Which 35mm? Biogon or Nokton?

Roland: Camera porn to always save the day. The world of rangefinder is so much more different than the DSLR one, based on the range of lenses in the same focal length. In DSLR, I've got 2 zooms, 3 primes, and that's it. They do what I ask them to do and I'm happy with the result. But when it comes to my ZI, I really just want one lens that will do it all. And realizing that Ultron / Biogon is almost twice the size of the Nokton, I'm inclined to just get the Nokton and get it over with. It's also fast and since I don't really care for distortion, I think I'll be happy to go the Nokton way.

Strangely, I cannot find a good used Nokton 35 out there...
 
There is one serious danger with getting a Biogon for your ZI: you might like it so much that you need some Distagons for your Nikons.:)
 
jtm said:
There is one serious danger with getting a Biogon for your ZI: you might like it so much that you need some Distagons for your Nikons.:)
Click to expand...

hilarious, but ominously true for your wallet's well-being

the debut of the ZE lenses (i'm a canonian) is a terrible thing to behold, given how delightful i find the ZM's for RF use.

aside: roland, that sample portrait from the nokton w/arista 100 is stunning.
 
Last edited:
i would get the biogon because it's much more flare resistant than the nokton classic at wider apertures. those flood lamps can be a headache.

using faster, grainier film could be a plus, considering the subject matter.
 
the debut of the ZE lenses (i'm a canonian) is a terrible thing to behold, given how delightful i find the ZM's for RF use.
Click to expand...

I was a firm believer in Jupiter lenses when I first started shooting RF's... That was until I tried CV lenses.... I was a hooked believer of CV. And then came Zeiss. Ahhh. CV are still great lenses, and jupiters can be great as well (I had the rare GOOD copy of the 85mm f2 jupiter), but zeiss is just so nice. I've only used one leica, the 90mm Macro Elmar, and that was the sharpest lens I've ever used. Couldn't justify keeping it though.
 
Thanks, Mike :)

Toksuede, I would just buy one new from ebay and use Microsoft cashback (8% today). You don't see them often used, I guess users like them :)

Cheers,

Roland.
 
i agree, pavel. i'm captivated by that zeiss look that only awhile ago i thought was just a lot of senseless yammer.

now i'm yammering
 
ferider said:
Dear Roger,

you must be talking about the 35/1.2 Nokton. The 35/1.4 Nokton (A) and pre-asph Summilux (B) are about the same size, IMO. The asph Summilux (C) is much larger than both.

443623891_LxZqp-O-1.jpg


I find (A) and (B) quite similar, with the Nokton flaring less wide open.

Best,

Roland.
Click to expand...

Dear Roland,

Of course you are right. Sorry for the short-circuit.

Cheers,

R.
 
Question: Can someone tell me what is the "Nokton" in both the CV35/1.4 and CV 35/1.2? I can't think of two more different lenses in every aspect.
 
Hi I wanted to ask on a new thread but I think i don't want to jam up the thread.

I am considering VC 35 1.2 and biogon 35 f2.

I can't decide which to get. Price around the same.

I just wondering image quality VS speed which will you pick.
Should I just save and go leica? 35 1.4?
 
As far as I know, "Nockton" is just a brand name indicating a fast lens from the current C/V. I don't think that it is supposed to indicate a similarity of optical design, visual output or anything else.

Ben
 
Depends on how much you want speed. The biogon is a great lens, I personally can't fault it. I have a Nikkor (SLR fit) 35mm f1.4 for faster work, but the increase in speed is slightly out weighed by the increase mass of the lens. when I use the f1.4, I normally find myself wishing for a f1. Easiest thing i to use faster film -for film users:).
 
I've heard the 35/1.4 Nokton is very very similar to the 40/1.4 Nokton. I had the Biogon for a year and I loved it. It's not that big - about the size of a 50/2 Summicron. Very flare resistant, good sharpness, very even across the frame, and zero distortion. Good color too. If you don't need f/1.4, I'd go for that (and did).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom