Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2 vs Zeiss Biogon 35/2

[danieldouloslee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Given the similar costs, which would you recommend? I have a M6 and M262 and hope to use it on both. The 1.3 stop light would be of benefit, though I do not plan on shooting too much in the dark. If anything, I am primarily concerned about sharpness and color rendition. 

 

Would love to hear your insight!

[PaulJohn]

The 35mm 1.2 is an exceptional lens. Like others, I sold it because it's big and heavy. I don't mind big and heavy on my other cameras but for me it was a step too far for my Leicas. I ended up with the summilux ASPH (pre FLE).

I had the Biogon years ago. It's also a very good lens. Better than the 35mm summicron in my opinion.

If I was you I would try the weight of the CV 1.2 in a shop if you can. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[romanus53]

Had both, sold both because to big for me. Even the 2.8 Biogon is a little bit too big for my taste but the best, more cotrast and sharpness than 2.0. I do own both 1.4 and 2.0 lenses in 50 and 35 mm and don't really need the 1.4 or say 1.2, 2.0 is fast enough. Just looking on the money is not good for the right decision. Look at the Biogons.

[TomB_tx]

I've had the Biogon 35 2.0 for some time, and find nothing in the images to complain about - much better on digital than the 35 Summicron I used for decades. But I haven't tried a 1.2 because I even find the 2.0 Biogon larger than I like for handling. So I went the other direction and now use a Summarit 2.5 on my M10 and couldn't be happier.

[duoenboge]

If the weight is not so importand for you, with the 1.2 lens you have more possibilities to experiment. 

To experiment or try new ideas is a little bit the reason we make fotography isn´t it?

If you need a small lense the Biogon 2.8/35 would be you choice.

[danieldouloslee]

@TomB_tx, i was looking at the 35 summarit (though it would stretch my budget a little more than im comfortable)! would you happen to still hvae the biogon? Would love to see a size comparison between the two.

[yeeper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did extensive testing of the 35mm Biogon 2.0 vs a Summicron V4, Summicron ASPH, and the LTM Ultron 1.7:

Shockingly, the Ultron outresolved the rest wide open with no focus shift.  The flaw of this lens is the .9M close focus limit.

The Biogon 2.0 was almost as sharp as the Ultron wide open, but then surpassed it to become incredibly crisp and punchy from 2.8 onwards with no focus shift.  I bought one.

The two summicrons both suffered from focus shift and had less resolution and contrast to the other lenses.  I was really surprised. 

As for the Nocton 1.2, you should test one before you buy.  Not for performance:  It should be amazing.  You should test if you are OK with the weight and finder blockage.  My 35 Biogon is already a bit too big for my taste, and any lust I had for that 35mm f1.2 disappeared once I bought the Biogon.

[danieldouloslee]

@yeeper, good point. i currently have the 35/2 biogon, but looking to sell it (poor GAS and size could be better). I will certainly take a look at the 1.2 and its size.

 

it sounds like the next question would be biogon 2 or 2.8? hahaha but that'll go in another thread if I REALLY need to go that route instead 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Danieldouloslee

[Ko.Fe.]

Here is also miniature 35 f2 ASPH and something else in the glass Ultron coming. True, IMO, RF lens with 39mm filter size. Compare it to  Biogon 35 f2...

I'm sure Zeiss 35/2 has one of the best rendering and so is another Cosina made Nokton 35 1.2, yet it is not just the size, but handling.

In the opposite, Summarit 35 2.5 is not the best lens in rendering, but handling is like nothing else. And it should be possible to find this lens used not at the high price. 

[ktmrider2]

I own both the 35f1.2 Nokton and 35f2.8 Zeiss C-Biogon.  Both lenses are great but I use the 35f2.8 much more primarily due to its small size.  I bought the 35f1.2 with the idea that I would do available darkness photography.  Guess what?  I don't do available darkness photography.  I should have learned that lesson as I bought the 50f1.1 while owning the 50 Summicron for years and years.  I don't do available darkness photography with the 50f1.1 either.  Both the fast lenses are hugh (laws of optics and physics apply).  If you can live with the size of the 35f1.2, then go for it as it is a great lens.

My 35f2.8 Zeiss is one half of my two lens travel kit with the other being a 90f2.8 which is also small and compact.  So the Zeiss sees a lot more use.  However, the 35f1.2 is a beautiful lens and renders beautifully.  As others have said, try one before you buy (Photo Village in NYC is a Voightlander importer.  They rent them and often have used copies of the 35f1.2 at great prices).  Honestly, you won't make a mistake with either the 35f1.2 or Zeiss 35f2.  And both are less then one third the cost of a Leitz 35.

And if you decide on the Zeiss, save some money and buy the Voightlander lens hood instead of the Zeiss version.  I believe they are the exact same except one is marked Zeiss and $40 or so more expensive.

 

Edited January 17, 2019 by ktmrider2
More info

[astrostl]

IDK about the VM but the ZM 35/2 has enough haze wide open that I'd go straight for the ZM 35/2.8 and shoot it wide open instead.

[danieldouloslee]

Thanks everyone for your input, unfortunately it looks like my search has shifted; I am prioritizing compact and currently waiting on some reviews about the voigtlander Ultron 35/2 which is supposed to be released next week (at least internationally). The 1.7 was much bigger than I had anticipated, the 35/2, which I have had, is big for its size as well. 

 

Will update you all on what I end up with. 

[astrostl]

The ZM 35/2.8 is very small. Hope you find what you're seeking in any case!