Zeiss Biogon 35mm f2.8 for a Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 Nokton
- Thread starter gaswho
- Start date
NazgulKing
Senior Member
If you plan to use the Nokton for streets in the sense of people only, it is fine. But if you intend to use that for landscapes and architecture, you are better off with the Zeiss.Hi all,
I got a Zeiss Biogon 35mm f2.8, but was so fascinated by the fast CV 35mm f1.4 Nokton Classic after so many good reviews about this.
Do you guy think its worth switching since my current Zeiss is considered a better and more expensive?
Thanks for any comments
although i nv try b4 these 2 lenses... from my share of other voigtlander lenses and zeiss ones.. i believe zeiss would be sharper at 2.8 vs nokton at 2.8. it probably boils down to how the lens renders and whether u like it or not lor. 1.4 does open up better chance of shooting at night though.
if u need the extra speed, then maybe bah.
maybe u should consider some leica glass ? ^^. a 35 cron (pre-asph or asph is a good choice) haha..
if u need the extra speed, then maybe bah.
maybe u should consider some leica glass ? ^^. a 35 cron (pre-asph or asph is a good choice) haha..
Yeah, i always like fast lenses as i do like low light shoots.
I will be consider this before i make the plunge.
Thanks again!
You would only want to buy the CV 35/1.4 if you need the speed. The Biogon C 35/2.8 is sharp even when at it's maximum aperture, better than the Summicron 35 in the center at f2.8 as the Summicron is designed to be as sharp as it can be across the entire frame. The Biogon C 35/2.8 is also sharper than the Biogon 35/2 at f2.8.
artspraken
New Member
Zeiss 2.8/35 is optically superior. If you see reid reviews, you can see how analyses show it beats even Leica lenses. This lens is also very compact. RFF members rave about it, ive never seen any posts complain.
CV1.4 has its fans too, mainly for its combination of compact size and speed (not many small F1.4 lenses), but optically it has drawbacks (distortion etc).
Both lenses are made by Cosina.
Frankly if you ask me to choose, i will take the Zeiss. I think F1.4 is overestimated. Particularly if you using digital M. Really. Even if you using film, with tri X i push iso 1600 and i am still comfortable at F2.8. The other point is under low light its hard to focus at F1.4 anyway for street photography. I used to think the bigger the aperture the better, but really that is not always true in actual practice. In actual practice, for F1.4 you need the target to be stationery to focus - for street photog i can never bite focus under low light with F1.4 in low light
CV1.4 is a good lens, but zeiss 2.8 is better. Big aperture does not make a lens better. But i am a fan of both lenses due to their compact size. Nowadays my small lenses see more action whilst my big lenses tend to decorate my dry cabinet. Ive stopped buying and using big ass lenses
CV1.4 has its fans too, mainly for its combination of compact size and speed (not many small F1.4 lenses), but optically it has drawbacks (distortion etc).
Both lenses are made by Cosina.
Frankly if you ask me to choose, i will take the Zeiss. I think F1.4 is overestimated. Particularly if you using digital M. Really. Even if you using film, with tri X i push iso 1600 and i am still comfortable at F2.8. The other point is under low light its hard to focus at F1.4 anyway for street photography. I used to think the bigger the aperture the better, but really that is not always true in actual practice. In actual practice, for F1.4 you need the target to be stationery to focus - for street photog i can never bite focus under low light with F1.4 in low light
CV1.4 is a good lens, but zeiss 2.8 is better. Big aperture does not make a lens better. But i am a fan of both lenses due to their compact size. Nowadays my small lenses see more action whilst my big lenses tend to decorate my dry cabinet. Ive stopped buying and using big ass lenses
Last edited:
Similar threads
