jayavant
Member
I am torn between the Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2 and the Voigtländer Noktor 35mm f/1.2.
Can't afford the Leitz lenses, don't like the look of the Voigt 1.4.
Any comments or experiences with these lenses?
Oh - I'll be using it on an M5 so size is not a problem. In fact I think the larger lens will balance the M5 well.
Can't afford the Leitz lenses, don't like the look of the Voigt 1.4.
Any comments or experiences with these lenses?
Oh - I'll be using it on an M5 so size is not a problem. In fact I think the larger lens will balance the M5 well.
teleparallel
Established
If size is not a problem, I'd say go with the voigtlander. It's considered pretty good in any review you can find. It won't cost more. And you have SPEED!
nikku
Well-known
The Voigt 35/1.2 is great. I love the way it renders.
honozooloo
Established
I've owned and used both the Biogon 35mm f/2 and the Voigtlander Nokton 35 1.2 (Version II) extensively on my Bessa R3a, M6, and M8.
I shoot a lot of dusk/nighttime stuff so I've always been a speed junkie. The Biogon was great but it produced too "modern" an image for my taste, and it was also just a little too contrasty for my taste on film. Underexposed, the Biogon tended to crush shadow areas into blackness more readily than the Nokton. Dare I say, the output from the Biogon + M8 just looked too much like the output from any number of "modern" lens and sensor combos made by Canon. I gravitated towards the 35 nokton 1.4 MC for its astigmatism aka "swirl" and classic look...I wanted my images to have a bit of signature to them, if I wanted "boring" and modern I'd just use a 5D+35L.
The Biogon (and eventually the 35mm 1.2 nokton) were my go-to "modern" looking lenses. I eventually settled on the Nokton 1.2 (version II) because wide-open, it wasn't as "perfect" as the Biogon, although it is still a hard lens to find serious fault with. The 35mm nokton 1.2 was a great compromise between signature and IQ, without having to spend $3k+ on a Summilux ASPH...hell I basically spent $3k on the nokton AND my M8.
The 35mm 1.2 was a LOT sharper than I'd expected and as far as I can see, it isn't as contrasty as the Biogon up to about f4. From around f5.6-on I have trouble telling the two apart sharpness-wise, although the Biogon always looked slightly more contrasty (hence slightly "sharper"), and was more likely to blow highlights the way I shot it, both on 35mm and digital. The merits/caveats of the 35 1.2 and the Biogon have been demonstrated all over RFF, so I won't talk about it too much here.
Personally, I preferred the Nokton 1.2's background-destroying shallow DOF and its milder contrast. Both lenses were sharp enough for my needs, and then some. f/1.2 isn't something you need everyday but when you need it, it's always great to have. The Biogon was contrastier, slightly sharper at wide apertures, and under the right conditions exhibited that Zeiss 3D "pop" that some like. I kept the Nokton for its speed and versatility.
Both lenses are excellent choices, so there's really no right or wrong answer here. The decision would probably come down to your own taste.
In my opinion, you'd be better off with the 35mm nokton If I recall correctly, the M5's metering was designed to work with the 50mm Noctilux under low-light conditions. If so, why not pair it with a fast 35mm?
One big difference between the two ergonimically (besides the obvious things like size or weight) is that the Nokton's focus ring has a much longer throw and lacks a focusing tab (like the Noctilux). Weird unrelated side note, I got to demo a brand spanking new Noctilux and the focus wasn't as smooth as the Nokton's (!!!!). The Biogon has that weird metal nipple on its focus ring and a "traditional" short rangefinder focus throw which should feel familiar to M shooters, while the Nokton's throw is more like a Nikon AI lens. Both the Biogon and the Nokton's focus feels nice and smooth in actual use. Oh and the Nokton close focuses to .5m, where most (if not all, I'm no Leica expert) Leica RF patches only focus to .7 meters. This feels weird when you're close focusing for the first time and you feel the ring keep moving even after the patch stops, and the.5m focus stop still inspires a little "did I get it?" nervousness whenever I take a close shot. The Nokton's longer throw takes a little getting used to, and makes the Nokton a little slower if you're into the whole zone focusing and "from the hip" thing. After readjusting to the Nokton's longer throw, I found that it really helped me to get more accurate critical focus, which is important when shooting with DOF that narrow.
One last thing to consider: I know you said you'd use it with your M5, but if you ever plan on using it on a digital M, try to find a copy of the 35mm Nokton Version II, as the first version has had issues focusing on digital M bodies. The Biogon worked fine on every camera I mounted it to.
I don't know if you're dead set on the 35mm focal length, but I've also had a lot of experience with the CV 40mm 1.4 Nokton SC (came with my Bessa)...it doesn't vignette as heavily or show the kind of astigmatism that the 35 Nokton Classic does, and in the copy I've tried the 40mm seemed to be a hair sharper at wide apertures. Might be worth considering as well, since it's even more affordable, and I love the ergonomics of small RF lenses.
Hope this helps!
I shoot a lot of dusk/nighttime stuff so I've always been a speed junkie. The Biogon was great but it produced too "modern" an image for my taste, and it was also just a little too contrasty for my taste on film. Underexposed, the Biogon tended to crush shadow areas into blackness more readily than the Nokton. Dare I say, the output from the Biogon + M8 just looked too much like the output from any number of "modern" lens and sensor combos made by Canon. I gravitated towards the 35 nokton 1.4 MC for its astigmatism aka "swirl" and classic look...I wanted my images to have a bit of signature to them, if I wanted "boring" and modern I'd just use a 5D+35L.
The Biogon (and eventually the 35mm 1.2 nokton) were my go-to "modern" looking lenses. I eventually settled on the Nokton 1.2 (version II) because wide-open, it wasn't as "perfect" as the Biogon, although it is still a hard lens to find serious fault with. The 35mm nokton 1.2 was a great compromise between signature and IQ, without having to spend $3k+ on a Summilux ASPH...hell I basically spent $3k on the nokton AND my M8.The 35mm 1.2 was a LOT sharper than I'd expected and as far as I can see, it isn't as contrasty as the Biogon up to about f4. From around f5.6-on I have trouble telling the two apart sharpness-wise, although the Biogon always looked slightly more contrasty (hence slightly "sharper"), and was more likely to blow highlights the way I shot it, both on 35mm and digital. The merits/caveats of the 35 1.2 and the Biogon have been demonstrated all over RFF, so I won't talk about it too much here.
Personally, I preferred the Nokton 1.2's background-destroying shallow DOF and its milder contrast. Both lenses were sharp enough for my needs, and then some. f/1.2 isn't something you need everyday but when you need it, it's always great to have. The Biogon was contrastier, slightly sharper at wide apertures, and under the right conditions exhibited that Zeiss 3D "pop" that some like. I kept the Nokton for its speed and versatility.
Both lenses are excellent choices, so there's really no right or wrong answer here. The decision would probably come down to your own taste.
In my opinion, you'd be better off with the 35mm nokton If I recall correctly, the M5's metering was designed to work with the 50mm Noctilux under low-light conditions. If so, why not pair it with a fast 35mm?
One big difference between the two ergonimically (besides the obvious things like size or weight) is that the Nokton's focus ring has a much longer throw and lacks a focusing tab (like the Noctilux). Weird unrelated side note, I got to demo a brand spanking new Noctilux and the focus wasn't as smooth as the Nokton's (!!!!). The Biogon has that weird metal nipple on its focus ring and a "traditional" short rangefinder focus throw which should feel familiar to M shooters, while the Nokton's throw is more like a Nikon AI lens. Both the Biogon and the Nokton's focus feels nice and smooth in actual use. Oh and the Nokton close focuses to .5m, where most (if not all, I'm no Leica expert) Leica RF patches only focus to .7 meters. This feels weird when you're close focusing for the first time and you feel the ring keep moving even after the patch stops, and the.5m focus stop still inspires a little "did I get it?" nervousness whenever I take a close shot. The Nokton's longer throw takes a little getting used to, and makes the Nokton a little slower if you're into the whole zone focusing and "from the hip" thing. After readjusting to the Nokton's longer throw, I found that it really helped me to get more accurate critical focus, which is important when shooting with DOF that narrow.
One last thing to consider: I know you said you'd use it with your M5, but if you ever plan on using it on a digital M, try to find a copy of the 35mm Nokton Version II, as the first version has had issues focusing on digital M bodies. The Biogon worked fine on every camera I mounted it to.
I don't know if you're dead set on the 35mm focal length, but I've also had a lot of experience with the CV 40mm 1.4 Nokton SC (came with my Bessa)...it doesn't vignette as heavily or show the kind of astigmatism that the 35 Nokton Classic does, and in the copy I've tried the 40mm seemed to be a hair sharper at wide apertures. Might be worth considering as well, since it's even more affordable, and I love the ergonomics of small RF lenses.
Hope this helps!
umcelinho
Marcelo
"size is not a problems" reads "get the 35/1.2 nokton v2 already!"
v1 is less expensive than v2 but v2 has better oof light circle rendition than v1, which has the "bullseye/onion rings" effect. also, v2 is slightly less heavy and less big.
i'm considering selling my v1 to help fund a v2.
v1 is less expensive than v2 but v2 has better oof light circle rendition than v1, which has the "bullseye/onion rings" effect. also, v2 is slightly less heavy and less big.
i'm considering selling my v1 to help fund a v2.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Given these two choices, I would get the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2.
A while back, I had a copy of the Voigtlander 35/1.2 version 1 and sold it off.
BIG mistake.
A while back, I had a copy of the Voigtlander 35/1.2 version 1 and sold it off.
BIG mistake.
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
i dare to differ in my opinion.
i used to use the nokton (v1) and the biogon, and i sold the nokton - without regret.
it's not the images it produces. they are sublime.
it's not the size. actually it handles quite nicely.
it's the weight. far too heavy!
cheers,
sebastian
i used to use the nokton (v1) and the biogon, and i sold the nokton - without regret.
it's not the images it produces. they are sublime.
it's not the size. actually it handles quite nicely.
it's the weight. far too heavy!
cheers,
sebastian
Never Satisfied
Well-known
I have the V1 35/1.2 and it was my most used lens on my m8.2, had the Biogon and sold it due to it being too slow for my needs.
Now I've sold my m8, I wish I had the Biogon back because of it's size and I find I leave the 1.2 at home because I find it too big.
Andrew.
Now I've sold my m8, I wish I had the Biogon back because of it's size and I find I leave the 1.2 at home because I find it too big.
Andrew.
jayavant
Member
Thanks for your answers folks. My other cameras are mostly large and medium format so I never really consider any 35mm camera to be heavy.
The 40/1.4 SC is certainly interesting too esp as I know where I can get one cheaply at the moment. My only concern with it is the lack of bright lines. I have a friend who shoots with one on his M6 and loves it. He says he just estimates. I may get one for my M3.
The 40/1.4 SC is certainly interesting too esp as I know where I can get one cheaply at the moment. My only concern with it is the lack of bright lines. I have a friend who shoots with one on his M6 and loves it. He says he just estimates. I may get one for my M3.
Jabberwockt
Newbie
The only thing i would put against the VC35/1.2 is the weight. Other than that, i think the rendering is lovely: relatively smooth bokeh with a hint of swirl, moderate contrast, and generally a gentle dreamlike rendering.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
This is a great post. But just for the record, the problem with the Version 1 was that early production models could not focus to infinity on the M8 and required modification. Soon after the M8 came out, all subsequent production models of the CV 35/1.2 came factory-modded.
The CV Nokton 35/1.2 is probably the only super fast 35 in M mount, save the new Leica 35/1.4 FLE (if I remember correctly), that doesn't exhibit any significant focus shift.
gooseta
Established
The 35mm f1.4 Voigt is pretty much the same as the 40, small, light, and surprisingly good at 1.4/
jayavant
Member
Re the digital advice. I don't shoot digital. Thanks though.
With the help of a friend, i bought a secondhand 35/1.2 v2 today from a camera store in Brisbane, Australia. Should have it next week. Thanks for all your help.
With the help of a friend, i bought a secondhand 35/1.2 v2 today from a camera store in Brisbane, Australia. Should have it next week. Thanks for all your help.
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
if it's not too much trouble, i'd like to ask you to use it for some weeks, and then update this thread with your impressions. i'm curious!
enjoy that beast. it is unique.
cheers,
sebastian
enjoy that beast. it is unique.
cheers,
sebastian
Monochrom
Well-known
Hi, i had the biogon 2/35...i wouldn´t recomend it, at f2 has focus shift and is not very good at that aperture...but from 2.8 on i found it better tahn many leica lenses....
I´d suggest you the excellent biogon 35 f2.8...better than my summicron v4 and better than my summilux pre aspherical...
I don´t like shooting leica lenses....zeiss are often better and far cheaper...
I wouldn´t use a VC 35/1.2...it´s way too large and from i know the perfromance at 1.2 is nothing impressive...
Cheers!
I´d suggest you the excellent biogon 35 f2.8...better than my summicron v4 and better than my summilux pre aspherical...
I don´t like shooting leica lenses....zeiss are often better and far cheaper...
I wouldn´t use a VC 35/1.2...it´s way too large and from i know the perfromance at 1.2 is nothing impressive...
Cheers!
raid
Dad Photographer
Both options are great lenses to have and use.
Have you considered the Canon 35/2?
I am biased to favor the first version Summicron 35/2.
Have you considered the Canon 35/2?
I am biased to favor the first version Summicron 35/2.