If purely based on optical quality at f5.6 -f8 (no need to take into account for lens size, weight, cost, distortion,) Would 21mm Biogon better than C/Y 21mm Distagon. It is noted from the Zeiss description that all of possibilities of correcting residual chromatic aberration were utilized to full for C/Y 21mm Distagon while not applied for 21mm Biogon. Any member has both for side by side comparison. Thanks for advice.
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
G21mm Biogon vs CY 21mm Distagon %a1V Which one better
- Thread starter edmond
- Start date
U
urgenta
Hi Edmond
about the 21 Biogon for the Contax. Some owners call it "the little brother of the Hasselblad SWC". I thinks this say enough about this lens. I think it's obsolete to discuss about the quality of this two lenses. If you have a SLR you need a Distagon, if you have a Contax RF, you need a Biogon. On the strenghth of construction, a SLR needs a retrofucs based lens (Distagon) and a RF allows a symetric construction like the Biogon. Regarding on the high quality of both lenses - that's all.
Hans Villars, Switzerland
about the 21 Biogon for the Contax. Some owners call it "the little brother of the Hasselblad SWC". I thinks this say enough about this lens. I think it's obsolete to discuss about the quality of this two lenses. If you have a SLR you need a Distagon, if you have a Contax RF, you need a Biogon. On the strenghth of construction, a SLR needs a retrofucs based lens (Distagon) and a RF allows a symetric construction like the Biogon. Regarding on the high quality of both lenses - that's all.
Hans Villars, Switzerland
R
rickd
The only advantage I know of that the Distagon has over the Biogon is in light falloff towards the edges, which is inherent to the Biogons. The Biogons are well corrected in all regards, and the 21 for the G is my favorite of all my Contax lenses, G or SLR.
--Rick
--Rick
C
cyberstudio
I would opt for the G Biogon personally. The Y/C Distagon is a comparatively big and heavy lens with a 82mm filter size. It is a rather complex design with 15 elements in 13 groups. The Biogon is small, light, simple and has a 55mm filter size.
M
mike_nunan
I've also been pondering this question, mainly because the only ultra-wide I own is the Canon EF 20mm f/2.8, which isn't an outstanding performer (especially not at f/2.8 or f/4). Judging by test shots posted on Photo.net, the Biogon seems like a contender for the title of world's sharpest ultra-wide lens. It (literally ;o) edges out the 21mm f/2.8 for Leica M, a lens which costs so much more that it would be cheaper for me to buy a used G2 specifically for the Biogon.
But what about the Distagon? Comparing the MTF charts on the Zeiss site, it does seem to give a bit of ground to the Biogon. The distortion reaches a peak of 2.5% towards the edge of the field, compared with just 0.5% for the Biogon. At f/5.6 it holds its own until the corners, where there is a pronounced drop-off in the sagital curves. This only happens around 19mm from the centre, which is in the far reaches of the corners (the frame ends at 21.6mm).
At full aperture, the Biogon is a clear winner in terms of contrast at the edges, holding 0.8 or better for the 10lpmm curves right to the edge of the frame. The sagittal curve for the Distagon crosses the 0.8 barrier 17mm out from the centre and finishes up almost exactly on 0.6. That amounts to an observable difference in the corners at full whack, but it is still good performance. Interestingly, the recording of fine detail (indicated by the 40lpmm curves) is actually slightly better with the Distagon at f/2.8.
In conclusion it would be hard to be disappointed by the performance of either of these lenses. According to the charts, the Biogon "wins" marginally while the lower number of elements and the compactness also weigh in its favour. However, one important factor that nobody has yet mentioned is the closest focusing distance: 0.5m for the Biogon plays 0.25m for the Distagon, and that advantage could open the door to some interesting shots that would not be possible with the Biogon. Finally, the matter of bokeh is something that can't be assessed from charts, so we can only hope that some lucky user of both lenses passes by here and posts some comparative test shots. Meanwhile I'm planning to pick up the Distagon when I see one for the right price, and see how I get along with it.
Regards all,
-= mike =-
But what about the Distagon? Comparing the MTF charts on the Zeiss site, it does seem to give a bit of ground to the Biogon. The distortion reaches a peak of 2.5% towards the edge of the field, compared with just 0.5% for the Biogon. At f/5.6 it holds its own until the corners, where there is a pronounced drop-off in the sagital curves. This only happens around 19mm from the centre, which is in the far reaches of the corners (the frame ends at 21.6mm).
At full aperture, the Biogon is a clear winner in terms of contrast at the edges, holding 0.8 or better for the 10lpmm curves right to the edge of the frame. The sagittal curve for the Distagon crosses the 0.8 barrier 17mm out from the centre and finishes up almost exactly on 0.6. That amounts to an observable difference in the corners at full whack, but it is still good performance. Interestingly, the recording of fine detail (indicated by the 40lpmm curves) is actually slightly better with the Distagon at f/2.8.
In conclusion it would be hard to be disappointed by the performance of either of these lenses. According to the charts, the Biogon "wins" marginally while the lower number of elements and the compactness also weigh in its favour. However, one important factor that nobody has yet mentioned is the closest focusing distance: 0.5m for the Biogon plays 0.25m for the Distagon, and that advantage could open the door to some interesting shots that would not be possible with the Biogon. Finally, the matter of bokeh is something that can't be assessed from charts, so we can only hope that some lucky user of both lenses passes by here and posts some comparative test shots. Meanwhile I'm planning to pick up the Distagon when I see one for the right price, and see how I get along with it.
Regards all,
-= mike =-
Is there really that much difference between any of the top rated lenses? What is the obsession with having the absolute best if there isn't much difference? Finally, if there is a reason, what are you photographing where the difference would be seen? Sincerely, Scott
R
rickd
On one level at least, a good lens is a good lens, no matter who's name is etched into it. Once you've achieved a certain level of quality the dominant variable becomes the eye behind the camera.
But on another level, ergonomic differences aside (and there are huge handling differences between a G+21 and an SLR+21), there are nuances to each lens' performance that should not be ignored.
Somebody could rightly say that there's no effective difference between a Bordeaux and a Napa Valley cabernet, but to a wine aficonado the statement would border on heresey.
You get the idea.
--Rick
But on another level, ergonomic differences aside (and there are huge handling differences between a G+21 and an SLR+21), there are nuances to each lens' performance that should not be ignored.
Somebody could rightly say that there's no effective difference between a Bordeaux and a Napa Valley cabernet, but to a wine aficonado the statement would border on heresey.
You get the idea.
--Rick
Rick, I had to jump back into the conversation since you mentioned wine! 
You write, "Somebody could rightly say that there's no effective difference between a Bordeaux and a Napa Valley cabernet, but to a wine aficonado the statement would border on heresey." I agree. However, I guess when one tries to compare wines or lenses, one must limit the comparison to what is important. I.e., what is the very specific reason for distinguishing them? Otherwise, I would enjoy drinking either of them (in the case of wines), neither of which may be better, worse. In the case of lenses, I might enjoy using either of them and would need specific reasons why they should be distinguished or in what applications they should be distinguished. My 2 cents, Scott
You write, "Somebody could rightly say that there's no effective difference between a Bordeaux and a Napa Valley cabernet, but to a wine aficonado the statement would border on heresey." I agree. However, I guess when one tries to compare wines or lenses, one must limit the comparison to what is important. I.e., what is the very specific reason for distinguishing them? Otherwise, I would enjoy drinking either of them (in the case of wines), neither of which may be better, worse. In the case of lenses, I might enjoy using either of them and would need specific reasons why they should be distinguished or in what applications they should be distinguished. My 2 cents, Scott
A
aristharcus
>>> Somebody could rightly say that there's no effective difference between a Bordeaux and a Napa Valley cabernet, but to a wine aficonado the statement would border on heresey. >>>
Absolutely right, Rick. I can't agree more!
Cheers, Ludwig Argüelles
Absolutely right, Rick. I can't agree more!
Cheers, Ludwig Argüelles