Anyone interested in ZM 35 f2 vs CV Pancake II?

[notturtle]

Hi,

I just received my pancake II lens, having decided to get something smaller than the Biogon f2 for certain uses. I have just shot half a roll to determine that all is well with its performance (no nasty decentering etc), but I can do a more direct comparison with the biogon if anyone is interested.

I would shoot some side by side comparison shots at the same apertures and comment on contrast and sharpness etc. perhaps when I am back in civilisation I could comment on print tonality etc.

Anyone interested how much if anything one gives up in raw performance (other than speed) with the cheaper, diminutive CV compared to the king of corners Biogon f2? If there is interest if might post some shots to show you the size difference etc.

I shoot film and am in Afghanistan, so there won't be any images for upload, but I do have a 10x loupe and I know what I am looking at.

Sean Reid regarded the regular CV 35 2.5 very highly and I am not claiming to be able to test as he does; however, I can tell you what I am seeing on full frame negs and at a late point upload images if it is of interest. I won't need prints to be able to comment on bokeh either. Right now I can hardly get over how darned small it is.

 

[peripatetic]

I would be interested for one.

I mostly use a 50mm but I have been contemplating getting a 35 and the question arises of whether it's really worth the expense of the Zeiss when a dinky little CV might do just fine.

 

[nzeeman]

it would be very interesting to see that. it is always good to see battle between david and goliath...

 

[notturtle]

Unfortunately it is not a good start: the CV focuses past infinity (not on the lens barrel but when pointed at infinity targets) and shows distances consistently shorter than my ZM lenses when I 'rangefind' distances to objects. It also disagrees with my only other CV lens and all of the ZMs which are smack on at infinity both on the barrel and with the coincidence of the images in the finder. Its the first RF lens I have ever had, new or used, that has been out on a basic check like this

I have shot a bunch of stuff, from close focus to infinity at various apertures to see what happens, but i can't say I am pleased. It is not a hair past infinity either, but quite a bit - Radio masts ranging from about 2-5 km do not blurr so much as go past one another by the time you reach infinity. ****** CV quality control.... Thats 2 out of 2 CV lenses which have had problems... Either I have bad luck or they need to sort their sh1t out. How hard can it be to check the focus calibration of a lens? Its not like it costs $30. Rant over, we'll see what the results say. If it performs brilliantly from an optical perspective I will get someone to fix it, but if it shows severe back or front focus and is anything other than an optical marvel worthy of adjustment its going straight back to where it came from. At that point my flirtation with CV will end. I haven't got time for postal Pass the Parcel. Of all the lenses that has an almost unblemished record from CV in terms of QC (more than I can say for the 21/25) I get what appears to be my second lemon fresh from their factory...

Interestingly I just googled it and focus mismatch seems to be a common problem (and a number of examples of the focus going past infinity and front focusing at shorter distances). Those who retuend their lenses found the replacements the same. I will report back on whether it is noticeable in images.. If I cannot shoot anything close up then its a show stopper no matter whether scenes shot at intermediate distances are OK.

 

[notturtle]

just done some focus chart tests as well as 'real world scenes' with particular subjects ranging from f2.5 to about 5.6 and will report back. shot a few dupes using the biogon to see if one can really see a difference. I'll dev the negs tonight and report back.

I hope all is well because this lens makes the M feel very compact and light. With the hood on it is the same length as a biogon without hood or filter (in fact a hair shorter it appears). Put yellow filter on the biogon and the clip on hood and it is 1cm longer than the pancake with hood. Focus is very smooth and it feels great, but thats not much use if I can't focus it. I should be able to comment on contrast too.

 

[fixbones]

Will be very keen to see the results too.
I was considering between a 35mm f2 biogon vs a CV 35mm nokton f1.2 and 35mm f2.5 combination. I am leaning towards the latter at the moment.

 

[Avotius]

I have a 35 pII as well and am in the middle of trying to decide if I will keep it or my v3 Leica 35 summicron. I dare say the cv lens is sharper but what I am more interested in is the character of these two lenses....and since 35mm is not my most used length I got to let one go. Back when I tried a 35 biogon I was not impressed but I think the one I had was defective, the front bit of the lens rattled around so it probably had some problems because I own three other zeiss zm lenses and they are all shockingly wonderful.

 

[Krosya]

I used to have a CV 35PII. Not a bad lens - mine didnt have any quality issues, sharp and etc. But I found it to be too contrasty and too slow for what I like to shoot. Sold it, and now for a small walk around lens I have 40/2 Rokkor, or a bit larger M-Hexanon 35/2, and for low light cv 35/1.2. Works well for me.

 

[notturtle]

It will be interesting to see what the contrast is like compared to the ZM Biogon - I suspect the CV will have slightly lower contrast. High contrast is no issue at all for B&W as long as your lenses are comparable and you can process your own film.

Film in the wash now....

 

[notturtle]

OK, so preliminary findings after staring at about 80 shots and staring at them under a 10 x loupe (FP4+ developed in Xtol 1+2). I shot from 1000th down to 125th hand held taking great care to remain stable, or brace myself. Yeah, no tripod, but I am very confident that with the stability attained it would not have made any difference. I also know Tmax 100 under a 500x loupe would have been better but I don’t use that in the field so it does not have any relevance to me.

Handling

Its small but it handles fine. Focus is smooth and perfectly weighted. I did knock the focus tab a few times when fiddling with things and found I could knock it off focus more easily than the ZMs, but this is a familiarity thing.

Does not affix to the camera as smoothly as a ZM. There’s a bit more of a graunchy feel, but it goes on and comes off so I am OK with that.

Optical/Mechanical

The actual focus on the CV is spot on, or very, very close, despite the issues commented on earlier (I am very surprised by this, but assume it means that the despite something being out somewhere, it is not enough to matter, or something simply runs beyond where it is supposed to run but is correct from close to infinity).

I can possibly, maybe, detect very slight front focus (1cm) at the min distance (0.7) at f2.5, but this is marginal and was totally absent at f3.5 setting in my shots. I will need to recheck this to be sure, but if present, appears so marginal that I will simply get sharper noses, equally good eyes, and fractionally fuzzier ears. Shooting flat targets subsequently tells me that the worst case scenario is that images are indistinguishable from the biogon at the same aperture…. I will recheck this to be sure.

Contrast of the CV is almost identical to the ZM. You cannot tell the difference with the naked eye looking at two negs shot at the same exposure under the same light. Shadow detail looks effectively the same as do highlights. This is great news for ZM owners, but a pig for old Leica glass users. If there is a difference it wont matter a damn to B&W shooters using ZM lenses as images will print at the same grade pretty well.

Resolution: On centre, the CV as used is every bit as sharp wide open as the ZM is at 2.5 under 10x with the constraints of the film used. This was evident both at close focus and at about five metres. I could not tell any difference at all between the two.

The CV takes a significant jump from 2.5 to 3.5 in centre performance as well as corners. Beyond this point there is little obvious change in centre performance although things appear to be at their peak by 4.5/5.6. Edges get better to about f8 I would say. Regardless, its plenty sharp on centre wide open and I would not hesitate shooting wide open if I needed or wanted to.

The CV corner performance is very good - nothing to complain about at all! Even from quite wide apertures it is pretty good; however, the ZMs is noticeably better. It does not punch you on the nose but you will see it esp from wide open to say 4.5/f 5.6. Beyond this the CV does narrow the gap a somewhat but the ZM retains the edge, forgive the pun. To be fair the ZMs are the best available in this regard so it is hardly a surprise…

More to follow….

 

[notturtle]

The CV appears to vignette a little more than the ZM at wider apertures. This is fairly noticeable at wide open to f4, where shadow details drops out on the CV while the exposure on the ZM is more even giving fuller shadows around the image periphery.

Flare resistance was not tested but I did shoot some fairly hot scenes into the light with a hood on. No flare detected, so clearly not a dog in this department, but I did not attempt to compare the two in any detail.

Bokeh

To those who say the CV has horrid bokeh: Absolute b0llocks. It is very pleasant. I shot in low light, up against backgrounds dappled with bright Afghan sun, against objects with backgrounds like corrugated iron with specular highlights, with cables in the background, with vertical antenna, distant buildings, BBQ grills etc. The bokeh from this lens is perfectly pleasant and not at all caffeinated or edgy. I would go so far as to say that it is very pleasant and neutral. If you fixate about these things maybe it wont be up to your standards, but if so, I would suggest you need to shoot more interesting subjects LOL.

BUT, there is one difference I detected between it and the ZM: The CV gives more apparent DOF at the same aperture. Like a stop more (ball park off the cuff ridiculous guess). I shot a few images at f2.5 at the min distance with a background about 7 metres behind of corrugated iron on. With the ZM at 2.5 the corrugations were mush, with the CV they were easily identified as corrugations. Weird! This would make it a boon for street shooters looking to get good DOF without stopping down too far - more testing required! This would need more rigorous testing to be certain that I did not mess up somewhere, but it seemed clear enough…

Overall.... very nice little lens. Shooting street, the edge differences would be unlikely to show, but with landscapes and a high res film like Delta 100 it will, whatever the aperture, but whether this matters to you is personal. Fine branches and leaves remained more distinct from the grain pattern on the ZM, esp at wider apertures. Those enlarging more modestly will probably see little difference once stopped down to 5.6 or so. Shooting TriX I would be amazed if you would notice a real difference at any aperture such is the resolving power of this film.

Personal Verdict

This is a little cracker. I will post some images later so you can see sizes, but it is soooo light in the hand and on the camera. I prefer the balance of my MP with this on than the ZM. If you are OK with highish contrast, there is little reason not to like this lens a whole lot.

If I am taking one lens out to do street shooting in decent light this is close to ideal. If you dont shoot the FL 35mm a whole lot: Ideal. This lens is just perfect for the snapshot way of working, but cuts it for more deliberate shooting too. If shooting 35mm and wanting max edge resolution, especially wider open and making big prints, the ZM will (I am very confident) produce perceptibly more detail on those 16x12+ prints outside of the central zone. Looking at negs, you do sense the increase in very fine detail with the Zm before you can actually say empahtically why it is better. I noticed it in the fine twigs and leaves on several large trees. The CV records quite a bit of detail on these trees (towards the edges of the frame, which were about 50m away, but in a slightly more impressionistic 'sketched' way. The ZM gave your eyes more clear cut detail to see, but only when you start to compare like for like are you sure what is going on.

For most uses, the CV provides all the performance you will ever need in a tiny package and at a low price. I just need to shoot some more to see how it compares to the ZMs in terms of flare.

If you are scared of the contrast, shoot B&W and do not own a whole bunch of low contrast lenses, fear not. Its easy to get a lens like this producing a lovely grey scale with adjustments to exposure and development. If you own 50s-60s Leica glass this one will be noticeably hot in comparison.

I am keeping it; its exactly what I was hoping for. You lose a little compared to the ZM at wider apertures off axis, but if you intend to shoot at F5.6-8 you are giving up relatively little. However, you may be a little more inclined to slip the camera under your jacket and take it out in the first place. There is no doubt about it, this lens is incredible value for money if you are OK with modern glass. In broad terms my findings are in line with those of Sean Reid with the CV 35 classic 2.5. He actually tests and compares lenses properly, rather than plucks someone else's images off the web (after going thru goodness knows what processing etc) and declares the lens has bad bokeh! There is nothing to dislike about this lens, apart from the alignment issues I commented on with my sample.

Once I make some real prints from negs I will comment further. To my eyes the negs look just fine.

 

[raid]

Thanks for the very useful information which you posted here in so much detail.

