PDA

View Full Version : 800$ -35 Cron Pre-Asph or Zeiss 35 Biogon or VC 35 1.2??


anaanda
10-13-2006, 09:36
Looking for a 35 for my R-D1?

Crasis
10-13-2006, 10:30
I can't even vote as I haven't tried 3 of those 4 lenses, which would bias my vote greatly :)

anaanda
10-13-2006, 10:32
just looking for pros and cons of the ones RFF members have used

back alley
10-13-2006, 11:09
i've seen great pics from each lens.

if you could handle each one and decide on ergonomics, price, availability etc.

joe

Stephanie Brim
10-13-2006, 11:11
In my humble opinion, it all depends on what you plan to shoot. The only advantage of having the Nokton is that you can shoot in very low light. If you don't plan to do that you'd be happier with one of the others, I think.

jtm
10-13-2006, 11:18
400$ Cv 35 1.7?

Nick R.
10-13-2006, 11:56
Cheaper lenses usually don't perform as well in the corners as their Leica equivalents wide open. However, since your RD-1 has a cropped sensor, you might get Leica performance for half the price. It's worth doing some research.

matt fury
10-13-2006, 12:31
I'm biased, since I have a Ultron for sale in the classifieds... :)

anaanda
10-13-2006, 12:37
I'm biased, since I have a Ultron for sale in the classifieds... :)

Hi Matt,

I would snap it up... but unfortunately I was looking for black one...to match the body..

anaanda
10-13-2006, 12:42
Cheaper lenses usually don't perform as well in the corners as their Leica equivalents wide open. However, since your RD-1 has a cropped sensor, you might get Leica performance for half the price. It's worth doing some research.


Nick,
Thanks for the advice, in the end I probably will go with the Ultron based on price...I already have a lot into it with the body and my 50 summicron..
Fortunately I live in San Diego, but the only unfortunate thing is there are no good camera stores here to try rangefinder lenses. Everything is either Nikon or Canon SLR and digicams..I have to order a lense try and then if I don't like it send it back..Its a lot of trouble. I took a chance on the R-D1 from BH photo and everything seems to be working out..

matt fury
10-13-2006, 14:05
Hi Matt,

I would snap it up... but unfortunately I was looking for black one...to match the body..


That's cool. I hope you enjoy it once you find one!

Todd.Hanz
10-13-2006, 14:37
I had a Nokton 35/1.2, and it's a great lens but it's pretty big and heavy (not sure if it matters). Performance is excellent, very sharp and great OOF when shot at larger apetures, it's also the only thing faster than a Summilux in 35mm. The lens is very flare resistant, out of the three you mentioned I'd say it's the most versatile lens you could possibly get to cover all your shooting situations.
On my M6 it weighed the camera down quite a bit, I don't wear my M's around my neck so it wasn't a big deal, but if you do it won't balance well.

I've been interested in the Biogon 35/2 as well, looks really sharp stopped down and the bokeh is pretty nice but I have not fondled one ;). they seem to perform very well based on the samples I've seen posted.

The pre-asph Leicas...come on man, it's a Leica, a virtual penis-extender! (oops :eek: did I just say that, probably, it's Friday) Very compact and sharp with outstanding OOF, but at 800 bucks you can buy the others new and the pre-asph gently fondled.

good luck,
Todd

Gabriel M.A.
10-13-2006, 18:54
Looking for a 35 for my R-D1?
I'm not. Are you?

JohnL
10-14-2006, 06:42
I have the Nokton and voted for it. I don't know the others, so I guess I'm biased! It has only one drawback, which is the size: it can be seen in the viewfinder (M7 0.72x) and invades the 35mm framelines to a significant degree. For me, it's tolerable. Others may find this more of an issue. IQ is very good even wide open - in real life photography. I never "tested" it. *IF* you want a low-light lens you can't beat this at the price.

Bromo33333
10-14-2006, 07:13
Looking for a 35 for my R-D1?

Won't go wrong with Zeiss - though I doubt you will lose with any of em. I have found really fast lenses can have a little more distortion that slightly slower ones - for 35mm, f2 seems to be about ideal unless you really need super low light.

Also consider that the lenses can get big and heavy with wider aperture - this may be a pain in the keester if you want to remain small and discrete (though if that is a big consideration, there are a ton of smaller P&S digicams)

venchka
10-14-2006, 17:26
I agonized, analized and comparisized getting a 35mm for the last few months. In the end, I realized that I already had several very good 35mm 2.8 to 3.5 lenses. So, the Nokton made the most sense in terms of giving me a lens with additional capabilites. A lens that would expand my photography. I didn't need one those things Todd mentioned! :D

I ended up not buying another 35mm lens. :D I have enough already. Blasphemy, I know. I did, however, buy 14 pounds of MF SLR & lenses. Is that ok? GAS works in mysterious ways.

back alley
10-14-2006, 17:43
you buy gear by the pound?

;)

BillBingham2
10-14-2006, 18:08
Just to mess with your mind, what about the 40/1.4?

If you need to stick to at 35, I agree with Steph, if you think you want the speed, go with the 35/1.2. It is a big lens, FAST and sharp.

I have some great shots with the 35/1.7, but have loaned it to my son and gone with a 40/1.4. I love the 35/2 'cron, used it for years and it is smaller than the 35/1.7. The 40/1.4 feels as small and miine is smooth as 'cron.

You might want to check how the 'cron works (light fall off) with the RD-1. I think the 35/1.2 will do fine as should the ZI. Not sure about the 40 either,

B2 (;->

venchka
10-14-2006, 19:41
you buy gear by the pound?

;)

Grinning. Not really, but MF gear can get portly in a hurry. I had no idea what it weighed until I saw the tracking information.

venchka
10-14-2006, 19:44
Just to mess with your mind, what about the 40/1.4?


B2 (;->

That notion crept into my brain too. Except I had too many 50s & too many 35s. OK,OK, I had NO 40s. :D

Seriously, it's worth a look. Probably the smallest 1.4 lens around. Certainly one of the least expensive.

jano
10-14-2006, 19:50
Just to mess with your mind, what about the 40/1.4?

What lens is this?

Todd.Hanz
10-14-2006, 19:55
What lens is this?


I think he's refering to the Voigtlander 40/1.4 Nokton

BillBingham2
10-15-2006, 00:25
Sorry, Todd is right, the CV 40/1.4. Only thing I do not like about the lens is that it brings up a 50mm frame line on a Leica. This is easy to fix either your self or sending it to DAG. It is a great lens at a very good price.

B2 (;->

anaanda
10-18-2006, 10:33
I am considering the 40 1.4 as well but that's a 61.2 Focal length on the R-D1. I am also considering the 28 1.9 Ultron to go with my 50 summicron. The 28 is a 43 on the R-D1? any thoughts..

Paul T.
10-18-2006, 16:01
The 40mm Summicron C is an absolute bargain, and fits the 35mm framelines on thje R-D1 much more accurately than the (overpriced, and I have one) 35mm Summicron. You should be able to pick one up for $300 and have enough left for the $450 VC 28/1.9, which I note Sean Reid rates highly on the R-D1.

arbib
04-03-2007, 18:58
It has a great reputation, and there FAST !!!!!!!!

Simon Larbalestier
04-05-2007, 10:48
just to confuse things a bit - i recently sold off my 35/1.4 pre ASPH to raise cash to purchase the V4 35/2 and the Nokton 35/1.2. I think both are unique in their own right hence the reason i own both - the V4 i find easier to handle than the 35/1.4 pre ASPH in that it's rectangular hood doesn't rotate when you need the change the aperture. The Nokton is heavy but balances well with the Photoequip ML grip.

Huck Finn
04-13-2007, 07:17
It's surprising how poorly this "legendary" Summicron is doing in this poll with almost 75 people responding at this point. :confused:

Pherdinand
04-13-2007, 09:56
this is a strange question.
Do you need f/1.2 vs f/2? pretty big difference i would say!
AND do you mind a triple size?

If Yes/No then go for CV 35/1.2

jamriman
04-13-2007, 10:28
Practicality: 40 Rokkor, Investment: 35 pre cron.

Simon Larbalestier
04-13-2007, 11:03
Could you tell a little more about the performance of the two lenses. I was planing on getting the 35 1.2, but I got an great offer on a 35 2 v4.

Like i said i purchased them for their own unique qualities - there are some projects i'm working on which require F1.2 or 1.4 and nothing else. So that rules out the v4 35/2

However the 35/1.2 with the vented hood mounted is large (not unlike the Noctilux although i no longer have the latter to compare side by side). For me this means it's a lens for specific needs not a carry round every day lens - so for me the v4 35/2 scores well because of its diminutive size (very much like the 35/1.4 pre ASPH lux i had) including the rectangular hood. I prefer this at apertures F4-8.



Both very different. For me. And not always used on the same projects.

When i've more time and my projects are more complete i will post some of the images and note the lens used to make them.
i do not view them competitively in terms of performance. Both deliver the goods it's more a question of the amount of available light when i shoot and their size when used alongside other lens when i travel. I simply can't take every lens and camera to every destination where my projects are.

I'm not sure if this answers your original question or not but these are my user views.

Simon Larbalestier
04-13-2007, 15:03
I was thinking more of sharpness and contrast. I like taking pics in dim light and at night and thats why im thinking about the 1.2. I also hear great things about the v4 and its bokeh. I cant afford both. That is the problem.

You might want to check this thread out amongst others as this topic comes up here quite often.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32974


also RFF member x-ray has a great deal of experience with both these lenses.

Richie
04-22-2007, 20:01
I own the VC 35mm f1.2 and Leica 35mm f2s (pre-Asph and Asph). Given your choices, I can strongly recommend the VC f1.2 lens. Its optical signature is very similar to the Leica pre-Asph 35mm lenses, but you get f1.2 and f1.4 apertures which are very very useful in low light situations. The size of the lens does not bother me, although it is an issue with some Leica M users.

fgianni
07-03-2007, 09:09
Hmm I own the 35 2 4th, and I think the lens is a bit overrated, now since I'd like to get a faster lens, I could either get the VC 1.2 (big and bulky) and keep the 35 2 4th as a normal walk around lens, or sell the 35 4th and get a pre-asph 35 lux (can't afford the ASPH one), which is pretty compact anyway.
is the performance of the VC 1.2 so much better than a pre-asph 35 lux?

ferider
07-03-2007, 09:15
All three great lenses. The Summicron is by far the smallest, and the Nokton is the biggest.

I recommend not to buy the Nokton for the "low light" capabilities. On a digital camera,
the additional half stop you get, say over a Nokton 40/1.4 is practically irrelevant.
If you buy it, buy it for the shallow DOF - it has an excellent signature.

Check out the M-mount forum on flckr, you can see sample shots of the three lenses and
also of the Ultron.

Best,

Roland.

Gabriel M.A.
07-03-2007, 09:19
Hmm I own the 35 2 4th, and I think the lens is a bit overrated, now since I'd like to get a faster lens, I could either get the VC 1.2 (big and bulky) and keep the 35 2 4th as a normal walk around lens, or sell the 35 4th and get a pre-asph 35 lux (can't afford the ASPH one), which is pretty compact anyway.
is the performance of the VC 1.2 so much better than a pre-asph 35 lux?
Psst. Wanna trade for a practically-new black ZM 35mm Biogon? :)

photorat
07-03-2007, 10:49
Leica's pre-ASPH lux is a an absolute dog of a lens. There are numerous posts and tests linked to this forum which reveal its significant defects compared to later lenses, not least of which the nokton. You get far more lens for your money with the 35 summicron (in any version, don't listen to people who swear by the 4th as it's the same optical formula as the rest but with inferior build quality). But then, the summicron is way overpriced at the moment IMHO. Better value seems to be the Zeiss biogon. If speed is your concern, definitely go for the Nokton (or save up for a user ASPH summilux).

Hmm I own the 35 2 4th, and I think the lens is a bit overrated, now since I'd like to get a faster lens, I could either get the VC 1.2 (big and bulky) and keep the 35 2 4th as a normal walk around lens, or sell the 35 4th and get a pre-asph 35 lux (can't afford the ASPH one), which is pretty compact anyway.
is the performance of the VC 1.2 so much better than a pre-asph 35 lux?

thomasw_
07-03-2007, 11:07
get both the VC 35/1.2 for the late afternoon/evenings and the biogon 28/2.8 for the street. you won't be unhappy with the results!

Paul T.
07-03-2007, 11:11
I agree with all your points, photorat, but for the statement that the 4th version Summicron is optically identical to its predecessors.It has 7 elements, I believe, compared to the 6 element versions 2 and 3. But I doubt that there's a huge difference in optical performance.

BillBlackwell
07-03-2007, 11:14
Leica's pre-ASPH lux is a an absolute dog of a lens...

I have to agree. I have had two 35mm pre-asph Summilux' and both were worthless below about f/5.6.

I also agree that the choices you have listed here are all good. You can't go wrong with any of them. Value for the dollar should steer you to the Zeiss. But, while the Leica would be the best investment of the three, I have the Nokton f/1.2 and have been very impressed (and surprised) by it. Its size is no distraction for me, the color saturation has a Leica signature, and it is plenty sharp.

Close your eyes and point! And buy the one your finger lands on.

35mmdelux
07-03-2007, 12:36
is the performance of the VC 1.2 so much better than a pre-asph 35 lux?

Yes. As you know the 35 lux pre-asph has a great propensity to flare and its soft wide open (its signature). There are a few good examples but generally a toss up.

I like the compact pre-asph crons, but if I wanted something diff it would definitely be the zeiss.

NB23
07-03-2007, 13:04
35 summilux a "dog" and an "absolute underperformer"?
LOL!

That lens is partly responsible for that fabled "Leica look" that no one can quite explain and now it's become a "dog", suddenly? Especially by a guy with a history of 19 posts vaguely parroting what he's read somewhere on the net?

Gimme a break!

I'm willing to go on a shootout with that lens and win the battle at any time of day! I don't really give a darn about ultra sharpness at f1.4 if there is no soul and modelé and good tonality in a picture. The 35 pre-asph gives me that with each single shot, allthetime!

Didier
07-03-2007, 13:38
I have a 35/1.4 asph and am looking for another, more compact 35 for the R-D1s. The Summicron 4th easily beats the ZM 35/2 Biogon, CV 35 Nokton and Ultron in terms of compactness. The 35/2.5 W-Nikkor-C I had was not that ergonomic as I would like, and had a somehow strange centric bokeh effect. The Canons 35/1.5, 1.8 and 2 are a tad weak on the contrast side. The Color Skopar 2.5/35 PII or C would be the cheapest alternative but I guess the Summicron will join my bag soon.

venchka
07-04-2007, 23:45
If it's a compact 35mm/2.0 lens you seek, look at the new Konica UC-Hexanon currently for sale on ebay. BIN price: $870 USD. You won't find a Summicron for that price.

Back on topic:

800$ -35 Cron Pre-Asph or Zeiss 35 Biogon or VC 35 1.2??

That was the original question. I question the $800 budget relative to those 3 lenses. Maybe, on a good day, from an individual, you MIGHT get a v.2 or v.3 35mm Summicron for $800. Maybe. You can easily buy the Zeiss 35mm Biogon with hood from Tony Rose for $800, give or take a quid or two. The 35mm Nokton is $900 and change new. I saw a used one here recently for $650 I think. That was a great price. They are usually more. So, in summary, forget the $800 Summicron unless someone has offered you one for that price. Buy the Biogon new or hold out for a Nokton used. Or visit Matsuiyastore on ebay and buy the brand new, wee UC-Hexanon for $901 delivered to your door.

yerba
07-20-2007, 02:30
If you do a lot, and I mean a lot of low light shooting, go for the VC 35/1.2. You won't regret it. Otherwise go for the Zeiss. If you're on the budget go for 35/1.7. At least that is what I'd do.

Paul T.
07-20-2007, 03:05
Crons do go for $800. a V1 was at pnet for $800, and I sold my V2 here for $720 a couple of days ago.

I do agree that in comparison, the Zeiss looks something of a bargain, but the Leica lenses do have the significant advantage of being more compact. However, in future, this might be offset by the fact that, in any FF rangefinder, the Zeiss might exhibit less vignetting - this, I recall, was one of zeiss's design aims, altho only time will tell if this is true, or marketing spiel...

Never Satisfied
07-20-2007, 04:07
Hi Todd, I have a Gen IV Summicron and the Ultron and few other 35's and the Summicron is a stand alone as far as OOF quality and size are concerned. I'd love a f1.2 Nokton but unless you need the speed it would be a waste. The 'Cron gets my vote. Cheers Andrew.

RayPA
10-19-2007, 06:34
I have the Nokton, the Ultron, and the CS 35/2.5 (not listed here). The Nokton is the "poor man's noctilux." It's a great lens, worth getting, but It is big. I like it, but it does unbalance the camera a bit. I recommend the Ultron, or the CS 35/2.5 AND the Nokton (for those moments when need a lens to suck some light). :) The C35/2.5 is a nice fit on the RD-1.


:)

wintoid
10-19-2007, 06:38
I've got the 40 Summicron, 35 Hexanon, 35 Nokton, and have previously owned the 40 Nokton and 35 summicron preasph. For general purpose use, my favourite is the Nokton! It's also my favourite for low light use. I have decided I don't care that it's big. It's worth it.

cmogi10
10-23-2007, 14:29
I am 100% sold on the Zeiss 35/2.0 I didn't read the whole thread so If you bought one already I'm sorry but the Biogon is a fantastic lens.

Hacker
10-23-2007, 15:49
That notion crept into my brain too. Except I had too many 50s & too many 35s. OK,OK, I had NO 40s. :D

Seriously, it's worth a look. Probably the smallest 1.4 lens around. Certainly one of the least expensive.

What about the 60 (Hexanon), 80 (Rollei) and 85 Zeiss? You must add these to your collecttion.

Hacker
10-23-2007, 15:59
If it's a compact 35mm/2.0 lens you seek, look at the new Konica UC-Hexanon currently for sale on ebay. BIN price: $870 USD. You won't find a Summicron for that price.



Yes, the Hexanon is an utter gem and an over performer. Better coating than the IV and oozes with quality.

BigSteveG
10-23-2007, 16:26
UC Hex...it's a killer....you can get it BRAND NEW for about that price.

popobsd
01-10-2008, 00:33
I have the Nokton, the Ultron, and the CS 35/2.5 (not listed here). The Nokton is the "poor man's noctilux." It's a great lens, worth getting, but It is big. I like it, but it does unbalance the camera a bit. I recommend the Ultron, or the CS 35/2.5 AND the Nokton (for those moments when need a lens to suck some light). :) The C35/2.5 is a nice fit on the RD-1.


:)
Hi RayPA, If you think the Nokton unblance the camera a bit. Use a leicaVit. Perfect! :rolleyes::cool:

Turtle
01-10-2008, 05:20
35 summilux a "dog" and an "absolute underperformer"?
LOL!

That lens is partly responsible for that fabled "Leica look" that no one can quite explain and now it's become a "dog", suddenly? Especially by a guy with a history of 19 posts vaguely parroting what he's read somewhere on the net?

Gimme a break!

I'm willing to go on a shootout with that lens and win the battle at any time of day! I don't really give a darn about ultra sharpness at f1.4 if there is no soul and modelé and good tonality in a picture. The 35 pre-asph gives me that with each single shot, allthetime!

This brings out a number of points:

A person with a small number of posts has simply not been with RFF for long. Its says nothing negative about the value of their views. They might be extremely experienced and creatively brilliant for all we know.....

From a resolution and contrast perspective, the 35 pre asph lux (I have never owned one) seems to be regarded by many users as lacking contrast (flares a lot) and resolution is poor at wider apertures. These are characteristics most often cited as 'problems or deficiencies' with lenses, although some such as yourself are not worried about this. Some are however....many are in fact. All these opinions would seem to be valid to me - a dog vs. diamond!

Personally, I use a biogon. Very happy with it and I would say that if a person is looking for excellent resolution and contrast along with great bokeh and creaminess, this is a great bet. I would not pay the extra for a V4 Summicron simply because I see no point, for me. Whilst not the smallest, it is hardly a giant either.

Worth also considering the CV 35 pancake 2...very good value and great performance by the sound of it. I think it comes down to application. There is no point lugging a CV 35 1.2 about if you are not shooting at 1.2...much better off with something smaller and lighter. If you dont need 1.2 - and you are likely to know if you really need it - then a slower cheaper lens would make more sense to me. The pancake is about 1/3 the size and the biogon about 1/2.

I think an intersting point is that some now swear that the bokeh of the new Summarit 35 is wonderful....better than the 35 v4, where the V4 used is not a whole lot cheaper than a new Summarit when one considers the merits of a new lens and warranty. The 35 biogon has wonderful bokeh IMO but if you want to avoid a sharp contrasty lens you wont get on with it. It is contrasty but somehow is gentle in the process.

ampguy
03-07-2008, 12:15
Hey, I forgot you had a Nokton 35/1.2, black or chrome? I'd love to try that out sometime!

To the OP: I've owned the Cron v4, and the Ultron. The Ultron 1.7 is about 2x the size, and the 1.7 doesn't do much or look that great (at 1.7). Maybe consider a Rokkor 40/2 or CV 40/2 for small sizes, and good IQ. My 35 walk around lens is the 35/2 cron asph, much less distortion and coma and SA, contrast suitable for color, and better resolution than many older lenses.

I have the Nokton, the Ultron, and the CS 35/2.5 (not listed here). The Nokton is the "poor man's noctilux." It's a great lens, worth getting, but It is big. I like it, but it does unbalance the camera a bit. I recommend the Ultron, or the CS 35/2.5 AND the Nokton (for those moments when need a lens to suck some light). :) The C35/2.5 is a nice fit on the RD-1.


:)

__hh
03-08-2008, 03:52
That is actually a very wise idea. The R-D1's 35mm framelines are quite generous, and in real-life these framelines are actually better suited to 40mm lenses (at least this is what I've read).

I currently have the 35mm ZM Biogon (and loving it), but am thinking that I might pick up the 40mm f/1.4 purely because of this "generous" R-d1 frameline issue. My R-D1 is on its way, and will let you know how this goes.



Hung

Just to mess with your mind, what about the 40/1.4?


B2 (;->