/1.4. I'm sure I'd be happy with the Nokton, Skopar or either Biogon but as I don't get to try any of them first I'm just trying to make sense out of which would be an overall best lens with the most flexibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom