CV Nokton 35 1.4 or Zeiss Biogon 35 f2?

[BLKRCAT]

Andy, really loving the bokeh on that F2.8! Was the F2 wide open as well? It doesn't look like it if it is.

I'd be open to example shots that best characterize the F2 and 2.8 but Im looking more 35mm format than crop sensor. Full frame shots are also helpful. I just find crop sensor can be a little deceiving.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I have both and like the CV better than the Zeiss. Why? OOF areas are smoother in the CV (to me, this is just my personal opinion).

The Zeiss is a nice, decent lens, but perhaps because of my style and or subjects, I haven't found it any better than the CV. Granted, it's painfully sharp even at f2, but then... there's nothing distinctive. To me (and I am guessing) the CV is a copy of the latest Summilux pre-aspherical (both look the same), and the extra stop and creamy OOF make it a winner. The DOF at f1.4 is very shallow, but sharp enough to create a 3D effect. Look for a thread about photos taken with the CV and you'll find one of mine, a lonely bicycle in Chicago downtown, that shows what I like of this lens.

 

[Brian Legge]

The CV can definitely be smooth in the right conditions. This was probably ~f2:



Here is a shot with a noisy background (a band playing at night, lots of reflections off instruments, stadium lighting in the background). This was wide open:



It holds up pretty well for a non-asph design. At least personally, the distortion is the only real weakness with this lens. Everything else about it is fantastic. Thats the trade-off for the speed though as even the non-asph Summiluxs have similar distortion as I understand it.

 

[2WK]

My vote is for the Nokton, but get the S.C. version.

 

[f16sunshine]

Andy, really loving the bokeh on that F2.8! Was the F2 wide open as well? It doesn't look like it if it is.

I'd be open to example shots that best characterize the F2 and 2.8 but Im looking more 35mm format than crop sensor. Full frame shots are also helpful. I just find crop sensor can be a little deceiving.

No, even though it was a few years ago I'm quite certain I remember that entire series was at f4.

I agree about the crop sensor not being ideal. You do get an idea of the lenses sharpness, acutence (3D), and bokey regardless of sensor size.

 

[froyd]

Your signature lists an M2 as your M body.

In that case, I would strongly recommend the CV. The 1/3 f-stops in the ZM lenses are a real drain on non-metered bodies. Also, the tab on the CV feels very nice to use on a heavy body like the M2.

 

[BLKRCAT]

I already own a CV 35mm 1.4. I'm looking o upgrade to a zeiss lens with some higher quality glass.

Any others with some Biogon 35mm F2 shots out there that best resemble the character of the lens?

 

[redisburning]

yeah... character...

the biogon f2 has that:


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

mid range OoF rendering at f2 is not very good IMO. the f2.8 version definitely does OoF better to me, though the f2 has it's own strengths.

listen, if you're the type to shoot charts or landscapes the Biogon f2 and f2.8 are world class lenses and the CV is just a nice inexpensive character lens. Is technical image quality the most important thing to you? great, the f2 biogon is the strongest 35mm lens at infinity in existence. you will never have to ask if there is a better lens from a numbers standpoint. personally I think the c-biogon is nicer since it's contrast footprint is more similar to the ZF lenses and it loses less contrast as you get closer to MFD. pick your poison.

 

[David_Manning]

Zeiss Biogon 35/2 film rendering:

 

[David_Manning]

Zeiss Biogon 35/2 digital rendering (M9):

 

[froyd]

Zeiss Biogon 35/2 digital rendering (M9):

Nice shots, but I don't think the M9 is an accurate barometer of the lens will perform on film. That sensor has a character of its own! (A wonderful one, mind you).

 

[ferider]

Except for barrel distortion that is trivial to correct in PS, I firmly believe the two lenses are impossible to distinguish in 800x600 jpegs as the ones posted here. Comparing a digital vs. a film photo will show more differences than which of the two lenses was used to take it.

In any case, this is the 35/1.4 MC on Neopan 1600 in Alcatraz 🙂

Roland.

 

[BLKRCAT]

Well Here's what I ended up getting!


Untitled by nownownownow, on Flickr

 

[MIkhail]

listen, if you're the type to shoot charts or landscapes...

Creative type, in other words...

 

[Vincent512]

Well just picked up a VC 35mm 1.4 sc ....cant wait to get it and I will report back.

🙂

 

[BLKRCAT]

last shot from my Nokton before selling it. Ended on a pretty good note.


Untitled by nownownownow, on Flickr

 

[CameraQuest]

Im thinking of upgrading from my cv mc 35mm to a zeiss biogon. Ive searched around but cant find any definitive answer.

I think the biogon will be sharper but will be slower one stop. For you biogon users, do you find you wish you had the extra stop? At f2 im going to assume the zeiss lens wil put out a better image than the nokton. So shooting wide open will yield increased quality.

Thoughts?

Everything else being equal, slower lenses are generally sharper than faster lenses.

That said, there is NO substitute for getting the shot.

Your comparison is not easy because its between apples and oranges, between a slow lens and a faster lens.

IF you get just one great shot at 1.4 that you would have missed with a f/2 lens,
is that reason enough for you to choose which lens ??

Stephen

 

[traveler_101]

I went for the Nokton also. I have a few rolls awaiting development.

 

[bonatto]

Well Here's what I ended up getting!

Good choice. The Biogon is a great all-rounder. Here's one of my favorites on Superia 400 (not sure about the aperture, close to F2).

Enjoy and do post some shots when you have film developed!

 

[kshapero]

If I was stranded on a lonely island somewhere, I would be happy with either one, although they are different.