Huck Finn
Well-known
Turtle said:
Well said. 🙂
Biogon 35/2 vs. CV Nokton 35/1.2
- Thread starter the_jim
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 31
- Views 7K
Well said. 🙂
kevin m
Veteran
What? 😕 While it's perhaps accurate to say you can't make any final judgements about print resolution on the web, it's entirely possible to make resolution comparisons between lenses based on web images. A level playing field is all that's required.
I'm attaching two 100% image crops shot with two different lenses moments apart. Looking at the screen I can see that one lens has slightly better resolution and contrast, and a warmer look than the other. Guess what, those differences are visible in a print, too. 🙂
Attachments
Huck Finn
Well-known
Kevin, I have no idea which lenses those were shot with, but that sure is one cute little girl! 😉
x-ray
Veteran
In reading this thread i would have to agree with many of the statements here. I have the 35 biogon, Nokton and v4 summicron plus the 35 1.4 L canon. When I was heavy into Nikon a few years ago I had both the 35 f1 and f2 manual and autofocus. In years past i had the v1 summicron and v1 summilux plus a 35 1.4 distagon for my rolleis 3003 system. Let me start by saying any one of these lenses will earn a photographer a good living. None are terrible with the exception of flare problems in the 35 v1 summilux. On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being max flare under adverse conditions the v1 summilux is a 9. Resolution was good for the time but nothing to brag about today. My second least favorite is the Distagon 35 1.4 that the front element fell out of. Before and after the lens was only good to average. Third from the bottom is the Nikkor f2 at only average in performance. It's not bad but not great.
I have no direct comparisons between each lens but do have a great deal of professional experience under good and bad shooting conditions with all of this glass. There are so many variables in shooting conditions, film, scanner, and personal technique it's very difficult to make a reasonable conclusion from images on the net so it really comes down to faith over anything else.
I'll start by saying the Nokton is exceptional in every way. at 1.2 it's certainly a usable f stop and in a class all it's own. I've seen very few lenses that didn't inprove to a degree when stopped down and the Nokton is no exception. At 1.2 the lens does not have the resolution and contrast that it does at 4 or 5.6 but again these wide apertures are nothing to shy away from. I shot the v1 summilux 35 for many years and without reservation will say the Nokton is much better in resolution, contrast and flare resistance over the old summilux. The summilux flared easily and the Nokton is difficult to make flare even at 1.2 with very strong direct light into the lens. On a scale of 1-10 it would rate a 2.5 in flare. Construction of the Nokton is exceptional and up with some of the vintage Leica lenses and better than the lenses in the late 70's into the 90's. The Nokton feels much like my Leitz lenses from the 60's but larger. I would not hesitate to use the Nokton if it was my only 35mm lens, it's that good. One thing to keep in mind regarding shooting at 1.2 to f2. Generally these apertures are used when light is very low and conditions are less than ideal. The conditond that I use this lens do not lend themselves to optimum quality in prints. Most of us will never shoot 1.2 in ideal conditions. When conditions warrent 1.2 to 2 the Nokton will deliver the goods with ease.
The Biogon is my favorite 35mm lens at the moment. Of all the 35's that I've used it has the best balance of contrast and resolution that i used. Wide open the lens is exceptional with wide open performance only improving slightly when stopped down. Flare resistance is second to none with beautiful creamy tonality. Mechanically it's excellent and ergonomics are ideal in my opinion. I find the 35 summicron v4 too small and cramped for my taste.
If I could only own one 35mm this would be the one. If I had to have the 1.2 and could only have one 35mm then the Nokton would be the one. Either lens is excellent and to see a real difference at given f stops I feel one would have to make prints of 20 inches or larger. Both will deliver the goods so it really comes down to whether you want or need the ultra speed of the Nokton.
I have no direct comparisons between each lens but do have a great deal of professional experience under good and bad shooting conditions with all of this glass. There are so many variables in shooting conditions, film, scanner, and personal technique it's very difficult to make a reasonable conclusion from images on the net so it really comes down to faith over anything else.
I'll start by saying the Nokton is exceptional in every way. at 1.2 it's certainly a usable f stop and in a class all it's own. I've seen very few lenses that didn't inprove to a degree when stopped down and the Nokton is no exception. At 1.2 the lens does not have the resolution and contrast that it does at 4 or 5.6 but again these wide apertures are nothing to shy away from. I shot the v1 summilux 35 for many years and without reservation will say the Nokton is much better in resolution, contrast and flare resistance over the old summilux. The summilux flared easily and the Nokton is difficult to make flare even at 1.2 with very strong direct light into the lens. On a scale of 1-10 it would rate a 2.5 in flare. Construction of the Nokton is exceptional and up with some of the vintage Leica lenses and better than the lenses in the late 70's into the 90's. The Nokton feels much like my Leitz lenses from the 60's but larger. I would not hesitate to use the Nokton if it was my only 35mm lens, it's that good. One thing to keep in mind regarding shooting at 1.2 to f2. Generally these apertures are used when light is very low and conditions are less than ideal. The conditond that I use this lens do not lend themselves to optimum quality in prints. Most of us will never shoot 1.2 in ideal conditions. When conditions warrent 1.2 to 2 the Nokton will deliver the goods with ease.
The Biogon is my favorite 35mm lens at the moment. Of all the 35's that I've used it has the best balance of contrast and resolution that i used. Wide open the lens is exceptional with wide open performance only improving slightly when stopped down. Flare resistance is second to none with beautiful creamy tonality. Mechanically it's excellent and ergonomics are ideal in my opinion. I find the 35 summicron v4 too small and cramped for my taste.
If I could only own one 35mm this would be the one. If I had to have the 1.2 and could only have one 35mm then the Nokton would be the one. Either lens is excellent and to see a real difference at given f stops I feel one would have to make prints of 20 inches or larger. Both will deliver the goods so it really comes down to whether you want or need the ultra speed of the Nokton.
Last edited:
the_jim
human
Thanks everyone for the very helpful replies. I am going to head to some stores today and test these lenses out. A camera mag here advertised the Biogon used at one the larger camera shops in Tokyo. Who knows, if it feels right, I might get myself an early x-mas present.
wintoid
Back to film
x-ray: I'm curious, how do you rate the Canon 35mm f1.4L in comparison to the other 35s?
kevin m
Veteran
Thanks, Huck. That's my daughter and sometimes model. She accepts graham crackers or Goldfish crackers for payment. 😀
Thanks for all the good input on this thread, everyone! 🙂
KJB
Member
Turtle said:
I disagree. Yes, a web image can give an idea of the fingerprint of a lens. Pixel peeping resolution comparisons? Of course not and that was not the point. I purchased my Noctilux based on sample images off the web. They gave me an idea of what the lens can do and I'm not speaking of resolution or bokeh but the overall look of the images it captures. Not everyone posts heavily postprocessed pictures or have the time to. Though the pp argument has some merit, overall there is something to glean from searching flickr and viewing images taken with a particular lens or camera.
the_jim
human
I went to a couple of shops and they didnt seem to have either lens used, though one of them, had most of the other Zeiss lenses second hand. I ended up picking the Biogon because it was ¥77,000 vs ¥94,000 for the Nokton. I'm looking forward to finishing the roll of Provia 400x I have in my Ikon and to throw in some B/W.
x-ray
Veteran
wintoid said:
The canon 35L is an outstanding lens. I shoot it on 1DsII bodies and find it extremely sharp even at 1.4. The one failing of the lens is chromatic aberations. I tested it against a vintage nikkor 35 2.8 a couople of years ago and it had a sharpness advantage for shure and had dramatically better contrast. The only negative of the 1.4 was noticable chromatic aberations at the edges. The good thing about CA is the ease of cleaning them up in photoshop. The lens tool in the filters or the lens section of the rew converter quickly realign the colors. I would rate it as an 8.5 ot of 10.
Canon like everyone els makes some dogs but they have their stellar glass too. The 85 1.2, 135 f2 and 200 1.8 just can't be beat. If you follow the mtf curves I think the 200 1.8 is the highest of all lenses. I have one and certainly can say it's beyond amazing even at 1.8. The 85 and 135 are close seconds.
MikeL
Go Fish
x-ray said:
x-ray, thanks for all your thoughts on lenses. If one were to only read opinions of certain testers, one would conclude a lot of nice lenses are barely worth owning and just 'acceptable'. Much appreciated,
Mike
x-ray
Veteran
There are very few bad lenses currently made. Twenty years ago it was a different story but now you will have a problem finding a bad lens. CV lenses are excellent and the Zeiss as well.
