35mm for Leica M6: Zeiss C Biogon f2.8 or Voigtlander Ultron f2 Asph.

pkr1979 · Mar 25, 2021

Hi all,

Im looking to get a 35mm for my Leica M6. I've narrowed it down to the Biogon C f2.8 and the Ultron f2.

Im hoping that anyone with experience either on both or one of them can shed some light on these two lenses, and what differentiates them.

What makes me hesitant towards the Biogon is the f2.8.
What makes me hesitant towards the Ultron is that the out-of-focus areas appear to be not as nice as on the Biogon (correct me if Im wrong).

Also, any opinions whatever lens takes the 'best' photos are also enjoyed

Cheers
Peter

BradS · Mar 25, 2021

I have and love the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 Biogon. Compact, light weight, great optics, great ergonomics - you cannot go wrong with it. I also have the 50mm Planar and 28mm f/2.8 Biogon all fantastic lenses. All of the said, if you can get along with the CV ergonomics, I'm sure it is also a fine lens. Don't over think it. The differences are small.

Pieter12 · Mar 25, 2021

Another vote for the Biogon. Very sharp. And do you really need the speed for a 35mm? Are you shooting low-light? I generally use the 35 for street work and zone focus anyway, so the ergonomics isn't much of a concern.

madNbad · Mar 25, 2021

I have owned both and currently have the Voigtlander 35 2.0 Ultron ASPH. The Zeiss Biogon C is a very nice lens offering 1/3 stop increments, a small focusing nub and sharp rendering with nice OOF backgrounds. It also takes an odd size filter and like all Zeiss lenses can develop a focusing wobble which can be reduced by removing the lens carefully instead of using the lens hood. If you have just this lens or are not switching filters between lenses it's a good choice. The latest version of the Ultron ASPH offers the same optics as the introductory model but now in a brass housing with a focusing tab instead of the rod. For many years my main lens was a 35 2.0 Summicron ASPH. It was sold to fund some home improvement projects but the Ultron offers much the same rendering as the Summicron for one third the price. The hood for both the Biogon C and the Ultron ASPH are not included and are rater expensive. The Ultron also focuses to .58 meters. Great for a mirrorless camera, not so great if you are accustom to the hard stop for minimum focus. Currently the are both about the same price. The V1 Ultrons are selling on closeout and bargains are to be found. The Ultron is somewhat smaller than the Biogon C but neither one blocks the viewfinder. There is really no bad choices between the two.

BradS · Mar 25, 2021

The CV 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar was my first M mount lens. It is a fantastic lens often overlooked and much underrated. I loved everything about the lens except...I HATED the aperture selector bat wings...but again, if you can live with the ergonomics, it is a really very good lens. If they would just replace the dumb batwings with a normal ring it would be perfect.

Oldwino · Mar 25, 2021

If I were looking for a 35mm M-mount lens today, I'd go with the 35 Ultron V2 (the new one with focus tab). Everything I've read and seen seems to indicate it is every bit the equal of Leica. The APO version may have smoother bokeh, but its improvement seems to be slight and the size is considerably larger.

pkr1979 · Mar 25, 2021

This:

BradS said:
Don't over think it.

is actually a very good suggestion
And thanks guys. Several good points here. Im not so concerned about the ergonomics. Nor filter size.
The f2 isnt so crucial for me (more of a nice to have), but the .58 near limit may come in handy when I think of it.
I also like the OOF backgrounds from Zeiss, and not really sure what to expect from the Ultron.
Maybe I'll just get whatever comes up first on the used marked here in Oslo

madNbad said:
I have owned both and currently have the Voigtlander 35 2.0 Ultron ASPH.

As far as I can understand, out of the Ultron and Biogon you kept the Ultron and got rid of the Biogon. What made you chose the one over the other?

madNbad · Mar 25, 2021

pkr1979 said:
As far as I can understand, out of the Ultron and Biogon you kept the Ultron and got rid of the Biogon. What made you chose the one over the other?

In I addition to the the 35 Biogon C I also owned a 35 Summicron ASPH and a 35 3.5 Summaron LTM. The Biogon C and the Summaron were part of a trade in for a Elmarit 28 2.8 ASPH. About four years ago, we had some much needed home improvements to finance and a KEH buying event showed up at a local shop. The sale of the Leica gear paid for about a third of the cost of the project and I used a Nikon F for about a year until I decided another M camera was what I really wanted. I found a nice M4 that was from the second production run. Voigtlander introduced the 35 2.0 Ultron ASPH at about the same time. The review were good and I bought one that had been lent out to a reviewer at a reduced price. I was pleased to found the rendering was close to a Summicron and the handling was similar to the early Voigtlander 21 4.0 Color Skopar LTM which was also part of the sale to KEH. I have settled into a routine of using T-Max 400 @ ISO 200 with a 022 yellow filter and developing it in Kodak HC-110 solution B for 5 and a half minutes. The Ultron delivers everything I need from a 35. Good luck with your search.

narsuitus · Mar 25, 2021

pkr1979 said:
Also, any opinions whatever lens takes the 'best' photos are also enjoyed

I never considered the 35mm f/2.8 Zeiss Biogon or the 35mm f/2 Voigtländer Ultron because I shoot a lot under dim lighting and need a faster lens.

The first lens I purchased for my Leica M6 was a 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss Distagon. For me, that is the lens that takes the 'best' photos.

35mm f/1.4 Zeiss Distagon by Narsuitus, on Flickr

Rob Skeoch · Mar 25, 2021

I have used them both when I owned "The Rangefinder Store" years ago. I would get the Zeiss C. The size is great, the sharpness is great. The 2.8 is fine, as it's the same as my 28mm, 25mm, and the two 21mm that I've had over the years.

Huss · Mar 25, 2021

They are both super lenses, but for me if it is your one and only, I would get the faster lens. It is just more versatile for film photography, unless all you do is take photos in good i.e. relatively bright light.

mshchem · Mar 25, 2021

I have the Zeiss 35 2.8 it's great. I got a reasonable price on a Summicron 35 asph type 1 (circa 1999?). The Zeiss is a great lens, aluminum makes it weightless. Last Black Friday sales had the Zeiss very attractive pricing.
If you don't need a fast lens the 2.8 is a great lens. I bought the Summicron because I wanted it, I sure didn't need it.

pkr1979 · Mar 26, 2021

Thanks again all

I havent decided yet, but Im not really concerned I'll make the wrong decision - as Im sure Im probably gonna be happy either way. When I get it I'll let you know

Cheers
Peter

Dmosher · Mar 26, 2021

Anyone have any experience with the TTArtisans or 7Artisans M mount lenses? I've been very curious how they perform considering their price points.

StepheKoontz · Mar 26, 2021

Old Gregg said:
but fell in love with Voigtlander Nokton Classic II 35mm f/1.4 MC.

I have one as well. I also bought the latest version of the 50mm f1.5, so these two lenses share the same 43mm filter size, the same bayonet lens hood and have similar renderings. Wide open they have great bokeh and by f4 are sharp everywhere. They are a fantastic combo.

I also own a 50mm f2 DR summi, a canon 50mm f1.4 LTM just to have some choices

StepheKoontz · Mar 26, 2021

Old Gregg said:
Good point. It's a great reason for me to consider the V2 of their 50mm f/1.5! IIRC you were selling it. Changed your mind?

No I had the version I and sold it for the version II so filters/hood would share + smaller lens and supposed to be better IQ.

film_man · Mar 29, 2021

One thing the 21/4.5 ZM taught me is how nice a small lens is. I had the 35/2 ZM and 28/2.8 ZM and I just didn't really like the size so currently bidding on a 35/2.8 C. I thought about the 35/1.4 Voigtlander instead and the Skopar but I really like the Zeiss look. The 28/2.8 ZM showed me that 2.8 is actually liberating, not having to worry too much about critical focusing. Comes back to bite you as the light drops but can't have everything.

Huss · Mar 30, 2021

film_man said:
One thing the 21/4.5 ZM taught me is how nice a small lens is...

While I would recommend a faster lens if you could only have one... I have to agree with this. Small lenses are just so pleasant to use on these cameras, they feel 'right'.
I just spent the weekend using a Rollei 40mm 2.8 Sonnar on my M and it was great. Tiny size which made it fantastic to have with me.
A 35mm 2.8 would be similar in feel.

Danner · Mar 31, 2021

I also have the C Biogon, and it is a superlative lens, no question about that. /f2.8. The Ultron gets you another stop, and the initial reviews for the version II lens have been great, you can't go wrong with either. I think is comes down to lens speed, size, and handling. Maybe get both ;-)

matthewm · Mar 31, 2021

I don't have experience with the Biogon, but I do have experience with a few of the Voigtlander lenses. One of the things that has always bothered me about their lenses is the soft aperture detents. Not sure if I just got unlucky with mine or if it's standard, but I would often find myself bringing the camera up, only to find the aperture had spun from f/2 where I had left it to some other value. I started paying attention to this and noticed that brushing the aperture ring with my hand or wrist during walking or grabbing the camera by the lens to "swing" it around in front of me when carrying cross-body was enough to move the aperture ring. And with the aperture ring basically being right up against the back of the lens hood, the little "aperture wings" made it pretty poor ergonomically. To the point that I just quit using a lens hood altogether and dealt with flare if it came up (I often use a lens hood more for protection of the front of the lens and filter than for actual light control).

Danner · Apr 14, 2021

madNbad said:
In I addition to the the 35 Biogon C I also owned a 35 Summicron ASPH and a 35 3.5 Summaron LTM. The Biogon C and the Summaron were part of a trade in for a Elmarit 28 2.8 ASPH. About four years ago, we had some much needed home improvements to finance and a KEH buying event showed up at a local shop. The sale of the Leica gear paid for about a third of the cost of the project and I used a Nikon F for about a year until I decided another M camera was what I really wanted. I found a nice M4 that was from the second production run. Voigtlander introduced the 35 2.0 Ultron ASPH at about the same time. The review were good and I bought one that had been lent out to a reviewer at a reduced price. I was pleased to found the rendering was close to a Summicron and the handling was similar to the early Voigtlander 21 4.0 Color Skopar LTM which was also part of the sale to KEH. I have settled into a routine of using T-Max 400 @ ISO 200 with a 022 yellow filter and developing it in Kodak HC-110 solution B for 5 and a half minutes. The Ultron delivers everything I need from a 35. Good luck with your search.

View attachment 270658

Nice set-up right there, enjoy.

pkr1979 · Apr 11, 2022

I got the Biogon - it serves me well.

craigclu · Apr 11, 2022

pkr1979 said:
I got the Biogon - it serves me well.

I predict you'll like it! I've enjoyed mine and understand your hesitation to make a decision between your choices! One of those pleasant decisions where neither is incorrect!

35mm for Leica M6: Zeiss C Biogon f2.8 or Voigtlander Ultron f2 Asph.

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency