Biogon 35/2 vs. CV Nokton 35/1.2

the_jim

the_jim

human
Local time
11:00 PM
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
390
Location
Portland, OR
View My Gallery
Ok. This might get a little confusing, so I'll just ask my question first, then explain my meandering thoughts below. So:

Which would you choose - the Biogon 35/2 or the Nokton 35/1.2?

Now, the thoughts:
I realize that the size, weight, veiwfinder blockage, and speed between these lenses is very different, but their price is almost the same (which is pretty important).

I have gone through all the posts I can find, and looked at many sample images, yet I still can't make a decision. The Biogon is smaller, lighter, and optically great (according to the internet), but I have yet to see many pictures from it that really stun me. On the other hand, the Nokton is a massive chunk of brass with quite a few wonderful pictures floating around the web.

Currently, I have a 50/2 Planar for my Ikon, and it is great. It's markedly different from the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AIS and 50mm f/1.2 AIS that I use on my FM3a. But, 50's are just too wide sometimes, and 35mm is a very comfortable focal length for me.

I use a Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AIS on my FM3a and it is great from f/2 and beyond, but so soft at f/1.4, which basically renders it useless at that aperature (though, it can make for a pleasant effect at times).

So, to add to my previous question:
*how do the Zeiss and CV lenses compare at f/2 in real world situations (not test shots of newspapers)?
*how does the CV compare to the Nikkor at f/1.4 in terms of sharpness and contrast?

I know this is long, and I apologize, but many of you on this forum have a lot of great insight. Any help would be appreciated.
 
Well, the size difference is pretty big.

The Nokton is 63mm x 77.8mm and weighs 490 grams.

The Biogon is 51.8mm x 43.3mm and weighs 240 grams.

And, I think your Biogon shots are really impressive. Well, your shots in general, are pretty nice.
 
Thank you! anyhow it is almost two times smaller and lighter, what are we talking about? anyhow I find biogon 35mm to be closer to 50 plannar and not 25 or 21mm biogons, I don`t think twise using it wide open 🙂
 
I think the issue comes down to whether you need f1.2 or not! If you do not and f2 is fine , go for the smaller lighter lens. I would not read too much into what you see on the web in terms of directly evaluating images. You cannot see much from a 72 dpi web image, but can see depth of field issues of course. Perhaps this wide open soft background look is what you liked about the images you have seen from the 35 1.2 images?
 
This one is wide open
india038.jpg
 
most of these appear to be wide open or near it:

http://kazuyank.plala.jp/archives/category/31341_nok3512exp.php?page=1

The Nokton 35/1.2 is a superb lens in optics, sharpness (across the range), and OOF rendition. The size is larger than most RF lenses, but about similar to the Nikkor 50/1.2 or 50/1.4 AIS. So it is not as big as people think, but it is not petite. 52mm filter size as the 50/1.2 and 50/1.4 AIS.

You might want to PM x-ray (Don), he has both lenses and he seems to love both. Don is an excellent photographer and would be able to give you specific answers about the differences between the Nokton and Biogon.

good luck, you won't lose either way 🙂
 
Jim: I'd like to address one comment in your original post. I think it is fair to say that it is the photographer who makes the picture and not the lens. This is not to say that that the lens doesn't matter, but I think that pictures on the web can only give you a feel for the qualities of a lens. Now this is just conjecture, but I think it is possible that you would find more "great" pictures posted on the net from superfast lenses as a proportion of total pictures posted from a particular lens type (such as normal-speed lenses), for a variety of reasons. The first is that these lenses encourage the photographer to risk more, because they can be used in such demanding situations. I realize that the above is total conjecture, but I'd like to offer it as an idea.

Now having said that, I think the answer to your question really depends on the way in which you use your camera. The Nockton is a great lens and can give you results that the Biogon won't, but the Nockton is also larger. If you don't do a lot of available-darkness photography, then the Biogon might be the better choice, because you won't really be getting a "return" for the premium of weight and size. I am assuming that purchasing both is not an option.

It has often been observed that one could afford a tripod and a lot of film for the price difference between much superfast glass and its less exotic cousins.

Good luck in your choice -- I own the Nockton and not the Biogon, but based on what I've seen, fundamentally both lenses can give great results.

Ben Marks
 
I bought the Nokton.

Len size is really not an issue with me. (My "normal" lens is a Tri-Elmar.)

This lens opens up a different world, different possibilities.

Explore your world. Get a Nokton.
 
I agree with many of the above points, and I feel like they have been thoroughly addressed in other threads. Yes, web images don't do justice to prints, but all things being equal, they do give the viewer an idea of what the lens can do. And, that being said, a more dramatic depth of field, as represented by a 1.2 lens can look far more appealing (atleast to me).

Now on to my second question - how does the Nokton perform at f/2? On Erwin Puts' site, he gives it a fairly ho-hum review, but I think it might have looked a little different had the lens been branded Leica with a big red dot. I digress...

I ask this question, only because I see a marked improvement of my Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 at f/2. I dont want to beat a dead horse, but can someone compare the two rangefinder lenses and also compare performance to the SLR lens? I realize that may be a strange question.

I know that the Nokton is bigger and heavier, but if it performs well at f/2 and usably (hopefully better than my nikkor) wide open, then it seems like a good choice.

Also, thanks to everyone for their input. I appreciate it greatly.
 
Well if size does not mater, why don`t we all use SLR`s 🙂 I realy don`t understand people with tri-elmars, its like leica thought about american market and developed tri-elmar 😀
 
If you need to shoot often in very low light, then the Nokton 35/1.2 is the best choice.

Otherwise, the Biogon 35/2 would be best. It is smaller. It has minimal distortion, and it has great contrast. The Biogon is certainly more resistant to flare.

I also use a Nikkor 35/2 AIS on my F3 SLR. The Biogon is better than the Nikkor in every way. At the same time your Nikkor 35/1.4 is better than the 35/2 version, according to reviewers.

The best of both worlds would be the Leica 35/1.4 ASPH. Of course this lens is in an altogether different price range.

In my limited experience, wickedly fast lenses (< 1.4) are really specialty lenses. When you need them, they are worth every penny. When you don't require that speed, then they are not cost effective.

If I was faced with this decision I would get the Biogon.

willie
 
Nachkebia said:
Well if size does not mater, why don`t we all use SLR`s 🙂 I realy don`t understand people with tri-elmars, its like leica thought about american market and developed tri-elmar 😀
Click to expand...

Chevrolet Tri-Elmar El-Dorado :angel:
 
the_jim said:
Ok. This might get a little confusing, so I'll just ask my question first, then explain my meandering thoughts below. So:

Which would you choose - the Biogon 35/2 or the Nokton 35/1.2?

Now, the thoughts:
I realize that the size, weight, veiwfinder blockage, and speed between these lenses is very different, but their price is almost the same (which is pretty important).

I have gone through all the posts I can find, and looked at many sample images, yet I still can't make a decision. The Biogon is smaller, lighter, and optically great (according to the internet), but I have yet to see many pictures from it that really stun me. On the other hand, the Nokton is a massive chunk of brass with quite a few wonderful pictures floating around the web.

Currently, I have a 50/2 Planar for my Ikon, and it is great. It's markedly different from the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AIS and 50mm f/1.2 AIS that I use on my FM3a. But, 50's are just too wide sometimes, and 35mm is a very comfortable focal length for me.

I use a Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AIS on my FM3a and it is great from f/2 and beyond, but so soft at f/1.4, which basically renders it useless at that aperature (though, it can make for a pleasant effect at times).

So, to add to my previous question:
*how do the Zeiss and CV lenses compare at f/2 in real world situations (not test shots of newspapers)?
*how does the CV compare to the Nikkor at f/1.4 in terms of sharpness and contrast?

I know this is long, and I apologize, but many of you on this forum have a lot of great insight. Any help would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Hi Jim,
I bought the 35 1.2 for my R-D1.Its a great lens but I just didn't like the weight so I returned it for the 35 1.7 Ultron, I am really happy with the ultron..
 
the_jim said:
Yes, web images don't do justice to prints, but all things being equal, they do give the viewer an idea of what the lens can do.
I know that the Nokton is bigger and heavier, but if it performs well at f/2 and usably (hopefully better than my nikkor) wide open, then it seems like a good choice..
Click to expand...

I dont agree. Resolution is so poor you can glean nothing about resolution, and then consider the varying USM and contrast tweaks posters use.....Web images tell you about DOF only. You rarely see comparisons of different lenses shooting the same subject so you learn little about bokeh either so really you can learn about a 'generic 35mm f 1.2 look and thats about it. How many times have we seen, "Oh and the bokeh here is horrid whereas here it is to die for..." when the subjects are different, at different distances and in different lighting...the list goes on.

All I am trying to say is that unless someone owns both and does a direct test for you, the best you are liekly to glean from the web is anecdotal information from people who own one of the two lenses. I think it boils down to this:

If you want f 1.2 either for speed or OOF rendition, you have to buy the Nokton.
If you want the best sharpness and contrast across the field get the biogon.

The following link should give you a feel for both lenses:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/fastlensreview.shtml

Hope it helps. BTW I totally disagree with one comment on the review and that is regarding build. Make no mistake, the Zeiss lenses feel as well made as Leica but granted only time will tell if this bears out.
 
most modern lens are good enough, especially on a digital sensor with crop factor, both the biogon 35 and nokton 35 are superbly built, the ultron a tad less.
the nokton is heavy, you can actually remove the hood if you don't want to your viewfinder blocked.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shab
A 35mm lens for a Nikon FM3A
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Dogman
Dogman
bucs
S3 2000 vs. S3 Olympic
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
NIKON KIU
NIKON KIU
jaredangle
W/NW: Mechanical Scenes
Replies
11
Views
655
Solanum
S
stephen_lumsden
Pre-war biogon 35mm f2.8 vs Planar 35mm f3.5
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
TenEleven
TenEleven
aoresteen
Voigtlander 50mm f/1.0 For Nikon SP?
Replies
7
Views
499
former member
F
Back
Top Bottom