Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica M Film Cameras

View Poll Results: Which lens rendering is most to your liking?
Lens 1 40 38.10%
Lens 2 7 6.67%
Lens 3 8 7.62%
Lens 4 26 24.76%
I can't really see much of a difference! 24 22.86%
Voters: 105. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 09-08-2011   #81
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 42
Posts: 16,759
Wow, just goes to show that incremental difference really don't matter. All of this equipment works great, so you just can't go wrong.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #82
sanmich
Registered User
 
sanmich's Avatar
 
sanmich is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Wow, just goes to show that incremental difference really don't matter. All of this equipment works great, so you just can't go wrong.
For some parameters, you may be right (bokeh, distortion, rendition in general), but it would be a stretch to compare these lenses based on an internet post...
__________________
Michael

Gloire a qui n'ayant pas d'ideal sacro-saint se borne a ne pas trop emmerder ses voisins (Brassens)

My site
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #83
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 42
Posts: 16,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanmich View Post
For some parameters, you may be right (bokeh, distortion, rendition in general), but it would be a stretch to compare these lenses based on an internet post...
My point is that they are all capable of great photos as long as they are pointed at the right subject(s). Everything else is subtle. Nobody but photo geeks care about this stuff. I'm not exempt.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #84
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 62
Posts: 3,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Wow, just goes to show that incremental difference really don't matter. All of this equipment works great, so you just can't go wrong.
Print them at 16x20 or even larger and differences will be much more apparent, as I'm sure you know. This post is good fun, don't get me wrong, but web-sized images are a superficial basis to judge the lenses' worthiness for one's needs.
__________________
--Mike (confirmed midget imagist on stilts)

Bill Pierce's "photographer's proposition": I saw something wonderful, let me show it to you.


Fuji X
Leica M
Canon EOS
Hasselblad 503CW
Minolta Autocord


My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #85
sanmich
Registered User
 
sanmich's Avatar
 
sanmich is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
My point is that they are all capable of great photos as long as they are pointed at the right subject(s). Everything else is subtle. Nobody but photo geeks care about this stuff. I'm not exempt.
I guess you are right and the difference between these specific lenses ARE subtle, but come on, you know that any lens with a decent rendition could look the same at that viewing resolution. even a lens with seriously poor resolution abilities.
__________________
Michael

Gloire a qui n'ayant pas d'ideal sacro-saint se borne a ne pas trop emmerder ses voisins (Brassens)

My site

Last edited by sanmich : 09-08-2011 at 05:37.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #86
bwcolor
Registered User
 
bwcolor is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 2,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanmich View Post
I guess you are right and the difference between these specific lenses ARE subtle, but come on, you know that any lens with a decent rendition could look the same at that viewing resolution. even a lens with a seriously poor resolution abilities.
I don't believe that the Zeiss's difference from the others was so subtle. This is by far my favorite 'all-around' lens, but then again, of the 35s that I own, it was the only one on the list. I may change my mind when I use it on a digital camera.. don't know...haven't tried.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #87
sanmich
Registered User
 
sanmich's Avatar
 
sanmich is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwcolor View Post
I don't believe that the Zeiss's difference from the others was so subtle. This is by far my favorite 'all-around' lens, but then again, of the 35s that I own, it was the only one on the list. I may change my mind when I use it on a digital camera.. don't know...haven't tried.
Well, that's my point.
I see very little difference based on the web resolution shots.
__________________
Michael

Gloire a qui n'ayant pas d'ideal sacro-saint se borne a ne pas trop emmerder ses voisins (Brassens)

My site
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #88
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 42
Posts: 16,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCTuomey View Post
Print them at 16x20 or even larger and differences will be much more apparent, as I'm sure you know.
Each one of these are capable of large prints though too. I stand by my statement that only equipment geeks care about these differences.

Last edited by jsrockit : 09-08-2011 at 05:51.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #89
smk
Registered User
 
smk is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 83
ha ha, I got every single one wrong! What I learned from this exercise is that (based on these images) I like the drawing of the V2, and I dislike the Summilux pre-ASPH!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #90
srtiwari
Daktari
 
srtiwari's Avatar
 
srtiwari is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vero Beach, Florida
Posts: 1,024
A humbling revelation ! I knew I should have taken all the 'Expert' opinions with a pinch of salt. Apparently, all this agonizing over which lens to buy based on their (imagined) differences is quite unnecessary. The good news is, they are all wonderful lenses. Now, to go ahead and sell the pricier ones...
__________________
Subhash
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #91
bwcolor
Registered User
 
bwcolor is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 2,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanmich View Post
Well, that's my point.
I see very little difference based on the web resolution shots.
I don't understand. I'm saying just the opposite. There was a large difference on my monitor, which made the qualities of the Zeiss evident. I must admit that I was only trying to find the Zeiss in that I had no personal experience with the other lenses and that the other lenses seemed much alike to my eye.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #92
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,956
Well, I'll be.

This certainly proves that sized-down JPEG samples of nonregulated shots can fool just about anyone, except the nut-finding brave! I can see Mr. Putts (in his division by zero grammar) saying "that's why the micro-differences, in tests, under the telescope can best be seen".
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).



My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #93
leicashot
Registered User
 
leicashot's Avatar
 
leicashot is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,492
If anyone is interested I did a couple of comparison shots between the Biogon 35/2 and the Nokton II 35/1.2, both at f/2 and there is NO CONTEST. The Nokton wiped the floor with the Biogon. Sorry I can't post the pictures as I don't have permission from the subject.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #94
sanmich
Registered User
 
sanmich's Avatar
 
sanmich is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwcolor View Post
I don't understand. I'm saying just the opposite. There was a large difference on my monitor, which made the qualities of the Zeiss evident. I must admit that I was only trying to find the Zeiss in that I had no personal experience with the other lenses and that the other lenses seemed much alike to my eye.
Did you look at high res or at the full screen flickr lowish resolution?

If the latter, it must be my eyes...
__________________
Michael

Gloire a qui n'ayant pas d'ideal sacro-saint se borne a ne pas trop emmerder ses voisins (Brassens)

My site
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #95
bwcolor
Registered User
 
bwcolor is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 2,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanmich View Post
Did you look at high res or at the full screen flickr lowish resolution?

If the latter, it must be my eyes...
The thing that I like about the Zeiss is the rendering of color and the saturation/micro contrast. I viewed only the res posting on this site. So, I was fixated on only one aspect of the image. It could be my monitor. I viewed on a large Hanns-G which is a cheap monitor, but calibrated.. for what that is worth. I did not view on my higher quality Lacie monitor.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #96
bwcolor
Registered User
 
bwcolor is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 2,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by leicashot View Post
If anyone is interested I did a couple of comparison shots between the Biogon 35/2 and the Nokton II 35/1.2, both at f/2 and there is NO CONTEST. The Nokton wiped the floor with the Biogon. Sorry I can't post the pictures as I don't have permission from the subject.
If time and a stray cat goes by, maybe this would be a good topic for a new thread.... 'Cat on Freshly Wiped Floor' At least without permission, the cat would have a hard time with legal challenges.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #97
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post
OK, I'm going all-in.

1. C-Biogon
2. Summilux pre-ASPH
3. Summarit
4. Nokton
#1: Almost everyone got it, especially those of us who use it. Key clues: the well-articulated OOF, especially the foliage (I have a lot of C-Biogon pictures with foliage at about those spatial frequencies); saturated color rendering; hints of vignetting and hints of color shift in the corners (the latter wouldn't be a problem with film). Here's one shot on Ektar 100:



#2: The Summilux was recognized by its lower contrast and, more importantly, by under-corrected spherical aberration (see the OOF areas at the periphery of the frame, especially in the first set). This would be expected from an ultra-fast lens designed in 1961, even one as outstanding and far ahead of its time as the 'lux.

Purely out of curiosity: the contrast on the 'lux is still very good. Do you have any idea when it was manufactured? I'd expect that the later iterations (mid-1970s to 1990) would have considerably better antireflective optical coatings and commensurately higher contrast.

#3 and #4 were a lot more challenging, especially since I have no personal experience with the lenses beyond looking at pictures on the web. I guessed #3 was the Summarit due to the higher contrast of the finest visible texture and detail (the graffiti, for example) in the first set of pictures. That's been a fingerprint of the modern Leica lenses for some time but it's not easy to see with certainty - weak sauce. Could easily have been wrong.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/

Last edited by semilog : 09-08-2011 at 07:42.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #98
Nigel Meaby
Registered User
 
Nigel Meaby's Avatar
 
Nigel Meaby is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Bournemouth, England.
Age: 46
Posts: 837
Ok well I thought I would take another set of pictures using a tripod. All pics from the distance of 0.9 m, which is the minimum with the Summilux. First thing I noticed was that the field of view varied slightly between the lenses. Camera and tripod were not moved. Again straight out of the camera and saved as Jpegs via Capture One.


