Skopar 35 f/2.5 vs. C-Biogon 35 f/2.8: anyone ever compared?

the_jim

the_jim

human
Local time
5:01 PM
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
391
As a result of the recent four lenses at f/2.8 poll, I was reminded of a nagging question: has anyone ever compared the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm f/2.5 to the Zeiss C-Biogon 35mm f/2.8?

I remember the release of the Biogon and it's subsequent success always seemed to boggle my mind. They are both produced by Cosina and their lens diagrams are eeeeeerily similar (the same). It's possible that the Zeiss lens has different coatings and potentially different glass types, but would it not be impossible that these two lenses are the same optic just in different housings? Does the $400 difference pay for some black enamel paint, better ergonomics, fancier branding and a 'T' with an asterisk?
 
I loved my skopar - it's a really superb little lens, however those with the 2.8 biogons will often say it's one of the best 35mm lenses ever made...
 
Well I've never used the Skopar but if the it was so good it would have the reputation of the Biogon-C, which has been on the market less time than the Skopar.

I'm scared to compare my Nokton II and 50 Lux ASPH to the Biogon-C, so I think for the Skopar's sake, the comparison never happens ;-)
 
I use the 35 skopar 2.5 regularly and love it. It is better than the Canon 35L which I also use regularly. It is definitely sharp wide open all across the frame. I will be getting the 35 1.2 v2 soon so I can't wait to compare.

Sean Reid's comparison is actually quite shocking. The 2.5 skopar holds its own unbelievably well against the other 35s.
 
leicashot said:
Well I've never used the Skopar but if the it was so good it would have the reputation of the Biogon-C, which has been on the market less time than the Skopar.

I'm scared to compare my Nokton II and 50 Lux ASPH to the Biogon-C, so I think for the Skopar's sake, the comparison never happens ;-)
Click to expand...

Search for Tom A's opinions of the Skopar. The little beast has nothing to hang it's head over.
 
the_jim said:
They are both produced by Cosina and their lens diagrams are eeeeeerily similar (the same).
Click to expand...

The lens cross sections certainly are similar (the C-V, like the Zeiss, is a variant of a 75 year old Zeiss design), but there are a number of readily discernible differences in the cross sections.

Note, similarly, that almost every double-gauss 50mm lens by every major manufacturer looks roughly the same, too – at least as similar as the C-Biogon and the Skopar – and there are considerable differences in price, performance and drawing among the 50's, as well.

Glass types, assembly tolerances (especially centering), QC, placement and design of the diaphragm, and subtle differences in the cross section can all make a big difference.

None of this to say that the Biogon-C is radically different in performance than the Color-Skopar. But it would a mistake to say the designs are the same.
 
Last edited:
I have the f2 biogon and the skopar pancake. I tested the two out of curiosity. Aside from fractionally better outer field performance at the widest f stops, and fractionally smoother bokeh for the biogon maybe, possibly, the two produced images that were indistinguishable. Differences were small enough not to matter in use aside from one: vignetting. The pancake vignetted more.
 
a long shot perhaps...

do any of you 35mm owners also have a 40/2.8 sonnar from rollei?
i wonder how THEY compare...

i am deathly curious to know...
 
Turtle said:
I have the f2 biogon and the skopar pancake. I tested the two out of curiosity. Aside from fractionally better outer field performance at the widest f stops, and fractionally smoother bokeh for the biogon maybe, possibly, the two produced images that were indistinguishable. Differences were small enough not to matter in use aside from one: vignetting. The pancake vignetted more.
Click to expand...

Yes but the Biogon-C and Biogon are quite different. I have owned the Biogon-C and tested the Biogon the other day and found the Biogon to be noticeably behind the C. Even on center wide open, the Biogon is not what I'd call sharp. I can't imagine it being as sharp as the C, stopped down only one stop.
 
Probably best not to "imagine" (or even not be able to imagine) what the Biogon is like stopped down only one stop - especially if you had one you could have tested at exactly that aperture.

I have heard that that one stop makes a huge difference on the Biogon from a couple of different sources, but I have no personal experience, so I wouldn't know for sure ... unless I actually tested for myself. I certainly wouldn't want my assumptions or guesses to stand in the stead of, or pre-conditionally bias, any actual empirical knowledge I may be able to garner in the future.
 
DamenS said:
Probably best not to "imagine" (or even not be able to imagine) what the Biogon is like stopped down only one stop - especially if you had one you could have tested at exactly that aperture.

I have heard that that one stop makes a huge difference on the Biogon from a couple of different sources, but I have no personal experience, so I wouldn't know for sure ... unless I actually tested for myself. I certainly wouldn't want my assumptions or guesses to stand in the stead of, or pre-conditionally bias, any actual empirical knowledge I may be able to garner in the future.
Click to expand...

Either way, I'm not losing sleep over the matter as neither will take a better picture. Sharpness is only one over-talked about facet of a picture, and one I need to concern myself with much less than I have.
 
LOL - you KNOW it is about 1.23 % worse than the version 1 when it comes to Bokeh at f1.2 when it is focussed between 1-3 metres and the background is at a distance of over 20 metres with a high spatial definition, don't try to deny it ... :)
 
DamenS said:
LOL - you KNOW it is about 1.23 % worse than the version 1 when it comes to Bokeh at f1.2 when it is focussed between 1-3 metres and the background is at a distance of over 20 metres with a high spatial definition, don't try to deny it ... :)
Click to expand...

Crap, why isn't google translation working....are you speaking Australian or something?!?! I've been in LALA Land too long :bang:
 
You'd expect the Zeiss to be more expensive because both Zeiss and Cosina need to make a profit from it. As Cosina own the Voigtlander name, there's only one piper to pay. Having said that, I'd also expect Zeiss to insist on tighter quality control as it has their name on it, with maybe less sample-to-sample variation (the curse of cheaper lenses, and virtually absent in Leica lenses).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top