kshapero
South Florida Man
I know they have different apertures wide open, but has anyone compared the two?
ZM 35/2 vs CV 35/1.4
- Thread starter kshapero
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 7
- Views 4K
regularchickens
Well-known
I have both. I haven't done anything close to a scientific or professional comparison, but I prefer the precise and three-dimensional-ish rendition and great tonality the Biogon gives, which is the same as what the 50/2 Planar does. I keep the CV because it's a 1.4 - I don't have any particular love for its relatively plain and standard rendition. And as is normal with the Zeiss ZM lenses, the Biogon is much more flare-resistant than even the MC version of the 35/1.4.
photogdave
Shops local
http://www.1point4photography.com/blog/
Matt, who is a member here, discusses this. Scroll down a bit and you'll find it.
Matt, who is a member here, discusses this. Scroll down a bit and you'll find it.
hiorgos
Established
Hi.
It's a tough decision when you can only buy one of them..
Matt says in his (fantastic) blog that now is using only the cv1.4, since it's more fun and has more character than the biogon. So that changed my original plan of buying the biogon, and now i'm thinking about which way to go.. biogon's perfection or nokton's 1.4 character!..
If only i could own both! 🙂
It's a tough decision when you can only buy one of them..
Matt says in his (fantastic) blog that now is using only the cv1.4, since it's more fun and has more character than the biogon. So that changed my original plan of buying the biogon, and now i'm thinking about which way to go.. biogon's perfection or nokton's 1.4 character!..
If only i could own both! 🙂
noimmunity
scratch my niche
The comparison is a really good question because the differences between the lenses ultimately force us to think not about what others value, but we ourselves value.
First, some background: I don't have both. Back Alley does. I had the Zeiss 35/2 until I gave it to my GF when she gave me an R4A. I also had a CV 40/1.4, which I did not like. I'm preparing to buy the new C-Biogon 35. I've been tempted on paper by the CV 35/1.4, but have never been impressed by the image results, don't like tabs, and already have a super fast 35 that produces a remarkable final image.
I've read Matt's blog and looked at his photographs, both now and before, and I admire his balanced assessments and his compositional vision.
I would suggest reading his preference for the CV 35/1.4 in light of his earlier review of the Biogon alone (on the same site). The view of the CV 35/1.4 is complicated and occasionally contradicted, in my mind, by his earlier review of the Biogon. In the former (chronologically later) he says the Biogon has an inferior build ("Build quality: The CV is just better built than the Biogon... My Biogon has a bit of wobble in the lens barrel and doesn’t mount quite as snuggly as the CV"); yet in the latter one (chronologically earlier) he says it has impressive build ("Build quality & Handling: The lens feels very sturdy. It mounts securely"). The ZM lenses I have all have noticeably better build than any CV lens I've ever touched. Even with the sample variation, I don't think I'm just lucky. The "character" of the CV lens about which Matt speaks--and he is quite frank about this--is due to its greater propensity to flare and the much higher level of distortion ("the CV’s incredible barrel distortion").
The conclusion I draw is that Matt has grown accustomed to the handling of the CV principally because of the small size and the ergonomics of the tab ("this small size would become so integral to my appreciation of the lens"). It seems to me his argument is NOT about the superiority of one lens over another, but really about how subjective feel in using a lens might actually be one of if not the most important factor in final image composition.
No amount of professional experience, artistic vision and gear knowledge is going to steal these truths from my eyes: A higher percentage of photos taken with the CV are less appealing to me.
First, some background: I don't have both. Back Alley does. I had the Zeiss 35/2 until I gave it to my GF when she gave me an R4A. I also had a CV 40/1.4, which I did not like. I'm preparing to buy the new C-Biogon 35. I've been tempted on paper by the CV 35/1.4, but have never been impressed by the image results, don't like tabs, and already have a super fast 35 that produces a remarkable final image.
I've read Matt's blog and looked at his photographs, both now and before, and I admire his balanced assessments and his compositional vision.
I would suggest reading his preference for the CV 35/1.4 in light of his earlier review of the Biogon alone (on the same site). The view of the CV 35/1.4 is complicated and occasionally contradicted, in my mind, by his earlier review of the Biogon. In the former (chronologically later) he says the Biogon has an inferior build ("Build quality: The CV is just better built than the Biogon... My Biogon has a bit of wobble in the lens barrel and doesn’t mount quite as snuggly as the CV"); yet in the latter one (chronologically earlier) he says it has impressive build ("Build quality & Handling: The lens feels very sturdy. It mounts securely"). The ZM lenses I have all have noticeably better build than any CV lens I've ever touched. Even with the sample variation, I don't think I'm just lucky. The "character" of the CV lens about which Matt speaks--and he is quite frank about this--is due to its greater propensity to flare and the much higher level of distortion ("the CV’s incredible barrel distortion").
The conclusion I draw is that Matt has grown accustomed to the handling of the CV principally because of the small size and the ergonomics of the tab ("this small size would become so integral to my appreciation of the lens"). It seems to me his argument is NOT about the superiority of one lens over another, but really about how subjective feel in using a lens might actually be one of if not the most important factor in final image composition.
No amount of professional experience, artistic vision and gear knowledge is going to steal these truths from my eyes: A higher percentage of photos taken with the CV are less appealing to me.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Ouch! depends who is doing the shooting, no? I do not want to dish the VC offerings but I would generally tend to agree with your assessment. However, we need to keep in mind shooting style, film type/speed, etc.
VC definitely has its place in the stable. Highly affordable and possibly better than the optics HCB used during most of his career.
Paul
kipkeston
Well-known
I like the idea of the CV 1.4 but I can't get over the fact that it has such barrel distortion. Does anyone know if it's more than say, the 1.2 or the lux?
hiorgos
Established
Hi.
I finally bought the cv, instead of the biogon, and it's because..
-It's 1.4
-It's smaller
-It's cheaper
The size was an important point, more than it seems. Maybe I will have to deal with barrel distortion, but the other points were stronger. I didn't have a chance to shoot some rolls with both to compare, so I made a decision based on the feeling.. and the load of info at this forum! Thanks guys!
I love the first results im getting with it.
I finally bought the cv, instead of the biogon, and it's because..
-It's 1.4
-It's smaller
-It's cheaper
The size was an important point, more than it seems. Maybe I will have to deal with barrel distortion, but the other points were stronger. I didn't have a chance to shoot some rolls with both to compare, so I made a decision based on the feeling.. and the load of info at this forum! Thanks guys!
I love the first results im getting with it.
Similar threads
