D&A
Well-known
Hi All,
Before I get to my question and ask for your opinion, permit me to qualify a few personal points. The two lenses in question will be used on the M8. I've throughly have read Sean Reid's excellent article and tests on current 35mm rangefinder lenses as well as many other opinions here and elsewhere. In one sense I have a good handle on what to expect specifically with use of the VC 35mm f1.2 and Zeiss ZM 35mm f2 lenses on the M8. I realize everyones expectations, shooting style, requirements are quite different, so here is a brief overview of mine. Please keep in mind that although there are many other fine 35mm rangefinder lenses to consider (both current production and older ones)...I'd like to restrict consideration to just these two lenses (on the M8). I do often shoot wide open under low available light but not exclusively under these conditions. I shoot in color although often convert to B&W. I do value shallow depth of field...meaning often shooting a 35mm close up and near wide open...but again I'm just as likely shooting in good light and at a distance where stopping down and achieving excellent sharpness and detail across the frame is needed. I realize the size/weight difference between these two lenses although the cost difference is not significant.
The one area I can't get quite a handle on comparing these two lenses is the central sharpness, (and to a lesser degree, micro-contrast) when both lenses are shot at f2.0 (wide open for the ZM) and f2.8 . I've seen the comparison shots on Sein Reids website...but if someone had compared say 3-4 different types of images with both lenses simultaniously..both at f2.0 and f2.8 (and maybe f5.6), and the image was examine across the frame and at actual pixels (100%)..I think I'd have a better idea the differences. I realize when one considers corner resolution the Zeiss definitely has the edge at f2 and f2.8. In the central part of the image, the VC 35mm ff11.2 seems to have the advantage...BUT by how much??? Thats the part I'm stuck on...as some say the ZM 35mm f2 is somewhat soft wide open (centrally) when compared tgo the VC 35mm f1.2 at f2 and also soft in comparison to some other 35's). Others say it iss somewhat close to the VC 35mm f1.2 when both lenses are shot at f2.0 It's this center of the frame resolution when both lenses are shot at f2, f2.8 and f4... where opinions widely vary and I'm at aa loss for making some definitive conclusion.
If anyone has shot with both these lenses , feedback would be appreciated. No doubt sharpness and resolution isn't everything as other factors can play an equal or more prominant role (such as bokeh, contrast and how the lens draws it's image)..but for now, central resolution of these two specific lenses at f2 and f2.8 is my primary concern. Thanks very much!
Dave
Before I get to my question and ask for your opinion, permit me to qualify a few personal points. The two lenses in question will be used on the M8. I've throughly have read Sean Reid's excellent article and tests on current 35mm rangefinder lenses as well as many other opinions here and elsewhere. In one sense I have a good handle on what to expect specifically with use of the VC 35mm f1.2 and Zeiss ZM 35mm f2 lenses on the M8. I realize everyones expectations, shooting style, requirements are quite different, so here is a brief overview of mine. Please keep in mind that although there are many other fine 35mm rangefinder lenses to consider (both current production and older ones)...I'd like to restrict consideration to just these two lenses (on the M8). I do often shoot wide open under low available light but not exclusively under these conditions. I shoot in color although often convert to B&W. I do value shallow depth of field...meaning often shooting a 35mm close up and near wide open...but again I'm just as likely shooting in good light and at a distance where stopping down and achieving excellent sharpness and detail across the frame is needed. I realize the size/weight difference between these two lenses although the cost difference is not significant.
The one area I can't get quite a handle on comparing these two lenses is the central sharpness, (and to a lesser degree, micro-contrast) when both lenses are shot at f2.0 (wide open for the ZM) and f2.8 . I've seen the comparison shots on Sein Reids website...but if someone had compared say 3-4 different types of images with both lenses simultaniously..both at f2.0 and f2.8 (and maybe f5.6), and the image was examine across the frame and at actual pixels (100%)..I think I'd have a better idea the differences. I realize when one considers corner resolution the Zeiss definitely has the edge at f2 and f2.8. In the central part of the image, the VC 35mm ff11.2 seems to have the advantage...BUT by how much??? Thats the part I'm stuck on...as some say the ZM 35mm f2 is somewhat soft wide open (centrally) when compared tgo the VC 35mm f1.2 at f2 and also soft in comparison to some other 35's). Others say it iss somewhat close to the VC 35mm f1.2 when both lenses are shot at f2.0 It's this center of the frame resolution when both lenses are shot at f2, f2.8 and f4... where opinions widely vary and I'm at aa loss for making some definitive conclusion.
If anyone has shot with both these lenses , feedback would be appreciated. No doubt sharpness and resolution isn't everything as other factors can play an equal or more prominant role (such as bokeh, contrast and how the lens draws it's image)..but for now, central resolution of these two specific lenses at f2 and f2.8 is my primary concern. Thanks very much!
Dave
ZeissFan
Veteran
Some things to consider:
You realize that when you mount this to the M8, you will not be using the entire lens' image circle, just a portion of it. Corner resolution is no longer an issue, because no part of what would be a corner on 24mm x 36mm falls on the smaller sensor.
The 35mm becomes a 52.5mm. You shouldn't think of these as 35mm lenses, but rather as 50mm lenses, although apparent depth of field will be closer to 35mm than 50mm.
I don't know if you can or should draw a great deal of conclusion from an image on a computer screen because of the inherent limits of video-screen technology compared with an actual print.
You realize that when you mount this to the M8, you will not be using the entire lens' image circle, just a portion of it. Corner resolution is no longer an issue, because no part of what would be a corner on 24mm x 36mm falls on the smaller sensor.
The 35mm becomes a 52.5mm. You shouldn't think of these as 35mm lenses, but rather as 50mm lenses, although apparent depth of field will be closer to 35mm than 50mm.
I don't know if you can or should draw a great deal of conclusion from an image on a computer screen because of the inherent limits of video-screen technology compared with an actual print.
Never Satisfied
Well-known
Hi Dave, I have neither of these lenses, but from research I'm going to buy a CV 35mm f1.2.
As with most things and with budgets in mind your choice will be that of compromise. If you need a lens for its abilities at f1.2 then you have no choice at all. If the majority of your lens use will be at f2.0 and above then I would be going with the Zeiss. The CV lens is huge and the annacdotal information I have on this lens is that most people sell it based on its size and weight, not because of performance issues. Unfortunately you do have a difficult choice, but I think you will come easily to a decision when you decide what you really need it for. Cheers Andrew.
As with most things and with budgets in mind your choice will be that of compromise. If you need a lens for its abilities at f1.2 then you have no choice at all. If the majority of your lens use will be at f2.0 and above then I would be going with the Zeiss. The CV lens is huge and the annacdotal information I have on this lens is that most people sell it based on its size and weight, not because of performance issues. Unfortunately you do have a difficult choice, but I think you will come easily to a decision when you decide what you really need it for. Cheers Andrew.
D&A
Well-known
Hi Mike & Andrew,
Thanks both for your comments and I'll address both of yours in this post. Mike, I do realize that only part of the image circle used in conjunction with the M8 due to the crop factor but even in Sein Reid's testing of these and other 35mm rangefinder lenses on an M8 relvealed quick striking differences in corner sharpness. I've indicated these findings in my original post "above". I also agree about judging digital images on a computer screen...how right this is. I'm been involved in pro digital since it's inception (what seems like eons ago). A while back I had seen some prints from the lenses I mentioned and they confirmed what Sean Reid had observed...but this was with film..not an M8. As an aside, a 35mm lens on a Leica M* is close to 47mm, not 52mm. It is the VC 40mm lens that has a field of view of approx. 53mm on an M8.
Andrew, I agree...if one needs f1.2...it is the only game in town. If you re-read my original post, I had outlined what my needs were and thats why it's a bit of a delema between these two lenses. Even shooting both at F2..it appears the Zeiss cannot match the VC 35mm f1.2 in central sharpness...not even at f2.8....but they appear very close at this f-stop (f2.8). Thats why the hard choice since it only at f2.8 that both these lenses seem to match up in performance (center sharpness wise). As I indicated there are other paramters to judge a lens but at this point it's the level of resolving power between these two lenses on an M* shot at f2 and f2.8 and examining promarily center sharpness.
Thanks both for your comments and I'll await to see if anyone else replies
Thanks both for your comments and I'll address both of yours in this post. Mike, I do realize that only part of the image circle used in conjunction with the M8 due to the crop factor but even in Sein Reid's testing of these and other 35mm rangefinder lenses on an M8 relvealed quick striking differences in corner sharpness. I've indicated these findings in my original post "above". I also agree about judging digital images on a computer screen...how right this is. I'm been involved in pro digital since it's inception (what seems like eons ago). A while back I had seen some prints from the lenses I mentioned and they confirmed what Sean Reid had observed...but this was with film..not an M8. As an aside, a 35mm lens on a Leica M* is close to 47mm, not 52mm. It is the VC 40mm lens that has a field of view of approx. 53mm on an M8.
Andrew, I agree...if one needs f1.2...it is the only game in town. If you re-read my original post, I had outlined what my needs were and thats why it's a bit of a delema between these two lenses. Even shooting both at F2..it appears the Zeiss cannot match the VC 35mm f1.2 in central sharpness...not even at f2.8....but they appear very close at this f-stop (f2.8). Thats why the hard choice since it only at f2.8 that both these lenses seem to match up in performance (center sharpness wise). As I indicated there are other paramters to judge a lens but at this point it's the level of resolving power between these two lenses on an M* shot at f2 and f2.8 and examining promarily center sharpness.
Thanks both for your comments and I'll await to see if anyone else replies
thomasw_
Well-known
i have both of these lenses. they are both great lenses though they function differently and render differently. but the zm is more versatile for me because of its size. for shooting lots of inside scenes, the vc is better: take the vc to the pub! i like the tonal range of the vc across the image as i do on the biogon, yet the vc has slightly more colour aberration; which is not unpleasant to my eyes, only adding to its signature. i find my zm to be sharper throughout the central part of the image to the edges; but the cv, as I suggested, does render a certain creaminess that the zm doesn't. i say this generally, not just at wider aperatures. hope that helps. price wise they are about the same; a while ago, the zm was a bargain...in fact, it still is!
mfogiel
Veteran
D&A
I have both of these, but the Biogion has arrived recently and I haven't yet made enough shots to be able to give you such a precise judgement. I also shoot B&W film almost exclusively, so this could be different on digital.
However, the impression I have is, that the Nokton is a more versatile lens - it is behaving in quite a unique way at f1.2-1.4, and some portraits I took with it have that retro look which is difficult to describe - in fact when I saw the images, I decided to print them on sepia to enhance this feeling. From f2.8 on this lens becomes pretty sharp, but with a fairly neutral rendition - the microcontrast is good but not extreme, and the OOF is pleasing but not so buttery like in Zeiss lenses. The Biogon is instead drawing with a more powerful impact - the microcontrast is superb,so is the 3D and the OOF transition. If you want punchy, high impact images, the Biogon is certainly a winner, if you want a more "neutral" rendering, plus the option of the paintery look at wider apertures, the Nokton wins.
This one has been shot with the Nokton, if I recall correctly at f1.4:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1031580767&size=o
if you go on flickr's M-mount group, you can look for examples of shots from both lenses FWIW.
I have both of these, but the Biogion has arrived recently and I haven't yet made enough shots to be able to give you such a precise judgement. I also shoot B&W film almost exclusively, so this could be different on digital.
However, the impression I have is, that the Nokton is a more versatile lens - it is behaving in quite a unique way at f1.2-1.4, and some portraits I took with it have that retro look which is difficult to describe - in fact when I saw the images, I decided to print them on sepia to enhance this feeling. From f2.8 on this lens becomes pretty sharp, but with a fairly neutral rendition - the microcontrast is good but not extreme, and the OOF is pleasing but not so buttery like in Zeiss lenses. The Biogon is instead drawing with a more powerful impact - the microcontrast is superb,so is the 3D and the OOF transition. If you want punchy, high impact images, the Biogon is certainly a winner, if you want a more "neutral" rendering, plus the option of the paintery look at wider apertures, the Nokton wins.
This one has been shot with the Nokton, if I recall correctly at f1.4:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1031580767&size=o
if you go on flickr's M-mount group, you can look for examples of shots from both lenses FWIW.
D&A
Well-known
Hi Thomas & mfogiel (I hope I got both your names correctly),
Both your comments were truly invaluable and have gone a long way to my understanding of the similarities and differences between these two lenses and I can see why having both is desirable (although at this time I can only purchase one).