I compared about 30 lenses in the 35-40mm range last year. I think that I had two such lenses in the line-up then.

 

[notturtle]

That's some great information, thank you for sharing this with us. It more or less confirms what I've been hoping for; a compact lens that's fast enough for day time out and about shooting - and one that has nice image qualities. I'm quite drawn to its size for just the reason you mention - making a camera more "pocketable."

I believe the "bad bokeh" comments are mostly referring to the 1,4/35 and 1,4/40 Noktons...

I agree, there have been lots of comments on the bokeh of the two that you mention, but on leica Forum a couple of people went on a rant on how inferior the bokeh of the CV 35 2.5 classic was compared to Leica lenses with 'lct' challenging Sean Reid on the subject (when Sean Reid had tested the lenses in question and lct had not even used a CV 35 2.5 LOL). I found it fairly rude and appeared to be one of those situations where ignorant, prejudiced people demanded the more informed to 'prove their case' a second and third time (especially for them) because they did not like to think the little CV performed so well. There had to be a flaw of course (to stop the CV being worthy of accolade) and bokeh was chosen as the target!

CV QC is defintely an issue and I would not dream of using a CV lens for anything important without testing it first. Sadly, the miss rate can be quite high; however, with mine, I suspect that (in non technical terms) the focus ring is aligned wrong such that the mechanical stop is beyond infinity a touch and the distances in between show fractionally short, although the actual optical focus of the RF and lens actually agree. The distances showing short and the focus past infinity actually makes sense for a focus ring that is simply in need of slipping a little bit. I would probably find that my min focus distance is fractionally short of what it supposed to be if you follow the logic (with the mechanical stop of infinity being past infinity, min focus is likely to be slightly long too). still, I don't care as long as it focuses accurately and produces sharp images. For the money, the performance is really very impressive and in a package that is smaller than a V4 cron too....

I will look to upload some images to show sizes etc tonight.

 

[notturtle]

Some Shots of the Lenses

Some Shots of the Lenses

Please prepare yourselves for terrible images, but its dingy inside and all I have is a P&S; still, you will get the idea.

First up is a shot of the naked lens compared to a 50 planar (which is exactly the same size as a 35 biogon.

Second is a shot of it mounted compared to a mounted 28 biogon with shades in each case.

Thirdly is a shot of the camera plus lens in the hand.

 

[notturtle]

bokeh tests

bokeh tests

I noticed on a couple of negs from my latest roll that some images shot at the minimum focus distance produced less ideal bokeh where trees etc were at infinity and against a bright sky (Afghan bright..). I shot a roll to check with the CV and biogon at the same focus distances and apertures. Result? They were both basically the same. You cannot really see any difference at all. The very bright sky, which was far in excess of the metered subject, resulted in slightly spiky trees (well, they are actually kinda spiky to look at anyway). It was good to see that the CV did no worse than the Biogon, which IMO (and Sean Reid produces very smooth bokeh. I imagine that the observations I made (on both lenses) are the sort of things that the CV bashers had seized upon in order to criticise the bokeh; however, I suspect most lenses would have had the same problem due to the brightness of the sky and relative darkness of the trees combined with sky overexposure.

All in all I am of the view that this is an exceptional lens in all regards. Mine appears to have all four corners equally sharp and to all intents and purposes ti produces all the performance of the 35 f 2 biogon just without the speed. The only areas of lesser performance remain slightly more vignetting at wider apertures and marginally lower edge resolution at the same apertures. By f5.6 it is at the top of its game and darned close at f4.

 

[Palaeoboy]

I agree, there have been lots of comments on the bokeh of the two that you mention, but on leica Forum a couple of people went on a rant on how inferior the bokeh of the CV 35 2.5 classic was compared to Leica lenses with 'lct' challenging Sean Reid on the subject (when Sean Reid had tested the lenses in question and lct had not even used a CV 35 2.5 LOL). I found it fairly rude and appeared to be one of those situations where ignorant, prejudiced people demanded the more informed to 'prove their case' a second and third time (especially for them) because they did not like to think the little CV performed so well. There had to be a flaw of course (to stop the CV being worthy of accolade) and bokeh was chosen as the target!

But really most of Seans tests are challengeable in that he ONLY tests on crop factored digitals mainly the M8. I disapprove of the way this is rarely mentioned to people before paying for his site or those that make his results unequivocal for the lenses in general to all users both digital and film. His review of the 40mm Nokton is often mentioned for it being a mediocre lens when on film this isnt the case. I agree that the poor bokeh remarks of Voigtlander lenses are generally made by those who havent used the lens at length and base there opinions on web photos that are specifically highlighted to point out its bad bokeh. Any lens can be induced to produce bad bokeh no matter what brand.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Thanks for posting those observations notturtle. - Ben Marks

 

[sanmich]

Thanks for your boservations.
I would add that sometimes, I find much more useful the (careful) first hand observations of a user than theying to understand what is the sharpness of a lens from eyeballing a low res post.
for the "signature" stuff, examples are great though...(and you could maybe post yours...)

 

[Turtle]

Michael,

One day I will post images, but as I wet print only and as someone with a backlog of project work to print and exhibit, test negs are not about to get anywhere near my enlarger for a while. I will try.

Further use has confirmed a number of things:

I like the small size and as a result of the shortness of the lens and low weight, the balance on a M body is superb. It feels faster in the hand than the biogon. This might seem trivial, but using a one handed grasp and a wrist strap it is noticeable after time. The moral of this story is that when I am shooting in bright light the f2 biogon will be staying at home.... unless the situation call for extremel flare resistance. I still need to find out more about this, but...

The CV is not as flare resistant as the biogon, which is frankly mind blowing. The biogon without a hood is better than the CV with one. Its not that the CV is bad, just that I have gotten used to shooting without any regard for flare. The ZMs have allowed that approach and only very rarely - normally with the 28 - am I bitten. I have suffered flare a few times with the CV, albeit in tough lighting conditions (backlit scenes under strong afghan sun, inside and just outside the frame), but without question, looking at the negs, the Biogon would have delivered a perfect neg without a trace of flare in most cases. I am now trying shooting with a B&W MRC yellow on the front of the CV to see if it improves or worsens the situation. Please, do not get me wrong here, I shoot under seriously nasty light some of the time (really bright hazy/cutting sun straight into the frame), and the CV has no issues a lot of the time, but the Zeiss is clearly better wrt flare resitance.

This CV would still be my #1 choice for street shooting over the biogon any day of the week for its size and balance on body. Its an absolute cracker and would likely seem relatively impervious to flare to many shooters not under the sort of sun we get in Afghanistan/ME/US SW etc I suspect it would never flare in the UK 😀

It is also evident the more frames I shoot that the little CV generates slightly less contrast than the biogon, as previously commented. There is nothing harsh about this lens if your exposure and D&P are appropriate to the contrast levels of the lens.

 

[Tom A]

Thanks for your observations regarding the VC 35f2.5II and the ZM 35f2. I confirms my own opinions about it - as being one of the bargains of all time. The performance is quite incredible for a lens costing less than 1/2 of a Biogon and 1/4 of a Summicron.
The size is just about as small as you can go without having problems handling it. The pre-production samples I tried had a slightly different aperture ring and it was tricky to use - the "Summilux" looking ring works much better.
I tend to use mine on a M2 and find it a perfect fit. I do use the hood as, yes, it can flare if the light hits the front element at an oblique angle - but then that is the case with most 35's in my opinion. If you use a UV filter you can get a bit of a flare too - but, then again, that is common for many 35's and wider lenses.
I actually got rid of my Summicron III and IV as I found that I rarely used them and tended to gravitate towards the VC instead. Kept my Summicron 35 V I and my Asph 35f2 - but even they languish in the lens drawer most of the time>