L9998867Summilux by Redsnapper41, on Flickr


L9998866nokton by Redsnapper41, on Flickr


L9998865Summarit by Redsnapper41, on Flickr


L9998864Biogon by Redsnapper41, on Flickr
__________________
My Flickr

Last edited by Nigel Meaby : 09-08-2011 at 09:05.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #99
nobbylon
Registered User
 
nobbylon's Avatar
 
nobbylon is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nederlands
Posts: 2,506
I know this was all done in fun but it showed me that I actually liked the biogon most in the photos at the settings they were taken. I also liked all the others.
It doesn't mean that it will be the same result if the subject changed etc etc.
I like my v4 Summicron but I can't tell it apart from my Ultron unless I have identical shots side by side.
At the print sizes most of us will do we would probably not see any differences between any of these until you start seeing a collection of pictures with many different subjects and then maybe you could say which lens was used and even then only if you use one particular lens constantly and can recognise it's qualities. It's definately interesting that most of us picked the non Leica lenses as our favorites! It was exactly the same when I did my Summilux, V4 Summicron and Ultron poll! The Ultron won.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #100
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,733
Again, these are four of the best 35's ever designed and manufactured. For what it's worth, before I tried to figure out which lens was which, I asked which I preferred. And the answer, by a hair over #1, was #3 – the Summarit.

Bottom line: I'm absolutely amazed that under these conditions (f/2.8, 0.7 megapixel image size) any of us were able to see real differences between these lenses, let alone identify any of them by its fingerprint. And I'm more convinced than ever that – unless you really need speed – the C-Biogon and the Summarit are the best* medium-wide lenses ever made for 35mm photography.

*Best-behaved (especially in adverse lighting), most predictable, with as little "character" as possible, and extremely compact and lightweight.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #101
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Meaby View Post
First thing I noticed was that the field of view varied slightly between the lenses.
The C-Biogon is 36 or 37mm actual FL. This is another thing that I like about it: its coverage is closer to what's scribed by the M6 frame lines.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #102
srtiwari
Daktari
 
srtiwari's Avatar
 
srtiwari is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vero Beach, Florida
Posts: 1,024
I wonder if the differences in specific copies of the lenses may have more to do here than differences between their typical 'signatures'. In that case, only a near-perfect copy of each would have to be compared to make any sense of it. OTOH, if your copy is great, it probably doesn't matter much which lens it is...
__________________
Subhash
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #103
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 42
Posts: 16,759
Hmm, ... my c-biogon arrives in the mail today.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #104
kxl
Social Documentary
 
kxl's Avatar
 
kxl is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 2,514
Interesting... I preferred #'s 1 and 4, which turned out to be the C-Biogon and Nokton v2, respectively. The 2 35's I have happen to be the 35/2 Biogon and Nokton v1, close enough cousins to #'s 1 and 4 that they seemed to have retained similar characters.
__________________
Keith
My website

"... I thought the only way to give us an incentive, to bring hope, is to show the pictures of the pristine planet - to see the innocence.” ― Sebastiao Salgado
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #105
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 72
Posts: 5,981
Consider also that most lenses are optimized stopped down a couple of stops. This makes the C Biogon even more remarkable as it was used at maximum aperture ( and also the Summarit 35/2.5)
They both are among the best medium speed 35's made in my "book". Of the two I prefer the Biogon, probably because I have more experience with it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #106
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 62
Posts: 3,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by leicashot View Post
If anyone is interested I did a couple of comparison shots between the Biogon 35/2 and the Nokton II 35/1.2, both at f/2 and there is NO CONTEST. The Nokton wiped the floor with the Biogon. Sorry I can't post the pictures as I don't have permission from the subject.
Not sure what aspect of lens performance is being wiped, but I'm not surprised, having used the ZM 35/2 for a couple of years now and the 35/2.8 for a shorter period as well. The ZM 35/2 softens at f2 (very clear from its mtf chart). Assessing the worth of the ZM 35/2 only at f2 isn't necessarily a balanced assessment unless you shoot only at f2, obviously.

In my experience, by f2.8, the ZM 35/2 looks very much like the ZM 35/2.8 wide open in terms of sharpness, color, and contrast. Bokeh's not at the level of the c-biogon's (which is remarkable to my eye), but it's very good. The ZM 35s image very similarly, imho. And judging from the poll, since the Nokton doesn't wipe the floor with the c-biogon, it wouldn't do so with the 35/2 (beyond f2 anyway).
__________________
--Mike (confirmed midget imagist on stilts)

Bill Pierce's "photographer's proposition": I saw something wonderful, let me show it to you.


Fuji X
Leica M
Canon EOS
Hasselblad 503CW
Minolta Autocord


My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #107
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 62
Posts: 3,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom A View Post
Consider also that most lenses are optimized stopped down a couple of stops. This makes the C Biogon even more remarkable as it was used at maximum aperture ( and also the Summarit 35/2.5)
They both are among the best medium speed 35's made in my "book". Of the two I prefer the Biogon, probably because I have more experience with it.
The c-biogon's mtf indicates that it's almost indistiguishably sharp on center at f2.8 and f5.6. Corner performance improves upon stopping down from f2.8, though. A really capable lens, no doubt.
__________________
--Mike (confirmed midget imagist on stilts)

Bill Pierce's "photographer's proposition": I saw something wonderful, let me show it to you.


Fuji X
Leica M
Canon EOS
Hasselblad 503CW
Minolta Autocord


My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #108
Ljós
Registered User
 
Ljós is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 821
Too bad a 2.8 Summaron was not in the mix. I am pretty sure it would have held its own, too :-)
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #109
sanmich
Registered User
 
sanmich's Avatar
 
sanmich is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCTuomey View Post
Not sure what aspect of lens performance is being wiped, but I'm not surprised, having used the ZM 35/2 for a couple of years now and the 35/2.8 for a shorter period as well. The ZM 35/2 softens at f2 (very clear from its mtf chart). Assessing the worth of the ZM 35/2 only at f2 isn't necessarily a balanced assessment unless you shoot only at f2, obviously.

In my experience, by f2.8, the ZM 35/2 looks very much like the ZM 35/2.8 wide open in terms of sharpness, color, and contrast. Bokeh's not at the level of the c-biogon's (which is remarkable to my eye), but it's very good. The ZM 35s image very similarly, imho. And judging from the poll, since the Nokton doesn't wipe the floor with the c-biogon, it wouldn't do so with the 35/2 (beyond f2 anyway).
Hey Mike

Not sure I understand:
in your first part you seem to mean that you are not surprised by the Nokton being far better than the Zeiss, and in your second part, you seem to disagree with the statement.
__________________
Michael

Gloire a qui n'ayant pas d'ideal sacro-saint se borne a ne pas trop emmerder ses voisins (Brassens)

My site
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #110
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 62
Posts: 3,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanmich View Post
Hey Mike

Not sure I understand:
in your first part you seem to mean that you are not surprised by the Nokton being far better than the Zeiss, and in your second part, you seem to disagree with the statement.
Hi Michael

Sorry for the confusion and for veering off-topic. I'm trying to say, relative to Kristian's post, that the ZM 35/2 is at its worst at f2 and by f2.8 and down it's pretty much the same as the c-biogon, which tops the nokton in this poll. In other words, it's not surprising the ZM 35/2 would fair poorly at f2 against the nokton at f2. Test the ZM 35/2 against the nokton from f2.8 on down and the ZM 35/2 would show very well (like its brother the c-biogon).

As Mr Puts has said, the 35/2 biogon is "stretched" to deliver f2.
__________________
--Mike (confirmed midget imagist on stilts)

Bill Pierce's "photographer's proposition": I saw something wonderful, let me show it to you.


Fuji X
Leica M
Canon EOS
Hasselblad 503CW
Minolta Autocord


My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #111
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 42
Posts: 16,759
I've never had an issue with the 35mm f/2 Biogon wide open... what are you guys seeing that you do not like?
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #112
bwcolor
Registered User
 
bwcolor is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 2,358
I have both f/2 and f/2.8 lenses. The larger size and relative loss of resolution at f/2.0 have me using the compact lens. Both are fine lenses. You mention that your compact Biogon arrives today, but I thought that you purchased a used copy a long time ago. Obviously, I'm confused. Nothing new there.

Last edited by bwcolor : 09-08-2011 at 10:35.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #113
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 42
Posts: 16,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwcolor View Post
I have both f/2 and f/2.8 lenses. The larger size and relative loss of resolution at f/2.0 have me using the compact lens. Both are fine lenses. You mention that your compact Biogon arrives today, but I thought that you purchased a used copy a long time ago. Obviously, I'm confused. Nothing new there.
Well, I did have the 2.8 when I used the M8. Then I thought 2.8 was too slow for use as a 50mm equiv, so I sold it and bought the f/2 version. However, I always hated the size of the f/2 lens (yeah, I'm a bit crazy when it comes to size). So, now that I'm using a M9 and have a 35mm V2 summicron as well, I felt the 2.8 would be the better option for me... since it is small, sharp, and has very little distortion. Honestly, I thought the Biogon f/2 was a good performer wide open.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #114
sanmich
Registered User
 
sanmich's Avatar
 
sanmich is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCTuomey View Post
Hi Michael

Sorry for the confusion and for veering off-topic. I'm trying to say, relative to Kristian's post, that the ZM 35/2 is at its worst at f2 and by f2.8 and down it's pretty much the same as the c-biogon, which tops the nokton in this poll. In other words, it's not surprising the ZM 35/2 would fair poorly at f2 against the nokton at f2. Test the ZM 35/2 against the nokton from f2.8 on down and the ZM 35/2 would show very well (like its brother the c-biogon).

As Mr Puts has said, the 35/2 biogon is "stretched" to deliver f2.
Mike,

I'm not sure about the logic of it.
I am used to f/2 lenses performing significantly better than their faster counterparts at same apertures (Nikkor f/2 vs f/1.4~f/1.2, summilux pre asph vs summicron in both 35 and 50etc.). even if the Nokton is stopped down at f/2, it may well be bested by the Biogons. In fact, the Nokton being much better than the Biogons at f/2~2.8 would really be a surprise for me.

Mentionning excellent lenses, what would be your impressions of the Hexanon-M vs the Biogons image wise?
Which one would you prefer?

cheers!
__________________
Michael

Gloire a qui n'ayant pas d'ideal sacro-saint se borne a ne pas trop emmerder ses voisins (Brassens)

My site
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #115
Erik Johansen
Registered User
 
Erik Johansen is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6
Well,I guss we have all seeing how fast the light changes...
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #116
Ljós
Registered User
 
Ljós is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
[...] Honestly, I thought the Biogon f/2 was a good performer wide open.
And it certainly is. Often one needs to keep the "grain-of-salt"-bag handy when reading comparisons on RFF, or fora in general for that matter. So when the term "wiped the floor with at f2" etc. is used... that might have to be read in a similar fashion as "gives grain the size of golf-balls" or "not much better than a coke bottle" ;-)

That said, the Summaron f2.8 of course leaves all other 35mm lenses in the dust, after having blown them out of the water, or the other way around, I forget which ;-) ;-)

We can count ourselves lucky to have so many choices available these days. And since it is unlikely that we will see a rangefinder lens anytime soon which goes to f1.2 and is as sharp at f1.2 as the VC Nokton and at the same time as small as the Biogon-C (not to speak about the price)... the well known game of advantages and drawbacks/horses for courses will continue.

All the best, Ljós
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #117
Moriturii
Unsui
 
Moriturii is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 658
they all look the same to me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #118
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 62
Posts: 3,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanmich View Post
Mike,

I'm not sure about the logic of it.
I am used to f/2 lenses performing significantly better than their faster counterparts at same apertures (Nikkor f/2 vs f/1.4~f/1.2, summilux pre asph vs summicron in both 35 and 50etc.). even if the Nokton is stopped down at f/2, it may well be bested by the Biogons. In fact, the Nokton being much better than the Biogons at f/2~2.8 would really be a surprise for me.

Mentionning excellent lenses, what would be your impressions of the Hexanon-M vs the Biogons image wise?
Which one would you prefer?

cheers!
Michael, all I can say is that my experience and the zeiss mtf charts suggest the biogon 35/2 at f2 will not resolve fine detail as well as at f2.8. the f2 biogon at f2.8 very closely approximates the resolution of the c-biogon at f2.8. Either lens is excellent. If Kristian says the nokton 35/1.2 at f2 is superior to the biogon 35/2 at f2, that would be the only aperture where it would not be likely to surprise me.

Re the m-hex 35 and the zm 35s, I never had the opportunity to shoot them together on my digital M and doing comparisons on different capture media wouldn't be useful. Would like to do so but I sold my m-hex to a most pleasant gentleman & photographer ...

Best to you and the family!
__________________
--Mike (confirmed midget imagist on stilts)

Bill Pierce's "photographer's proposition": I saw something wonderful, let me show it to you.


Fuji X
Leica M
Canon EOS
Hasselblad 503CW
Minolta Autocord


My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2011   #119
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 62
Posts: 3,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I've never had an issue with the 35mm f/2 Biogon wide open... what are you guys seeing that you do not like?
Well, I really like using my 35/2 biogon wide open - perfect for portraits, among other things. No "issue" at all. Only pointing out that, if you like the 35/2's sharpness at f2 you will really like it at f2.8 and down ...
__________________
--Mike (confirmed midget imagist on stilts)

Bill Pierce's "photographer's proposition": I saw something wonderful, let me show it to you.


Fuji X
Leica M
Canon EOS
Hasselblad 503CW
Minolta Autocord


My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-09-2011   #120
Harry S.
Registered User
 
Harry S.'s Avatar
 
Harry S. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Shellharbour, Australia
Age: 32
Posts: 491
Trust me to like the most expensive one!

Last edited by Harry S. : 09-09-2011 at 04:17.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 00:01.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.