Keeping my comments restricted to lenses used with the M8 only, permit me to throw in another variable in the equation. I have constant use (not own) of a Leica f1.0 Noctilux with the Leica M8. Although this in many ways emulates the use of the VC 35mm f1.2 when used wide open...I have found the Noctilux becomes a very different lens when used on an M8 vs. a film body due to the crop factor and the resulting EFOV. WHen used with film the Noctilux not only beomes a hand holdable very low light lens, but isolates the subject from it's immediate surroundings. On an M8, some of this latter use is gone since the Noctilux in close quarters becomes more like a short telephoto..and is more often used simply as a low light lens (abeit a great one). This is where the VC sort of (in certain ways) takes the place of the Noctilux on an M8, since the VC 35 f1.2 has an effective FOV of 50mm on a M8 (like the Noctilux had on a film body) and thus is both a low light lens as well as one that can redily isolate it's subject (although it's depth of field is still much like a 35mm on an M8). I'm not sure if having use of a Noctilux and a VC f1.2 is a bit redundent (besides two heavy lenses) as opposed to choosing a Zeiss Zm 35mm f2.0 and having the Notilux although it's use is a bot more restrictive as I described above. I do own a VC 50mm f1.5 for general use. So thats where I am in my thinking in regards to the VC 35mm f1.2 vs. the Zeiss 35mm f2.0..when I look at the other lenses I have access to (as descriped above). Thanks and have appreciated your comments.
Dave
Both your comments were truly invaluable and have gone a long way to my understanding of the similarities and differences between these two lenses and I can see why having both is desirable (although at this time I can only purchase one).
Keeping my comments restricted to lenses used with the M8 only, permit me to throw in another variable in the equation. I have constant use (not own) of a Leica f1.0 Noctilux with the Leica M8. Although this in many ways emulates the use of the VC 35mm f1.2 when used wide open...I have found the Noctilux becomes a very different lens when used on an M8 vs. a film body due to the crop factor and the resulting EFOV. WHen used with film the Noctilux not only beomes a hand holdable very low light lens, but isolates the subject from it's immediate surroundings. On an M8, some of this latter use is gone since the Noctilux in close quarters becomes more like a short telephoto..and is more often used simply as a low light lens (abeit a great one). This is where the VC sort of (in certain ways) takes the place of the Noctilux on an M8, since the VC 35 f1.2 has an effective FOV of 50mm on a M8 (like the Noctilux had on a film body) and thus is both a low light lens as well as one that can redily isolate it's subject (although it's depth of field is still much like a 35mm on an M8). I'm not sure if having use of a Noctilux and a VC f1.2 is a bit redundent (besides two heavy lenses) as opposed to choosing a Zeiss Zm 35mm f2.0 and having the Notilux although it's use is a bot more restrictive as I described above. I do own a VC 50mm f1.5 for general use. So thats where I am in my thinking in regards to the VC 35mm f1.2 vs. the Zeiss 35mm f2.0..when I look at the other lenses I have access to (as descriped above). Thanks and have appreciated your comments.
Dave
mfogiel
Veteran
D&A
The 35 Nokton, is probably the most "handholdable" lens on full frame. On digital you get two additional problems:the reduced DOF (digital sensors have no "depth" like film emulsion, so you lose some DOF) and the crop. I believe on the M8, where you can easily shoot at ISO640, the max aperture is less critical than the kind of DOF and look the lens delivers. If you have access to a Noctilux for the extremely shallow DOF, your real problem becomes a certain image look and quality with the 35mm. Considering the Biogon is also "digital ready", in the sense it has the coatings on the back lens surfaces to minimize digi sensor reflected light, it should be a better option. Just check with some other M8 users, how they like it sharpness wise at f2.0.
The 35 Nokton, is probably the most "handholdable" lens on full frame. On digital you get two additional problems:the reduced DOF (digital sensors have no "depth" like film emulsion, so you lose some DOF) and the crop. I believe on the M8, where you can easily shoot at ISO640, the max aperture is less critical than the kind of DOF and look the lens delivers. If you have access to a Noctilux for the extremely shallow DOF, your real problem becomes a certain image look and quality with the 35mm. Considering the Biogon is also "digital ready", in the sense it has the coatings on the back lens surfaces to minimize digi sensor reflected light, it should be a better option. Just check with some other M8 users, how they like it sharpness wise at f2.0.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I currently have the Nokton and absolutely love it. Wide open the lens is very sharp with a unique look. I also have the Summilux ASPH and was surprised how the out of focus rendition is so different with only half a stop between. I consider the Nokton the Noctilux of the 35mm. I had the 35mm Biogon and thought it was a very good lens perhaps one of the best 35mm out there but I didn't see any advantages to having it when I already have other 35mm lenses. Sometimes the GAS just have to pass.