Switching from Ultron to Biogon? (Battle of the 35mm)

dkphoto

dkphoto

Established
Local time
10:17 AM
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
80
Greetings!

I've a M8 and a CV Ultron 35 1.7

The Ultron is a really nice lens, it's pretty sharp the bokeh is ok-good and the handling is very good, too.
But over the last weeks i thought about buying something new..

The optical performance of the Biogon T* 35/2 seems to be flawless but i'm not sure if i should go for it.

If i sell the Ultron i would get about 300€, a new Biogon costs about 850€.
So i would pay 550€ for a sharper but slower lens.

So what to do?
Buy the Biogon? Buy a old/used Summilux?
Help me ;)

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Double Negative said:
The 2/35 Biogon is a fine lens. If you don't mind a little slower, the 2,8/35 is smaller and slightly better - certainly wide open. But that shouldn't be a surprise.
Click to expand...

Two of my favorite lenses and I agree with above. The 2.8 has a bit more contrast and is permanently attached to my M6TTL (0.58x). I never use my 2.0 because of this. If I needed the extra stop, I would be happy with the 2.0, but I don't need the extra speed.
 
I took a quick tour of your photo blog. Seeing what you shoot (at least what you've uploaded there), my guess would be that you would be very pleased with the biogon 35 f2 compared to your ultron. The ZM 35 f2 is quite sharp from f2.8 down, has nearly zero distortion, modern contrast (micro "sparkle" too), and resists flare well. All these traits match well to your blog's subject matter, as far as I can tell.

It's not really 550 euros more just for sharpness alone.

Re the c-biogon f2.8 vs the f2 version: I've had both and like both. I'm staying with the f2 because its size works better for me, longer/larger hands and fingers. Also I like the slight softening I get at f2 for the occasional wide portrait of no longer young women especially. I do agree that the c-biogon has nicer bokeh. F2.8 and down they're both nearly indistinguisable as to sharpness, contrast, etc imho. The c-biogon runs more than 150 euros cheaper than the f2 biogon which makes the former one of the all-time bargains in the ZM line along with the 50 planar.
 
Last edited:
I use a ZM-Biogon 35/2 that I bought used from a member on here and love the lens. Could be a wee bit more compact and secretly I'm saving up for a Cron Asph, but on color film (ok, you're talking digital M) it really shines.
 
I sold my Ultron and bought the Biogon... and am completely satisfied. The only thing the Ultron has over this lens is 1/2 stop...
 
Thanks for all your comments!

MCTuomey said:
I took a quick tour of your photo blog. Seeing what you shoot (at least what you've uploaded there), my guess would be that you would be very pleased with the biogon 35 f2 compared to your ultron. The ZM 35 f2 is quite sharp from f2.8 down, has nearly zero distortion, modern contrast (micro "sparkle" too), and resists flare well. All these traits match well to your blog's subject matter, as far as I can tell.

It's not really 550 euros more just for sharpness alone.

Re the c-biogon f2.8 vs the f2 version: I've had both and like both. I'm staying with the f2 because its size works better for me, longer/larger hands and fingers. Also I like the slight softening I get at f2 for the occasional wide portrait of no longer young women especially. I do agree that the c-biogon has nicer bokeh. F2.8 and down they're both nearly indistinguisable as to sharpness, contrast, etc imho. The c-biogon runs more than 150 euros cheaper than the f2 biogon which makes the former one of the all-time bargains in the ZM line along with the 50 planar.
Click to expand...

The Biogon 35 2.8 is too slow for my stlye of photography, i prefer F2 and faster.

Well, the Biogon/2 really seems to be a great deal. I think i really should buy it.
How does it compare to the Summicron ASPH? I could get a used one for a decent price.
And what about the Bokeh compared to the Ultron?

Is 6bit coding with permanent marker possible without problems?
 
If you have a good Ultron and like the handling, I suggest not trading it. Check Reid reviews, it's a very good lens, competitive with the best.

Look for something else, a short tele in combo with a 35 is most useful.
 
I've thought about the same thing myself. Right now my Ultron is good enough for me but if I come across a good 35mm Biogon at the right price, either the F2 or F2.8, I'll probably make the switch.
 
dkphoto said:
Thanks for all your comments!



The Biogon 35 2.8 is too slow for my stlye of photography, i prefer F2 and faster.

Well, the Biogon/2 really seems to be a great deal. I think i really should buy it.
How does it compare to the Summicron ASPH? I could get a used one for a decent price.
And what about the Bokeh compared to the Ultron?

Is 6bit coding with permanent marker possible without problems?
Click to expand...

I can't comment on the biogon f2 compared to the Cron ASPH, but I did have a Cron pre-asph v4 and a biogon at the same time. If I shot mostly f2-f2.8, I'd have kept the Cron despite its unfriendly handling (for me). I'm guessing this would be even more true of the ASPH version. I find the old saw about Leica glass being made to shoot wide open, all the time and anywhere, to be true.

Both 35 biogons vignette a fair amount at wide apertures, by the way. It's easily correctable without coding (I use CornerFix) if it's objectionable.

The Ultron's bokeh is preferable to that of the Biogon f2, to my eye.

I haven't coded my ZM lenses, so I'm can't speak to your coding question.

You might consider subscribing to Sean Reid's site. He has tested and written extensively on 35mm RF lenses, and other FLs too. I humbly disagree with some of his conclusions about Zeiss lenses, but his reviews are top-notch and can save time otherwise spent on lens swapping. And if you want extensive views on Zeiss lenses, check out digilloyd's site.
 
Last edited:
I love my 35 2.8 Biogon but I do wish it were faster. I am used to my Pany with the 1.7 so going to the 2.8 was different. However the Biogon is my only lens and I really love using it regardless. Now trying to think about what my second lens will be. Good times indeed.
 
I'm in the same boat.

In all fairness, I'm happy with the perfs of my Ultron, including near full aperture. What bothers me sometimes is the minimum focusing distance of just 0.9m. Since I'm selling some stuff I no longer use I will have some funds available to upgrade from the Ultron, although common sense would dictate keeping that bargain lens.

The Summicron ASPH has the advantage of being small and sticking to the 39mm filter size, while the Biogon has the advantage of being more affordable and would probably better match my other ZMs (4/18, 2.8/25 and 2/50)...
 
fiatlux said:
I'm in the same boat.
The Summicron ASPH has the advantage of being small and sticking to the 39mm filter size, while the Biogon has the advantage of being more affordable and would probably better match my other ZMs (4/18, 2.8/25 and 2/50)...
Click to expand...

The ZMs do share handling and imaging characteristics consistently. But not filter ring sizes, argh. You'll need 43mm and 46mm sizes, depending on which you select from 25 thru 50 FLs.
 
Double Negative said:
Not a huge deal. What I did was buy all my (B&W color) filters in a 46mm size, and pick up a nice B+W 43/46mm step ring. I don't use filters with the other lenses so much (e.g. Noktons save for ND, Color Skopars at 39mm, etc.). If you plan to use UV/IR filters, it's a little trickier since you don't want to swap them around all the time. At my M8's "peak" I had matching filters for just about everything (39, 43, 46, 52...). Yeah, that sucked.
Click to expand...

Can you use Zeiss bayonet hoods with the step-up ring?
 
Zeiss Biogon

Zeiss Biogon

The 35mm Biogon 2.8 is a killer lens. In good light, I prefer it to my 35mm Summilux ASPH FLE. If you need the extra speed, the CV 35mm Nokton 1.2 is a great lens and alternative to your Ultron, especially for the money.
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom