Voigtlander Ultron 28mm f2 Versus Carl Zeiss Biogon 28mm f2.8

<p>Having recently become a digital convert, I find that my 35mm lens is no longer wide enough for my occasional wide angle shooting (my favourite every-day focal length is 50mm). </p>

<p>So, with the 1.3 crop factor I think I'll buy a 28mm lens. The dilemma is that between the 2 lenses I am considering to buy there is relatively small amount of $ difference - $150 to $190!!</p>

<p>But I am mindful of "different horses for different courses"! My most used lenses are Leica lenses. But unless there is a compelling reason in image quality, if the lens is simply for occasional use, then I am happy to settle for either Voigtlander or Carl Zeiss versions.</p>

<p>I am very aware that both the relatively inexpensive Voigtlander and Zeiss choices offer great value for money and good overall quality and optical performance. I understand the Ultron is 1 stop faster than the Biogon. So obviously if the Biogon was an f2.0 lens, then its price difference would be much greater. I could live with the f2.8 happily.</p>

<p>SO, I'd like users of either or both the Nokton f2.0 28mm or the Biogon 2mm, f2.8 lens, I'd like to hear your views.</p>

<p>My view is that both share good, but not great, body construction. Both are made by Cosina although to different specifications and price points. Both are optically good, but I suspect that the Zeiss optical design may outperform the Voigtlander as too would its glass and coatings.</p>

<p>But, do these differences set them apart by much. We get what we pay for, but at some point the cost of minor improvements becomes exponential!</p>

<p>So, I wonder if users have strong views about their optical (such as distortion, resolution of fine details, viignetting etc) performance?</p>

<p>Are the 2 lenses of similar construction quality?</p>

<p>In the case of the Zeiss - does the black chrome wear as well as the silver chrome.</p>

<p>Is the extra say $200 a no-brainer?</p>

<p>Many thanks for your time and help.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have never shot with the Biogon, but a few years ago I did a side-by-side test with the Voigtlander 28mm f/2 Nokton and the Leica 28mm f/2 Summicron. In my test, the Nokton performed at least as well as the Summicron wide-open. But as the lenses were stopped down, the Nokton was outclassed by the Summicron. But still, the Nokton performed quite well.<br>

<br>

If I had nothing at the time I would have purchased the Nokton (at less than 1/3rd the price of the Summicron). Also, if you're shooting with an M8, the Nokton is set up to be coded - contact John Milich (JM [at] milich [dot] com)</p>

 

<p>Okay, first off, it is the Voigtlander Ultron, not Nokton, 28/2. I have this lens and I like it for street shooting. I recently got a Summicron 28/2 Asph. I did so not only because it out-performs the Ultron but also for its build quality. This was to be my de facto 35mm lens on the M8 (though it is equal to about a 37mm lens) and I wanted it to be tough as a Leica lens can be because it would be my standard lens, as my Summicron 35/2Asph. is my standard lens on my film Leicas.<br>

This is to say that for a $500 lens the Ultron is remarkably good. My only complaints are the depth of field scale that begins at f4 (The Summicron begins at f2) and the hood that tends to screw off and is hard to screw back on.<br>

The Summicron 28/2 Asph has that crisp Leica look to it, but it is not something you'd care about in a good photograph taken with the Ultron.</p>

<p>But I am off the point with regard to your question.</p>

<p>Certainly the Zeiss 28/2.8 is going to be the better lens because it is easier to make an outstanding f2.8 28mm lens than an f2 28mm lens. On top of that, I believe lens tests have shown the Zeiss 28/2.8 to be an outstanding lens among 28/2.8 lenses. I am sure that the build quality is better than the Voigtlander.</p>

<p>If you want speed, get the Ultron. If you want an overall higher quality lens get the Zeiss 28/2.8. </p>

<p>If you have the money to spare, get the Summicron 29/2 Asph. Used it is around $2500. </p>

<p>I've heard (take with a grain of salt) that the Ultron has some focus shift which may or may not be annoying on a digital M. </p>

<p>The Leica is a great lens. I've read great things about the Zeiss too. The Ultron looks like a great buy for the money, but I'd test it out first. If you don't need f/2, I'd get the Zeiss instead of the other two. If you need f/2, try the Ultron, and if it doesn't suit you, save up for the Leica.</p>

<p>I own both the Leica 28mm f2 Summicron ASPH and the Zeiss 28mm f2.8 Biogon. As others have said, if you need the extra f stop - and are willing to pay for the privilege - then get the Summicron. It is definitely one of the best lenses I own. But, in its own right, the Zeiss Biogon is a superb performer too (Though it's not nearly as good wide open as the Contax G series 28mm f2.8 Biogon - which I also own for my Contax G2 - and that lens is definitely the equal of the Summicron IMHO.). Elsewhere online, I think, Tom Abrahamsson had reviewed the Voigtlander 28mm f2 Ulton and was quite impressed. So in Leica M-mount you have three very good optics and which one you choose demands on your budget and the type of image you wish to create with the lens in question.</p>

<p>I have the Biogon 28 and it's very sharp in the middle and a little less so at the edges on an M8. I find the 25mm Biogon to be a better lens with more even sharpness across the frame. I also think the 25mm is a better complement to a 35mm lens. 28 is a bit close.</p>

<p>I have also tried the Ultron 28mm/f2 and while it seems to be a decent lens the focus shift did bother me and I didn't like having to adjust the focus when the lens was stopped down. Never felt I had nailed the focus because of this, so I stopped using it on the M8.</p>

<p>I believe it was Sean Reid who first noticed the focus shift. He noted that the earlier Ultron 28/1.9 Asph. did not have the focus shift. This focus shift is not supposed to happen wide open but mid-range. I did not think I had a problem when using the Ultron 28/2 on my M8. At least one reviewer who found cyan corners with the M8 + UV/IR filter even when coded swore he could find no focus shift. My conclusion is that you have to look for the focus shift, which is probably small, but annoying when you do find it.</p>

<p>The Summicron 28/2 Asph. is not only the best 28/2 ever made but also one of the best 35mm lens ever made. A very tough act to follow.</p>

<p>Simon might consider a Leica 28/2.8. The 28/2.8 Asph. is less expensive than the 28/2 Asph. and a very fine lens.</p>

<p>I have both of them (Ultron and Biogon). Ultron is going for sale. That tells you very well which one is better.</p>

<p>Thomas,<br>

I own both the 25 and 28 Biogons and find the 25 Biogon to be optically superior both in the center and the edges (The ZM version of the 28 Biogon isn't nearly as stellar a performer as its earlier Contax G incarnation, but does come close IMHO.). Since I prefer a wider angle of view, I prefer using the 25 Biogon, using the 28 Biogon as a compact lens when I need a 28mm.<br>

John</p>

 

<p>Many thanks to you all for your insights and very sensible comments. Certainly my first preference would be the Leica Summicron 28mm!<br>

But, while I have the 35mm Summicron Asph, the current 50 Summicron, and the current 90mm Elmarit - and think each lens is superb - a 28mm will be my occasional street shooter.<br>

My favourite and most used focal length in any format is the 35mm format equivalent angle of view in the range of 40mm to 60mm lenses. So on my M7 the 50mm gets 70% of use. On the M8 my 35mm gets 70% use.<br>

So my purpose for the 28mm also requires it to be fast (it is filling the role that my 35mm lens fills on my M7) so f2 is very desirable to me.<br>

A fast 28mm gives me flexibility in lower light as well as the ability to achieve stronger selective depth of field especially given its wide angle DOF attributes.<br>

If I were to be equally happy with an f2.8 lens, and for the amount of use it will get, I would go for the Zeiss - best mix of performance and value for money in my hands.<br>

But since there is a "credible" f2.0 now abvailable in the Ultron, it has strong appeal for me. That is to say, no one has made specific adverse comments about the image quality overall or even when wide open.<br>

I did wonder about 24/25mm options, but I feel the 28mm is a better option overall.<br>

So, consistent with evryone's comments about my purpose, I will give the Ultron a go. Fortunately locally, I get 14 days to return it for a full refund should I be disappointed. Can't ask for more than that can I! :)<br>

By the way, in terms of build quality, I thought it must be quite good because its weight is only 20gms less than the 35mm Summicron Asph - which is quite a heftly little thing! So I can only assume there is plenty of robust metal and glass inside it?<br>

I will watch out for that focus shift issue too.<br>

Can any one tell me the best way to detect focus shift please?<br>

Many thanks again.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Can any one tell me the best way to detect focus shift please?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If your primary subject is out of focus in favor of an item in front, then your lens is "front focusing." If your primary subject is out of focus in favor of an item behind, then your lens is "back focusing."<br /><br />Start off with a simple test. Use a subject with items in front and in back of your primary subject (focus point) - like a chess board. Focus on one of the pieces and run through the stops. If the focus point changes, then you have a focus shift issue.</p>

 

<p>Thanks again everyone and Bill for explaining focus shift.<br>

The extra stop is very useful to me given how I plan to use the 28mm. I'm not a wide-angle shooter all that much, but the crop of the M8 sensor makes my 35mm Summicron-M Asph now my everyday 45 to 50mm shooter. Hence the need for more occasional 28mm. <br>

I did consider the 25mm for the reason of some extra "space" beyond the 35mm, but there is no real "fast" option. <br>

The Summicron-M 28 Asph would certainly be the best option from what I have seen and read, but would be wasted in my hands by lack of use and is more than I can afford for this use. In fact I was very inclined to go for the Zeiss, but the extra stop is actually important for my use - thus I'm compelled to give the Ultron a try especially given the excellent reviews it has had.<br>

So, I have taken delivery of the Ultron 28mm f2.0 VC lens on a 14 day trial. So far my impressions are very good. Certainly the build, fit, ergonomics and mechanical use are nothing short of excellent. The real proof will just be in the optical performance.<br>

I've been out and shooting in a range of light and apertures and am now comparing like shooting with my 35mm Summicron-M. Sure, its not a 100% real comparison due to the focal length differences, but the resolution, tonality, chromatic aberration and resistance to flare differences will be a guide.<br>

I have already done tests for focus shift as suggested and I'm certain that there is none present at all.<br>

The Ultron is certainly sharp and draws a very attractive image. I do see some amount of softness at f2 out at the edges, but prints will be a much better proof - a computer screen at 72DPI is very limiting!.<br>

I'm sure the best test would be on my M7 with top slide film, but this lens just won't see any work in full frame film - too wide for me - the test for me is how it performs on the m8.<br>

So, right now the indications are very promising. It seems the Ultron might be the best "horse for this course"! More tests to shoot and then prints to do!</p>