Zeiss 35mm f2.8 C-Biogon vs Voigtlander 35mm f2 Ultron ASPH (image quality)

[28framelines]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi folks! I'm comparing these two options, and Im wondering if people have experience with both of them, which is the better option. Obviously, the Ultron has that extra stop of light, but I hear the C-Biogon is legendary. What's generally the better option here, image quality wise?

[cboy]

2c..I would suggest the 35mm f1.7 ltm for a filmic rendering and unique character, but still has captures very crisp detail when stopped down.

Others would disagree..horses for courses lol

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

I'm not good at comparing lenses of different aperture but both Ultron 35/2 and Biogon 35/2.8 are sharp and contrasty. The Biogon has more vignetting but less distortion while both lenses have moderate flare and CA. Bokeh is perhaps a bit more busy with the Ultron but it depends on the subject distance and bokeh is a subjective matter anyway. A forte of the Ultron is its 0.58m MFD vs 0.7m for the Biogon. But the DoF markings of the Ultron are more difficult to read and not everybody likes its focus stick. Now the focus bump of the Biogon is a matter of taste too. Size wise the Ultron is a bit smaller with almost the same dimensions as the Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph. FWIW.

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!

Edited January 6, 2021 by lct

[Dennis]

1 hour ago, 28framelines said:

I hear the C-Biogon is legendary

Yes. I have it and wow, no IQ complains at all. So small, light and super sharp. My only cons. The tiny focus knob, for my taste, is horrible and not functional at all. A really prefer a focus tab or nothing. But it's me. Or maybe even better the Ultron stick. Smarter I guess

25 minutes ago, lct said:

both lenses have moderate flare

adding the TT 35/1.4 at the list, which is the best flare performer? I ask because I have 2of3, and the Ultron always interested me for his rendering, size and relative-fast aperture.

 

[lct]

1 minute ago, Dennis said:

adding the TT 35/1.4 at the list, which is the best flare performer?

No idea sorry.

[Dennis]

Because the Biogon is great. The TT 35/1.4 is one of its weakness I guess.

Ultron? No idea

[Danner]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the Biogon C 35/2.8 ZM shooting B&W film.  It's a stellar lens, IMHO, and I'm not looking to upgrade it.  No experience with the Voigtlander.

[bayernfan]

Have you considered the 35/1.7 Ultron M-Mount?  An awesome lens if you’re ok with the ergonomics. Same with the 50/1.5 Ultron M-Mount. 

I believe they will become classics. 

[astrostl]

6 hours ago, bayernfan said:

Have you considered the 35/1.7 Ultron M-Mount?  An awesome lens if you’re ok with the ergonomics. Same with the 50/1.5 Ultron M-Mount. 

I believe they will become classics. 

I'm a big fan of the VM 35/1.7, and it is my lite go-to 35 (heavy go-to 35 is the ZM 35/1.4).

[ktmrider2]

Have never used the Ultron but the Zeiss 35f2.8 C-Biogon is my favorite lens out of six M mount lenses.  It is small, sharp and has the Zeiss pop.

[Dennis]

any of you owning the Biogon found a better solution to the focus knob? Does Lens TAAB work? Maybe a DIY focus taab.