lenses A 35mm old challenge (CV vs Zeiss)

[WanLevia]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi to all Leica lovers,
I'm new to the forum, at least as registered user, and I want to thank you all for all your invisible support you gave me when searching for precious info about Leica. Probably the best resource online on this specific and lovable world.

I'm interested to test some 35mm prime lenses (no Leica) for my digital M.
I've heard about great results with:

• Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 Color Skopar
• Zeiss Biogon C 35mm f2.8
• Zeiss Biogon C 35mm f2.0 (someone online affirming it is not sharp as the Zeiss 2.8)

I know this is probably an old challenge but I just wanted to follow up it on 2020 , and I'm interested to a new lens.
Anyone here who want to share its opinion both on digital or analogical is very very welcome.
Furthermore....is it worth the Zeiss price gap (currently double the price for new)?

Thanks a lot

WanLevia

[CosmoM3]

While I love all three lenses (esp the PII version of the Skopar), the Zeiss 35/2 is my least favorite. 

After going down this rabbit hole for a nice, compact, and budget friendly 35mm - I would say neither of those and just get the Voigtlander Ultron 35/2 ASPH for the same price as a used C-Biogon 35/2.8.

My review of the Ultron 35/2: Ultron 35/2 ASPH and the C-Biogon 35/2.8: C-Biogon 35/2.8

[Advertisement]

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

[WanLevia]

17 minutes ago, CosmoM3 said:

While I love all three lenses (esp the PII version of the Skopar), the Zeiss 35/2 is my least favorite. 

After going down this rabbit hole for a nice, compact, and budget friendly 35mm - I would say neither of those and just get the Voigtlander Ultron 35/2 ASPH for the same price as a used C-Biogon 35/2.8.

My review of the Ultron 35/2: Ultron 35/2 ASPH and the C-Biogon 35/2.8: C-Biogon 35/2.8

Thank you for your input Cosmo,

Is your suggestion based on digital/analog, or both?

 

[CosmoM3]

21 minutes ago, WanLevia said:

Thank you for your input Cosmo,

Is your suggestion based on digital/analog, or both?

 

I only have experience of using those lenses on Digital (M9, M240, M10) but I personally prefer ZM lenses on film bodies (sharpens it up nicely and adds contrast) rather than on digital bodies.

[Cobram]

M-Rokkor 40 is the best budget friendly (almost :-) ) 35mm lens. Leica rendering, Minolta price, Japan manufacturing quality and nice coating. 

I can confirm I made more interesting photos (published in local media) with Rokkor than much more praised and expensive ZM 35 1.4 Distagon. 

In my modest opinion Zeiss will give you modern sharp look which can be achieved more or less with any Sony A7 camera + 35 FE Zeiss lens for much less money, autofocus included :-) . Today many many amateur photographers own Sony cameras which are really very good. If you want to took photos with distinctive look and not similar to mainstream than Leica glass is the only  way to go. I learnt this lesson to late with few thousands euros of my hard earned money spent on non-Leica glass :-)

 

[lct]

Another vote for the CV 35/2 and ZM 35/2.8. The latter has almost no flaw besides vignetting but it is a very contrasty lens. The CV 35/2 is contrasty too and is very sharp at f/2 but has a bit busy bokeh. I keep the latter for my digital CL, due to its smaller size, whereas the ZM 35/2.8 is my favorite 35mm lens in good light. BTW if you're on a budget, don't overrule the 7art 35/2. It is a surprisingly good lens for the price. All those lenses have a modern rendition though. For a more classic look with less acutance i can recommend the Rokkor 40/2 too but you may love or hate its 40mm focal length on rangefinders. 

[danieldouloslee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the 35/2 ultron and have had the 35/2 biogon. I thoroughly enjoy the ultron enough to keep it alongside my FLE. It’s sharp, and has a busy bokeh butI like the character of it. However, when comparing both images, it seems like the ultron receives 1/3-1/2 stops of less light than my FLE. Not sure if anything else face seen that, but something worth considering. 

[Alexander-HH]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb danieldouloslee:

However, when comparing both images, it seems like the ultron receives 1/3-1/2 stops of less light than my FLE. 

Not sure if I understand this correctly ... 1/3-1/2 stop less light comparing both lenses at the same aperture setting?

Thanks, Alexander

Edited June 4, 2020 by Alexander-HH

[jaapv]

Aperture does not take light loss in the lens into account - it is a purely mathematic value. The real "brightness" of a lens is expressed by the T-stop, which is normally not used in photography; it is a concept from cinematography. So one lens will transmit a different amount of light compared to another at the same aperture. It depends on glass type, number of glass elements and coatings.

[danieldouloslee]

Thanks for enlightening me @jaapv. Makes complete sense. 

@Alexander-HH - if I were to shoot the FLE and Ultron at F2, same shutter speeds and iso, the Ultron would come out less exposed.

[lct]

2 hours ago, danieldouloslee said:

@Alexander-HH - if I were to shoot the FLE and Ultron at F2, same shutter speeds and iso, the Ultron would come out less exposed.

Sample variation i guess. I don't see significant differences re exposure out of my copies.

[gavinlg]

On 6/5/2020 at 12:37 AM, Alexander-HH said:

Not sure if I understand this correctly ... 1/3-1/2 stop less light comparing both lenses at the same aperture setting?

Thanks, Alexander

 

On 6/5/2020 at 3:59 AM, danieldouloslee said:

Thanks for enlightening me @jaapv. Makes complete sense. 

@Alexander-HH - if I were to shoot the FLE and Ultron at F2, same shutter speeds and iso, the Ultron would come out less exposed.

 

The ultron has a lot of vignetting that covers most of the frame - up to about f5.6. Makes the exposures seem darker.

[Anakronox]

On 6/3/2020 at 6:29 PM, CosmoM3 said:

While I love all three lenses (esp the PII version of the Skopar), the Zeiss 35/2 is my least favorite. 

After going down this rabbit hole for a nice, compact, and budget friendly 35mm - I would say neither of those and just get the Voigtlander Ultron 35/2 ASPH for the same price as a used C-Biogon 35/2.8.

My review of the Ultron 35/2: Ultron 35/2 ASPH and the C-Biogon 35/2.8: C-Biogon 35/2.8

I second Cosmo’s recommendation.  The Ultron f/2 is a fantastic lens for the price.  It was the first 35 I bought for my M10 and it renders somewhere in between a classic Summicron and a modern lens like the Summarit.  It’s sharp but not without character.  I’ve taken some really great shots with it.  

[Rokkor]

Am 4.6.2020 um 04:42 schrieb danieldouloslee:

I have the 35/2 ultron [...] It’s sharp, and has a busy bokeh butI like the character of it. 

Do you have sample photos of the busy bokeh? Trying to picture how this would look like.

[lct]

2 hours ago, Rokkor said:

Do you have sample photos of the busy bokeh? Trying to picture how this would look like.

Ultron 35/2 asph @ f/2.8. Could be worse.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[JimmyCheng]

I'm just gonna share my own experience with these lenses. My first ever m lens was actually none other than the 35mm color skopa. It is a brilliant lens in all regards (fantastic build, tiny size and great handling). I was a happy man owning this little gem until one day I decided to try real leica glass, but even then I would say I could be perfectly happy with the voigtlander. 

The Zeiss c bigon, for me personally, is a disappointment. Yes it's sharp, but it's got severe venetting, to a point where all wide open shots appear to be a lot darker than I expected. Also, the lens is not as well built as the voigtlander or leica equivalant (at least for the silver one, never tried the black one). Handling is also sub-par. 

So overall, I would say I had a much more pleasant experience with my color skopa than the zeiss. 

[Rokkor]

vor 59 Minuten schrieb lct:

Ultron 35/2 asph @ f/2.8. Could be worse.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Thank you for sharing. This helps to see what busy bokeh means, Even though I am not completely sure. It is unfortunate there is no lens comparison that I could find between the Voigtländer Ultron 2.0 and the Zeiss Biogon 2.8 head to head and vs the Summicron / Summaron.

There seems a big fan community around the Zeiss. The only concern people have is that it could be too analytical / sterile, or modern in its optical characteristics and high sharpness and contrast.

[Rokkor]

vor 20 Minuten schrieb JimmyCheng:

I'm just gonna share my own experience with these lenses. My first ever m lens was actually none other than the 35mm color skopa. It is a brilliant lens in all regards (fantastic build, tiny size and great handling). I was a happy man owning this little gem until one day I decided to try real leica glass, but even then I would say I could be perfectly happy with the voigtlander. 

The Zeiss c bigon, for me personally, is a disappointment. Yes it's sharp, but it's got severe venetting, to a point where all wide open shots appear to be a lot darker than I expected. Also, the lens is not as well built as the voigtlander or leica equivalant (at least for the silver one, never tried the black one). Handling is also sub-par. 

So overall, I would say I had a much more pleasant experience with my color skopa than the zeiss. 

Interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing. Have not looked into the Skopar yet. The Voigtländer 35mm/1.4 has mixed reviews. The Ultron 2.0 people seem to be concerned a bit about the chrome rings and that the focussing needs to be done differently and is a bit special.

[danieldouloslee]

@Rokkor - some photos below! in full context, I have not used the 35 ultron in many months as I acquired a 35FLE (and now the 28 lux). However, it's a great lens I wouldn't mind keeping.

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRKsru8

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M