Real Life Lens test: 35 Biogon vs CV 35 PII

Avotius

Avotius

Some guy
Local time
6:13 AM
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
3,518
Note: The following lens test contains no newspaper tacked to brick wall shots, just real life street photography.

Ok so now that I got that out of the way, I was lent a silver Zeiss 35 Biogon and took it out for a while and it seems nice. A little large for my bag but nothing I couldn't handle, ergonomics seemed good, I dont like focus tabs either... Results from the lens I have to say didn't seem all that different from my CV 35 PII. Shots around 2.8 with both lenses show lower contrast then stopped down of course but I can’t really say if one is better then the other except the biogon seemed to have more shadow detail. The lenses stopped down, there is hardly any difference.
 
Samples taken on my bessa r2a with Ilford XP2 scanned on Fuji S2000 Frontier scanning station

Biogon at f8

456660546_8888ad62fe_o.jpg


Voigtlander 35 Pancake 2 at f8

456660904_756b1f74a4_o.jpg


Biogon at f2.8

456661276_a1cc50ef69_o.jpg


Voigtlander 35 Pancake 2 at f2.8

456678013_edd1d96035_o.jpg


100% pixel peeping (something I don’t like doing) does show the biogon to be a little sharper but not as much as I would expect, in the real world of hand held shooting and ever changing conditions the difference is not staggering.
 
Real world, I say the Biogon is better then the Voigtlander, just. The Voigtlander lens is no slouch as I have found. Overall I would say the Biogon is much easier to use because of its lack of a focus tab, f2 vs 2.5 (for me I will take ever last photon I can get) and better shadow detail, but this is all an opinion, dont take my word for it. What really disappoints me about this lens is its wide open contrast, which seems kind of icky; it made a few pictures look dull like this one:

f2

456661656_522e48ccea_o.jpg
 
And this one also at f2

456677609_12fd191f22_o.jpg


Note how the XP2 reacts poorly in this situation, and is that a hint of veiling glare I see in the top center of the frame? I didn’t have a hood by the way.

Bottom line for me, if you want a low priced 35mm lens that is reasonably fast and small the Voigtlander lens is a great one to consider. If you got to have the extra speed, better ergonomics and shadow detail the Biogon is a winner.

Btw: Chrome Zeiss lenses are sexy, even on my black bessa r2a.

Btw2: sorry this is spread over so many posts, great wall of china strikes again
 
sebastel said:
see.

but find it hard to realize differences.
Click to expand...


thanks, the last version of this post had problems for some reason, I could see everything but no one else outside of china could
 
i don't really see any difference in shadow detail. maybe a more formal test will be useful. their entire point is to show other people what's going on, after all. you also don't have shots to compare f2 and f2.8, to see if that would have made all the difference.
 
aizan said:
i don't really see any difference in shadow detail. maybe a more formal test will be useful. their entire point is to show other people what's going on, after all. you also don't have shots to compare f2 and f2.8, to see if that would have made all the difference.
Click to expand...


indeed, but what I am trying to show here is that when you use these lenses to take pictures of stuff in the real world instead peeping at them under a microscope that there inst a whole lot in it. Formal tests with news print and brick walls can be found other places and have been detailed to death, this is a practical test of everyday shooting characteristics.
 
Avoitus - you keep stating you're in need of the speed - why not look to the CV 35/1.7 (or for that matter the 35/1.2) both should be cheaper than the Biogon, and still excellent performers.
 
Nice test, THANK'S :)

your shots made me to think about one thing:
how much man must pay for name on photo gear? Till I am waiting for present from RFF - sweet Bessa R2M , every article on net abot RF topic is important to me... on Popphoto site is one interesanting text about RFs in this digital time...
at the end the autor had same conclusion: Cosinas 50mm glas is very similar in performance to Leica & Zeiss ... with one BIG difference : Price
 
rogue_designer said:
Avoitus - you keep stating you're in need of the speed - why not look to the CV 35/1.7 (or for that matter the 35/1.2) both should be cheaper than the Biogon, and still excellent performers.
Click to expand...

I have considered the 1.7 but not the 1.2 (size). But every photo I look at online taken with the 1.7 fails to impress me, been looking at more summilux photos but those dont impress me either. I think im being really picky.
 
Avotius said:
(size)
Click to expand...

agree.
i found it quite easy to give up on the noctilux - its size and weight made it the most left home lens.
now, the c-sonnar is small and light, and serves its purpose quite well.

cannot comment on the CV pancake, but as far as i used it yet, i like the 35 biogon.

zai jian
sebastian
 
Avotius said:
I have considered the 1.7 but not the 1.2 (size). But every photo I look at online taken with the 1.7 fails to impress me, been looking at more summilux photos but those dont impress me either. I think im being really picky.
Click to expand...

Aww - well, I'll try harder to impress you then. ;)
 
Avotius said:
I have considered the 1.7 but not the 1.2 (size). But every photo I look at online taken with the 1.7 fails to impress me, been looking at more summilux photos but those dont impress me either. I think im being really picky.
Click to expand...


in another thread here you said the 1.7 was one of the best?
confused...
 
Avotius said:
indeed, but what I am trying to show here is that when you use these lenses to take pictures of stuff in the real world instead peeping at them under a microscope that there inst a whole lot in it. Formal tests with news print and brick walls can be found other places and have been detailed to death, this is a practical test of everyday shooting characteristics.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting these photos and comments. Given the vagaries of digital display and pixel scrambling, your personal observations are just as helpful as looking at the fine pictures. Experienced photographer's real-world experiences are just as helpful as MTF charts and lpm testing.
 
even if it's a practical test of everyday shooting conditions, you should still be able to make stronger conclusions about these lenses. "seemed" isn't all that convincing.
 
In the pics shown, I like the Biogon pics better. Hard to say exactly why - the CV seems slightly more dull? The lens I'd really like to see go up against the Biogon is the CV 35/1.7 Ultron - still smallish in size, but pretty fast and a lot cheaper than its competition. Any 1.7 users care to comment? I'm shopping for a 35, obviously.
 
Colin, thanks for the comparo.

I keep seeing that the Voigtlander lenses offer tremendous value and now I have a kit of 4 of these (see my sig) which taken all together cost less than $1500. I think I'll muddle through with my CVs for a while until I recover from the sticker shock on the M8!

BTW, have you considered collecting your shots into book form? You have a great eye and I'd love to see a book of your work.
 
I'm using the cv 35 1.7 on my M6 and after testing against 2 samples of 35 summicron-r can say that the cv wide open is sharper than the sum-r's but at around f4-5.6 they equal out. slightly more vignetting wide open with the cv but to my eyes color and contrast seem same. for interest the sum-r's are 9yrs apart but pictures looked identical. My own thoughts are that sharpness of a lens in the corners and edges is not a critical thing unless the style of your photography requires it to be. Mine doesn't and you can end up paying a lot of money for qualities in a lens you will never use or indeed see. CV is a great lens and can be picked up at great prices, the only drawback is that the black rubs off easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom