Thoughts on Voigtlander 35mm f2 Ultron vs Zeiss C-biogon 35mm 2.8?

S

stompyq

Well-known
Local time
1:10 AM
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
1,609
I've been thinking about picking up a Zeiss c-biogon for awhile as a smaller alternative to my 35mm Nokton. But the Voigtlander looks interesting especially the V2 with the focus tab.

Anyone try these two lenses and want to comment? Voigtlander 35mm f2 Ultron vs Zeiss C-biogon 35mm 2.8? I'm specifically interested in performance with film (color and BW).
 
I haven't used the new VC, but had the Zeiss for a while. It was a great lens in terms of rendering and size, but it didn't feel well made. Mine developed the wobble and had to be consistently re-tightened.

All the VC lenses I've used have felt nicer and better built, but that's just my own experience. Lot's of other good 35's to consider as well--in some ways you can't really go wrong.
 
I’ve had a 35C for 5 years and never had a hiccup. Solidly built, Sharp as all, high contrast. The CV (haven’t used it but read the glowing reviews) is of a more modern design incorporating special glass the older Zeiss doesn’t. It’s also a stop faster. All else being reasonably equal, that would be my decision point.
 
I have owned a 35 Summicron ASPH, a 35 Zeiss Biogon 2.8 and currently the Voigtlander 35 2,0 Ultron ASPH (V1). The Summicron is special but expensive. I really liked the Zeiss except for the 43mm filters and the tendency to develop a wobble. The Ultron is close to the image quality of the Summicron but at a third of the price, has a nice build, takes 39mm filters like my other lenses and if you are using it on a mirrorless camera, focuses to .58 meters.
 
I have the ultron, and it replaced a biogon f2 that I returned due to sloppy mechanics (new out of the box).

The ultron is optically excellent with no real flaws, it has a little bit of character, and it's faster and smaller than the f2.8 biogon.
 
What is your most needed thing?

Have some punchy images or lens which will lasts and easy to handle, has top quality build?

Biogon images are punchy. But lens itself.. to me it is typical ZM meh.

New 35/2 Ultron is finally lens made for long and happy handling.
I can't tell anything about its rendering. It is way too new to see real users images and enough to judge.
From previous 35 1.7 versions, I could tell those were Cron kicked to the ass lenses.
And some reputable reviewers already called CV U 35/2 to do the same to current Cron.

You could get this lens and used Biogon to have both and have first hand experience. Don't be afraid to lose some money after selling one of them. Or both. I have tried and sold many RF lenses. It is the only way to find truth, because this kind of truths are unique or each individual. And prices for those lenses are for regular people. So, you won't loss a lot.
 
Have owned the 35f2.8 C Biogon for ten years. It is my favorite travel lens and may be the sharpest 35 M mount lens made. Have never owned the 35f2 Ultron but my other 35 is the first version of the 35f1.2 and except for its size I have no complaints.

Good luck with your hunt!
 
Some of my most memorable shots are with the 35mm f/2.8 zeiss lens. I always notice the pictures from this lens, even after forgetting which lens I had used. I have not used the voigtlander lens, so don’t know about comparing the two.
 
I have the CV Ultron 35mm f2.0 Vintage, the version released last year. I understand from the Head Bartender that optically it’s identical to the v. II. It has incredible image quality in a compact package. The build quality feels excellent, although I haven’t used it that long. I’m a fan of Zeiss glass, and have the Biogon 35mm f2.8 in Contax RF mount (a lens from 1950s). I have less experience with the modern line of Zeiss lenses made by Cosina. But the Ultron 35 is well worth looking at, if you’re after a sharp, modern lens w/ a little character.
 
I occasionally think of replacing my ZM Biogon 35/2 with the VC 35/2 mainly on the grounds of size. What holds me back in making a change is that I really like the handling and images that the Biogon produces.
 
I have the Ultron f2 v1 and I think it is my one 35mm lens for the time being. I am a 50mm guy, so a good, budget friendly 35 is right up my alley.

The lens renders very pleasantly, it has reasonably smooth bokeh with just the right amount of character (swirl) to it. I use many lenses from the 50s so I might have different standards regarding sharpness and contrast, but to my eyes the Ultron is plenty sharp and contrasty on film (no digital experience). All in a very compact and nice looking package.

Worth mentioning: mine has the slightest bit of wobble to it. I suspect that I have grabbed the front of the lens with the hood for mounting or dismounting the lens a couple times. So be smarter than me and don't apply torque where no torque shall be applied.
 
ACullen said:
I occasionally think of replacing my ZM Biogon 35/2 with the VC 35/2 mainly on the grounds of size. What holds me back in making a change is that I really like the handling and images that the Biogon produces.
Click to expand...

Same here for the smaller 35 Biogon C. It’s my sunny day 35 to begin with and I do like the Zeiss pop and color punch.

If I were to add a 35, it’d be the APO.
 
I have the V1 ultron. Bought it new when Cameraquest discounted it after announcing the v2. I'm very happy with it. Small, sharp, fast enough, feels well made. Good lens.
 
Just got the Biogon-C.

It is good companion: Summicron 35mm Version ! and the 40mm M-Rokkor.

The sharpest (honest) is the Cron, the Rokkor comes second and Biogon third, my impression so far. It is in fact the combination of resolution and micro-detail and contrast.

However, looking at highest resolution of details is different from rendering objects. The Biogon wins in the field of high contrast (of course) and trees remain relatively dark. [My Rokkor is getting some hze. I often have it in the pocket of my trouser. With all the salt sweat that is a kind of sea-coast atmosphere]

The Biogon might win in color stauration; The other two also have a great saturation and balance, more than good enough on the M240.

However, the Biogon-C has purple edges on high contrast picture material - like many modern lenses. And that I like less. It is something I do not like (and why I did not buy the Heliar 75). Old lenses have a much better control of CA. I just looked at a picture of the ZM 28mm on the M8, trees were dark but the leaves all spoilt from CA-bloom. I hope the Biogon behaves better. Some say the sensor needs to be better than the M8, smaller pixels . . to not see the fringing, but I have no understanding of that.

And I detect a slight backfocus on the lens at about 3 meters, not at 1 meter and not at infinity. I'll have to look into that.
And finally, the sharpness is retained up to 90% in the corner. The Cron is softer away from the center.

The separation of subjects wide open: the Biogon-C did not yet push me off from my chair. [Other vintage 35mm lenses have ...] In that, for now it is just one of the pack.

I have not looked at the Ultron lenses.
 
Hi I have the C-Biogon (and the Nokton 35 1.4, I am happy with it. Indeed the images are punchy, the lens is sharp, and have the most 3D pop of the ZM lenses I have (50/1.5, 50/2, 25/2.8). It renders on the neutral / transparent (?) side if that is what you like. It also is very resistant to flare as most ZM lenses are. I use them w/o hoods / lens shade.

M8
48635187607_a83a07f500_b.jpg


M10
52236554927_deba8598f5_b.jpg


50154694302_6e6cd6049d_b.jpg
 
Update on my reply from last year… I’ve had my 35/2.0 Ultron v. 1 now for a couple of years, and have used it extensively. It’s holding up very well indeed: no wobbles or other problems. And I love the way it handles and renders. It’s a terrific lens.
 
I’ve had both and don’t think you can go wrong either way. I kept the CV 35/2 for size and the extra stop. I also like the focusing stick as opposed to nub. I think they are really close in rendering too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top