Zeiss Biogon 35mm vs CV Nokton 35 f1.2

Zeiss Biogon 35mm vs CV Nokton 35 f1.2

  • Total voters
    118
P

PrisonersDilema

Established
Local time
5:43 AM
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
107
I will be getting a CV 12 f5,6 UW Heliar (equivalent 22.5m on a 1.5x crop) with a 21mm external viewfinder for use on my RD1s.

Whilst I am considering a 50mm f1.5 C-Sonnar (75mm equivalent) against 35mm (52.mm equivalent), I am torn between the Zeiss and the Nokton as both are similar in price...with the Nokton just probably USD50 more.

f2 vs f1.2 is almost 1 and 2/3 stops more.

My considerations are number 1, Bokeh, number 2 sharpness and contrast.

In terms of the above, which is your recommendation. Would appreciate some photos taken as Pbase has very limited photos taken by these lenses on an RD1s.
 
check the m-mount goup on flickr for numerous ex's of photos produced by these lenses; I assume here you are thinking of the cv 35/1,2 not the 1,4, but I am uncertain which you intend as your post is confusing. I have owned both lenses you are contemplating. If compact size is an issue, the cv 35/1.2 is very, very large for a rf lens, but does have a wonderful oof area rendering...but it is so huge that it is not a great all-round use lens imo. The zm 35/2 is such an incredible lens for all-round shooting; it is a beauty in terms of rendering..just head over to flickr and look:) If you intended the 1,4, then I don't know anything about it. I hope this helps, thomas
 
I've had both on an RD1S. These are my opinions:

Nokton - bokeh is gentler, lens is very sharp even wide open at 1.2, contrast seemed medium
Biogon - bokeh has more character, lens is very sharp, contrast seemed high

Personally, I preferred the Nokton, but if you want a punchy lens and like the bokeh of the Biogon you might prefer it. I really don't think you will go wrong with either.
 
wow

wow

wow...seems wintoid and erikfive's both recommended the Nokton 35 f1.2.

I am used to the SLR and have used the 1dmk2 with 70-200f2.8 and 24-70 f2.8L. Size is ok in this respect as the RD1s i relatively compact compared to the 1dmk2 and the 35 f1.2 to the 24-70L.

When I looked at sample pics, seems the Nokton's bokeh is much creamier vs the Biogon's....just a little less creamier than Canon's EF 35f1.4L.

Bokeh is one of my favourites.

Now it's 2 votes for Nokton and 2 for Biogon.
 
Last edited:
I don't own the Zeiss, but I do have the Nokton. It has a very creamy and smooth rendition. I love that lens so much, especially when paired with a smoother grain film (which I guess isn't applicable in your case). It's pure butter. It's a big lens, but worth it.

On another topic, if you're saying the 35L is even more creamy, I'm putting that on my list for my 30D. :)
 
If you can live with the size, the Nokton is quite a unique lens. Took some recent photos at very very low light recently (Tri-X at 1600, f/1.2, 1/15 or 1/8 secs) here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/yophoto/

Any other lens (Noctilux aside) would not have been enough.

As others have mentioned, sharpness wide open is spectacular (when focussed properly) and bokeh is pleasing. I got the chrome version, which is quite a looker too. :)

I also have the Zeiss 50/Planar and 28/Biogon which are probably sharper, and better for color work (light availability aside) but the Nokton does some great magic when shooting B/W. :cool:
 
Although you list bokeh and contrast as the number one and two criterion, it sounds to me like you are really concerned about balancing these two concerns against speed, so I voted for the chrome Nokton.

It is a heavy lens, but I find it balances well on the RD-1 body, particularly if you can rig a side grip.

The Biogon is much more portable, but Big Nokton will give you many more shots.

The Biogon is better, IMHO, for color (it produces more saturated colors). It also has greater contrast than the Nokton.

The Big Nokton wins for black and white, particularly with film. A winner at all apertures, its speed is incomparable at the price.

You might consider the UC Hexanon that is in the classifieds right now. Photos from that lens seem to have a very nice bokeh.
 
I disagree with the above. I have both lenses, but admittedly, I only shoot B&W film. However, while the Nokton is a good lens by any measure, it can only compete with the Biogon up to f 2.0. At f 2.0 the Nokton is sharper, but I like the Biogon's bokeh more, from f2.8 and beyond, the Biogon leaves just ANY 35mm lens in dust and oblivion under any aspect. End of story.
 
I just made a similar decision, although the lens was meant to be mounted on an Ikon, and not a digital RD-1.

I've seen a LOT of posts praising the Biogon 35/2. But, almost universally, they indicate that the lens is sub par at f2. It's supposed to be significantly better even a half/third stop down, but as this was to be my only 35mm lens, i didn't want to feel 'hampered' at wide apertures. And, the Nokton's "effective" speed seems to be significantly better than the Biogon's.

Secondly, in reviewing as many Biogon images as i could find, although the bokeh does appear to be "smooth" and "natural," i find it to be completely WITHOUT character. I just don't see anything from the Biogon that remotely resembles character. It may have a 'signature,' but the lens seems to be so neutral in its rendering that i don't think it contributes anything to the images. Maybe that's what so many people like? I, on the other hand, like lenses that do impart something. I like that i can tell Hasselblad images from Pentax 67 images. Summilux from Summicron, etc. - under the right shooting conditions, of course.

So, i got the (chrome) Nokton. Went to PhotoVillage, and when i first saw it in the display case, i felt it was really quite large. It is a big lens, when compared to other RF lenses. But, compared to the 35mm and MF SLR lenses i'm used to, it's reasonable. Then, i considered that it's still smaller than a Noctilux, and while i've never owned a Noct, i'm always aware that one has to 'suffer' the size for those unique images. So, i will just have to deal with not having a compact 35mm lens. If i want to take the Ikon out with a smaller lens, i have a more compact 50mm. And, i'm aware that at some point in the future, i may want to get a more compact 35, but not now. I'm excited about the potential of the Nokton.
 
Oh, and i didn't even mention how incredibly well-built the Nokton is. I've not played with the Biogon, but i did previously own a ZM 50 Planar. I've also owned the 35Cron-ASPH and 35Lux-ASPH (in a previous life), and the Nokton's build probably exceeds all of them. It seems like an amazing piece of engineering and production for under $900.

[I also have the Canon 35L on a 5D/EOS3. I'm interested to make comparisons.]
 
For monochrome photography there are only two problems with the Nokton: size/weight and the lack of half stops from f11. Image-wise, it doesn't get any better than this.
 
The Nokton 1.2 vignettes significantly wide open, and it exhibits quite a bit of distortion - both also true of the new 1.4 - although perhaps neither of these issues would be relevant on a cropped frame camera. Its size does make for easy handling.
 
'But, almost universally, they indicate that the lens is sub par at f2.'

If you think about the kinds of situations in which you normally use a lens at maximum aperture, I think you will find that resolution is often not the paramount concern. FWIW, I've never found the Biogon limiting at F2.

I've got reviews of both the Biogon and the Nokton 1.2 on my site.

http://www.1point4photography.com/blog/cv-nokton-35mm-f12-review/

http://www.1point4photography.com/blog/zm-biogon-35mm-f2-review/

You may also consider the new 35 1.4. It's most of the performance of the 1.2 at a small fraction of the size. If you put CV 35 1.4 SC into the search box on my site, you can see a number of examples.
 
Biogons at 2.8...

Biogons at 2.8...

mfogiel said:
from f2.8 and beyond, the Biogon leaves just ANY 35mm lens in dust and oblivion under any aspect. End of story.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I haven't done enough notated shooting with the two lenses at different apertures, so your experience is valuable to me.
It will be thus VERY interesting to see what happens with the new 2,8/35 Biogon.
 
For those that have the CV 35f1.2 and the R-D1, how much of the viewfinder is blocked by the lens? This would be more of an issue to me than size/wt.

Bernard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom