dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I've been reading a lot of threads here; most of them asking the following question:
I myself have been considering a "smaller" f2 lens vs the Voigtlander Nokton that I currently own. I love the Nokton; awesome even at f1.2 imho but it's a specialty lens and by that I mean the lens is great at f2 but if I'm going to shoot at f2 and onwards it's a bit bulky for a "walk around" 35.
So, in looking at the various 35mm threads over the past week or so, and searching at other sites (LUF, Pnet, etc.) I am now thinking of buying two modern 35mm lenses and putting them up against each other in a simple test. I would, of course, include the Nokton even though it's a "specialty" lens. I was thinking of the current 35 cron ASPH and the Zeiss Biogon 35. The only issue I was wondering about, and couldn't find in any of the Zeiss documentation, was if the Zeiss had aspherical elements. The cron and Nokton both are Aspherical so I want to kind of keep this "informal" shootout "even"
I guess I'm just tired of hearing the "this one's better because of x" or "that one is terrible because of y" and want to see the results for myself.
I know Sean Reid did a comparison (according to what I've read elsewhere) but his site is subscription based and I'm really only interested in the 35 comparison.
So.. I guess what I want to know, before I decide to shell out a lot of $$$$$ and, eventually, end up selling one of the two that I purchased back into the "wild" per se, is regarding the Zeiss Biogon and its elements.
Feel free to comment or call me crazy (if you call me anything else I'll put you on my "watch list" )
Cheers
Dave
and it seems that the question NEVER dies
I myself have been considering a "smaller" f2 lens vs the Voigtlander Nokton that I currently own. I love the Nokton; awesome even at f1.2 imho but it's a specialty lens and by that I mean the lens is great at f2 but if I'm going to shoot at f2 and onwards it's a bit bulky for a "walk around" 35.
So, in looking at the various 35mm threads over the past week or so, and searching at other sites (LUF, Pnet, etc.) I am now thinking of buying two modern 35mm lenses and putting them up against each other in a simple test. I would, of course, include the Nokton even though it's a "specialty" lens. I was thinking of the current 35 cron ASPH and the Zeiss Biogon 35. The only issue I was wondering about, and couldn't find in any of the Zeiss documentation, was if the Zeiss had aspherical elements. The cron and Nokton both are Aspherical so I want to kind of keep this "informal" shootout "even"
I guess I'm just tired of hearing the "this one's better because of x" or "that one is terrible because of y" and want to see the results for myself.
I know Sean Reid did a comparison (according to what I've read elsewhere) but his site is subscription based and I'm really only interested in the 35 comparison.
So.. I guess what I want to know, before I decide to shell out a lot of $$$$$ and, eventually, end up selling one of the two that I purchased back into the "wild" per se, is regarding the Zeiss Biogon and its elements.
Feel free to comment or call me crazy
(if you call me anything else I'll put you on my "watch list" )Cheers
Dave
I think this is an excellent idea.
I always like to know what an image from a lens may look like and having a home for such a display seems like a no brainer.
I would suggest that photos be posted with some technical detail if it is available, film, exposure, hood......
I always like to know what an image from a lens may look like and having a home for such a display seems like a no brainer.
I would suggest that photos be posted with some technical detail if it is available, film, exposure, hood......
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
rover said:
Oh.. of course
I've got my Moleskin still - as compared to that other type of skin that gets snipped away by.. oh.. well.. that's probably TMI anyway
I'm thinking one part of it will be the 'standard' brick wall test using 'standard' equipment - tripod but likely no hood - I'm not a fan of them but do realize that others do use them.
The other part of the test would be 'walk around' - I would carry the three 35's and just pick a spot to sit at and shoot from that spot with both lenses. I may test flare as well but I usually don't point my lenses near the sun lest it burn their wings and they plummet to the earth a la icarus
Cheers,
Dave
40oz
...
maybe this is an ignorant comment, but does it matter if the Biogon has aspheric elements if it is better? or for that matter, worse in some way? I mean, it could have cubic elements and if the result was exceptional, I don't think it would be relevant, you know?
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
40oz said:
Well.. I guess.. in the interest of "science"
I'm trying to limit the variables in the test subjects. I know they're made in different factories, and they come from different far away lands but if I can at least say "ok.. they're all 35mm.. and they're all aspherical.. and they're all M-mount" - to me.. that's about as close as I can get to saying that they're all "modern 35mm lenses".
Dave