CV 35 1,4 or ZM 35 2.0

[Penceler]

I'm sure this has been well discussed but I would appreciate some help.

Any thoughts on how these two lenses compare? I would be particularly interested in flare, distortion, contrast and resolution. I have and love the ZM 50 2.0 but it can be a little too contrasty/harsh at times.

Thanks for your help.

 

[ferider]

The Biogon is like your Planar. Sharp, contrasty, distortion free.

The Nokton is similar to a pre-asph Summilux with less flare, i.e., lots of "character". Some barrel distortion, focal plane curvature, OOF that you love or hate. It is sharp however, not soft at all. Plus one stop faster and smaller than the Biogon.

Check out the M-mount flickr group. I have some Nokton shots in my gallery, too.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[noimmunity]

The Biogon is virtually flare-free. The OOF transitions are very smooth. Color is highly saturated. Distortion and corner performance are the best in their FL. If you don't need the smaller size and extra stop of the 35/1.4 Nokton, get the Biogon.

If you want fast, really fast, and lower contrast yet with modern attributes (color, flare resistance) and beautiful OOF rendering, have a look at the Nokton 35/1.2 .

 

[MCTuomey]

sounds like the solution is to own both ...

 

[Penceler]

CV 35 1,4 or ZM 35 2.0

So it sounds like the feeling is that the Biogon is the better all around performer but the Nokton may have more personality (for better or worse) and more speed? Perhaps the Norton is a little more suited to both digital and B&W?

The extra speed of the 1.4 does nothing for me but does allow one to stop down a bit so perhaps the Nokton is the better performer a f 2.0? I am very pleased with the Zeiss 50 so perhaps I would be better served keeping it in the family. I've also heard some bad stories of the Nokton on an M8. Not an issue now as I use an R2 but perhaps in the future it would be an concern. Just typing out loud here!

I have to say I am impressed with the CV 75 2.5 and with the 50 and with either 35 I have pretty much all that is needed (for me). It sounds like I really can't go wrong either here - oh such problems.

Please, keep the opinions coming.

Thanks

John

 

[Bob Michaels]

I do not own the CV 35mm 1.4 but do own and use the Zeiss Biogon 35mm 2.0.

The Biogon is a rock solid all around superb performer with no faults. It will allow your ideas, and only those, to be captured on film. It adds nothing, takes away nothing. I would even say it is "characterless" which is exactly what I want.

I have thought about also buying the CV 35mm 1.4 for those rare occasions when I would need the speed. Then I realized I would never carry both and could not do without the ZM 35mm.

 

[Penceler]

Wow - that's an endorsement

Wow - that's an endorsement

God help me, you mean it's all up to the photographer????

I am (obviously) leaning towards the Biogon but needed some help justifying the extra dollars. I think you just gave it to me.

Thanks

 

[Penceler]

Nobody special takes some seriously special photos

Nobody special takes some seriously special photos

Thanks for the advice

John

 

[jreid]

I've used both on the M8 and found that the CV 1.4 is about as sharp as the Z 2.0 at f/2 but at 2.8 and smaller the Zeiss is sharper. I use the CV for the extra stop in low light. Otherwise the Zeiss is on my M8 most of the time.

 

[back alley]

zm 35/2.8

great lens

 

[Turtle]

Unless you absolutely must have the speed, I would go for the Biogon. Its an incredible all rounder. It may be a bit contrasty for digital use in harsh light, but for B&W, if your images are 'harsh' downrate your film by half a stop and reduce development by 15-20% and take it from there. With correct exposure and development to suit the ZMs, the only thing left will be creamy, razor sharp negs, which may or may not be your bag. If not, use a less crisp film like FP4 instead of Delta 100 and TriX/HP5 instead of Tmax 400/D400.

If you buy into ZM lenses for B&W I would recommend ensuring all your lenses are of similar contrast to ensure the same exposure and development works no matter which lense you use. Leica asphs, ZMs, CV colour Skopars all go well together.

 

[Bobfrance]

Coincidentally, I've been looking for a fast 35mm lens for my line-up.

I currently have the Zeiss 50/2 Planar and the 28/2.8 Biogon.

Having tried a few contenders my experience so for is:

I decided against looking at the ZM 35mm as I wanted a lens with a different character and behaviour to that which I already have. Plus I wanted a good low light lens that would work as a daytime carry-about lens too.

All tried on my M8.

35mm Summilux 1.4 ASPH
Superb, beautifully creamy rendering yet, pin sharp. I want this lens badly!

Nokton 35mm 1.2
First impressions - huge! Strangely I found it to produce images that were a little dull and flat in daylight. This seems at odds with other peoples experience, so I think I may have to try this one again.

Canon LTM 35mm 1.5
This really surprised me. I tried it at the same time as the Nokton. It's colours were stronger and the image was just more vibrant the the Nokton. I was nice and compact, but I really disliked the fiddly controls.

Nokton 35mm 1.4
Not tried this yet. On paper it looks like the perfect solution for me, however going off the shots I've seen using it I find the 'bubbly' bokeh it produces to be intrusive.

To conclude. I think I have to decide whether to wait, save up (and sell some organs) and buy the Summilux. My other options are to buy something which is a little more of a compromise in size/rendering characteristics.
The third option is to look at 50mm as that FL presents some additional choices.
As for the Summilux. It could be done but I do have trouble justifying spending that much on a lens, especially when - up till now - I've not been much of a low light shooter.

Good luck with your quest. I look forward to seeing how you get on. 🙂

Bob.