Voigtländer Ultron 35/1.7 vs. Zeiss Biogon 35/2

The differences in the above comparison (post #4) could be entirely due to different exposure and/or transmission.

OP: The biggest practical differences between the 2 lenses is min. focus distance and filter size. Optical results will depend on the sample that you get. Check out Sean's Ultron review. He had one that flared, and one that didn't. The build quality is pretty much identical. Mechanical "Wobble" has been reported on both, and the two lenses are assembled in the same factory. You get two good samples, results will be hardly distinguishable.

I recommend to buy a Biogon, try, then either send it back or sell the Ultron. Nothing anybody here can tell you that will give you the same objective input.

Then again, while both are great lenses, for me personally, I found them too large. Try a Summicron and you will see how small a good 35mm lens can be.

Roland.
 
Hmm, bought back a 35mm Ultron 2 weeks ago after having a look through prints taken with it in 2003. Very nice lens.
 
Hi i had both lenses...i used the ultron for a month...sold it quickly...didn´t like it...too soft wide open and that "classic" look often people refers to VC glsses that is nothing but low contrast almost acceptable sharpness and sometimes wird bokeh :D

When i bought the biogon everything made sense..the lens is super sharp from 2.8 on....great contrast and a stellar performer in Black and White..never liked with in colour film thou.

I did sell the biogon because at f2 it was below average....also the lens was too large for my taste....

Now i have a summicron v 4 and a pre asph summilux both 35mm lenses....i can tell you the biogon is better than these expensive leica glasses ...try it i strongly recommend it!!!:)

The smaller c-biogon is also a terrific lens i tested it against my summarit 35mm...and ther´s no visible difference...but the price is far lower than the leica counterpart...

Hope this helps you, bye!
 
I've had the Utron for about two weeks now and I alread love it! I see no need to "upgrade" in any way.
(I had to give back my first copy, though, because it was faulty. The second one is perfect, at least for me.)
 
ferider said:
The differences in the above comparison (post #4) could be entirely due to different exposure and/or transmission
Click to expand...

Roland:

FWIW, the shutter was set to 1/30 on both exposures, so I don't think that variation is due to different exposure. I am not sure what "different transmission" means in this context. If there is such a difference, isn't that part of what you would see every time you used the lenses? Or is the objection that one of the lenses might be dirtier than the other? BTW, both lenses have hoods, but no filters.

The exposures were made a few minutes apart; there could be differences in the sunlight outside (due to clouds, lateness in the day etc.).

In terms of contrast, the differences in what the lenses are putting on the sensors or film can easily be obscured by post-processing. But for detail resolved or smeared (for instance, in the corners), no amount of PP is going to be able to put back detail that isn't there or un-smear the image if that is how the photons danced when they shot out the back of the lens.

Ben
 
Ben, with "different transmission" I mean that for example f2 means something else on either lens, in terms of actual light being transmitted. Don't have photoshop accessible right now, but it would be interesting to see the level histograms of both pictures.

Roland.
 
I am not sure how to do a screen-shot, but they are pretty similar. The Zeiss lens is a bit warmer and that shows in the histogram, but the shapes of the histograms are pretty similar, at least to my eye. Of course, I am not sure what I am looking for. If you want the original RAW/DNG files (7MB each - they are large), I am happy to send them. Just provide me with an e-mail address off-line.

Ben
 
Hi Ben,

a quick run through the JPG files you posted above gives my the following grey histograms:

cmp-L.jpg


This is similar to what you should get in Photoshop when doing Level adjustment (at least I hope so :) )

You can see that the distance between tips and valleys of the curves are similar (same contrast), but one curve is shifted to the right, meaning one picture is overall brighter than the other.

Roland.
 
these threads are the reason i'm never ever selling my ultron, which was modified by rff user Krosya to focus down to .7m, bought it from him already modified. I also don't fancy the out of factory minimum focus.

i love how it's quite sharp and it has beautiful bokeh. it's a very good all around lens. the only drawback, albeit quite a not very significant one, is the length of the lens, but i never use it with the hood (it's unnecessary, really, the lens just never flares) so it's just a tad longer than a 1.4 nokton or a summicron.


cliffhanger by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr


afilhada by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr


seu peru by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr


boia by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr


fogão rústico by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr


mind reading by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr

(damn, I miss my R-D1...)
 
Roland: can you tell by looking how significant the difference is between the two lenses? Is this 1/2 stop or 1/10 of a stop? And can you tell whether you are seeing a difference in transmission or the slight brightening of the sun coming out from behind a cloud?

Ben
 
The luminance peak on the right are the sun-lit windows, Ben. The blob on the left the table and chairs (BTW, Scandinavian Design ? We have a very similar dining room .... :) ). Since the right parts of the curves are almost identical I don't think it's change in sun light. And the luminance shift is around 10% or so, so maybe 1/8 of a stop transmission difference ?

Roland.
 
I only have the Ultron. It is paired with my M4-P, I can get a Leica or Zeiss lens, I didn't because I'm happy with the Ultron.

But I can tell that the Biogon has more contrast because the two candles "pop out" to my eyes.

And here's the rub, I see the same "pop" from my C/Y Zeiss 35/2.8 Distagon that I use on my Contax SLR, that's why I recognize it instantly in the comparison pictures :)
 
I like the Biogon picture over the Ultron picture.
I like the pictures on the wall more. I like the colors in the tree more (flare? Low contrast?). I like the windows more, parts of which disappear with the Ultron. And above all I like the table much more in the Biogon pic. It draws my eye more strongly than in the Ultron pic. I like how the table colors in the sun. And I like the zeiss pop more, making the candles stand out more.

Not saying one lens is better, only that I like one picture more than the other.
 
I was about to buy an Ultron, but then I got a Nikkor 35/1.8 instead. It was a matter of curiosity over logic. The Ultron is a great lens at an affordable cost.
 
I'm one of the few, I suppose, who didn't really love the Ultron. I thought the results with it were just OK--contrast, bokeh, character, etc. OK, but just not that interesting. I sold it for a Canon 35mm f2 and much prefer it. I also prefer the Zeiss examples above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom