Difference Biogon 35 vs. C-Biogon 35

[tom.w.bn]

I also think that the 2nd looks a bit different because of more backlight. But it's not a big difference. Thanks for posting.

[jawarden]

Originally Posted by tom.w.bn

I also think that the 2nd looks a bit different because of more backlight. But it's not a big difference. Thanks for posting.

My pleasure Tom, I was hoping it would be helpful. I have a few other test images as well, but honestly they don't show anything different from these. The light changed on the others too, the wind blew, the earth moved. What can you do? :-)

Proper indoor laboratory testing would be interesting, but that's not me. I opted for perspective control and speed, so I chose the 2.0. But the 2.8C is an excellent, small, sharp and contrasty lens and deserves all the praise it has received since it's introduction. Choosing between these two is a good problem to have.

[douglasf13]

I have both of these lenses, and it's essentially speed/less vignetting vs. size/maybe a bit smoother bokeh.

[Merumeni]

I have both - and both are stellar performers. My first thought was to go for speed: so I got the f2. The finder blockage was the only problem I had with it: even without the hood there is some blockage. Since I normally use a hood this became a major drawback for using the lens. So I opted for the C-Biogon as my day to day choice. Since I also own the little 35 1.4 Nokton for low light the Biogon did not get used very much lately.

[bwcolor]

I have both and have kept both. The 'c' stays on my M6TTL and the f/2.0 stays in my lens drawer. A couple of years ago I posted flare testing with both lenses while shooting into the sun. I find that the size/performance of the 'C' and the ability to shoot wide open vs. a bit of softness in the f/2.0 wide open. In other words, I would probably be stopping the larger lens down. I usually don't shoot wide open when using a 35mm lens, so f/2.8 works for me. I keep thinking that I want to sell the f/2.0, but haven't. Both are great lenses. I'm wondering how they will hold up with the new Leica 'M'.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by MCTuomey

Chris, no question the 35/2.8 is an excellent lens for landscape work; I'm not criticizing the c-biogon. But its resolving power mid- to edge-frame (outer 10mm-20mm of film/sensor dimension) is simply not as good as the 35/2 at mid-aperture (f5.6) at 40 l/mm. The Zeiss mtf data is quite clear. It's not a large difference at all but it's there. It might show up in print depending on print size and subject detail, not sure. The 35/2 is simply more consistent in its performance in this area of the film/sensor.

At f/5.6, the C-Biogon exceeds MTF-60 at 40 lp/mm from center to almost the extreme corners (20mm from image center). The f/2 lens peaks slightly with only slightly more microcontrast, about MTF-70, under the same conditions, but only at about 10mm from center, and it shows more divergence between the tangential and saggital functions. At both center and edges the MTFs are essentially the same for both lenses.

I think you're over-reading those MTF charts. I would be astounded if anyone could detect these minor differences when shooting a 3-dimensional subject in the real world, at least when shooting film.

But those MTF charts are directly measured for the lenses, not for lens-sensor combinations. A bigger difference is likely to be seen when shooting digital. The rear nodal point of the f/2.8 lens is closer to the sensor plane than with the f/2 lens. That is a difference that could actually make a difference.

According to Erwin Puts, the C-Biogon also exhibits uncommonly good flare resistance, though he does not present comparative results for the ZM f/2 and f/2.8 lenses.

[italy74]

Biogon 2/35 wide open, focus on my friend and colleague Angelo's eyes. I was nearly at MFD so.. whew!
Kodak BW400CN, something like 1/30s F/2

[italy74]

Milan - Dome (out)
Kodak gold 200
1/125s - F/11

[italy74]

Milan - Dome (in)
1/15s F/2 -1 EV I think

[italy74]

My son, 1/15s F/2 -1 EV

[italy74]

Playtime - wide open about 1/30s always Kodak gold 200, a few days ago.

[varchs]

Hello RFF ZI lovers!
Is it possible for someone of you, which owns both of the lenses to post an image of them side by side in order to compare the size of them?
It seems that in the used equipment market their price is almost similar (±100€)...
Is it for real the C-Biogon more popular?

Thank you!
Vas

[Strangeluv]

I must say that the C-Biogon is the only lens I have really regretted selling.
The size and rendering.

And I loved doing B&W's with it.

[varchs]

I have just purchased my ZI ZM LM and I am planning my lenses kit investment plan...

I do not have the comfort to test lenses but I am thinking going for the C kit:
1st step_ 35 C-Biogon (couple of months goal)
and
2nd step_ 50 C-Sonnar (year time goal).

It seems that most of the RFF members prefer the C-Biogon.
from the images I feel that I love the pop of the shapes of it and I prefer to not carry a lot of bulk...

p.s. so far I am using a canon EOS film SLR with an EF 28-105 (f3.5@35mm) I wish that there is going to be a huge difference from the f3.5 to f2.8...

thank you for letting me sharing my anxieties...

[redisburning]

if you can live with just a 35mm (I personally could, you may not be able to) I would put the money for the second lens into a new scanner or materials/equipment to darkroom print.

I took a look at your flickr, I am not sure you will be able to tell a difference with your rollei scanner.

In your shoes I would be looking to do either 21/4.5 + 35/2 or 25/2.8 + 50/1.5, not 35/2.8 + 50/1.5, but would still buy the 35 or 50 and a scanner first.

the two focal lengths are too close for a two lens only system at least in my opinion.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by redisburning

In your shoes I would be looking to do either 21/4.5 + 35/2 or 25/2.8 + 50/1.5, not 35/2.8 + 50/1.5, but would still buy the 35 or 50 and a scanner first.

the two focal lengths are too close for a two lens only system at least in my opinion.

I use both a 35mm and 50mm lens only. I think they are very different, but I can see your side as well. You can use a 35mm for 50mm tasks at times and vise versa... but ultimately they act differently enough and some of us may not need anything else.

[varchs]

Originally Posted by redisburning

if you can live with just a 35mm (I personally could, you may not be able to) I would put the money for the second lens into a new scanner or materials/equipment to darkroom print.

I took a look at your flickr, I am not sure you will be able to tell a difference with your rollei scanner.

In your shoes I would be looking to do either 21/4.5 + 35/2 or 25/2.8 + 50/1.5, not 35/2.8 + 50/1.5, but would still buy the 35 or 50 and a scanner first.

the two focal lengths are too close for a two lens only system at least in my opinion.

Is this Rollei that bad??? or am I doing something wrong...?
I am trying to use this process for my scans...

[Bavaricus]

Originally Posted by semilog

But those MTF charts are directly measured for the lenses, not for lens-sensor combinations. A bigger difference is likely to be seen when shooting digital. The rear nodal point of the f/2.8 lens is closer to the sensor plane than with the f/2 lens. That is a difference that could actually make a difference.

When i had the C-Biogon attached to my M8 i always have been very pleased by the rendering and the sharpness. Due to several problems i turned to MFT and the C-Biogon wasn't decent anymore. Suddenly only sharp in the center while the outer areas and in the edges became more and more dull and somehow foggy. I guess in analog its still a stellar performer.

Reiner

[MCTuomey]

Reiner, mtf chart interpretations aside (only referred to in an earlier post to corroborate actual experience), shooting three excellent 35's: a c-biogon, a biogon f/2, and also a nice summicron v4 on film, an M8, and an M9 leads me to this point of view:

1. if i were shooting wide open most of the time --> 35 cron v4. No question in my mind that it's the best of the three wide open and shows the least field curvature wide open too.
2. if i wanted f/2 speed but shot most of the time from f/4-f/8 (and frequently did landscapes and architecture) --> biogon f/2. For me, it is the best of the three across the frame at mid-apertures, visible on monitor and in print.
3. if i wanted smaller size and didn't need f/2 and would be shooting people frequently at f/2.8-4 (and didn't so frequently shoot landscapes and architecture) --> c-biogon

When I moved to an M9 from an M8 I began to favor the biogon f/2 compared to the c-biogon. For what I shoot and how I shoot, the biogon f/2 files seem better across the frame, particularly in mixed 'scapes prints. My best shots with the c-biogon were a series using delta 100, urbanscapes that made me very happy, but I prefer the f/2 biogon with the M9.

All that said, any of these lenses should make any reasonable shooter very happy. My comments reflect a short period of obsessing over the 3 lenses I had at the same time, and needing to decide which to keep.

[Richard G]

Originally Posted by MCTuomey

Reiner, mtf chart interpretations aside (only referred to in an earlier post to corroborate actual experience), shooting three excellent 35's: a c-biogon, a biogon f/2, and also a nice summicron v4 on film, an M8, and an M9 leads me to this point of view:

1. if i were shooting wide open most of the time --> 35 cron v4. No question in my mind that it's the best of the three wide open and shows the least field curvature wide open too.
2. if i wanted f/2 speed but shot most of the time from f/4-f/8 (and frequently did landscapes and architecture) --> biogon f/2. For me, it is the best of the three across the frame at mid-apertures, visible on monitor and in print.
3. if i wanted smaller size and didn't need f/2 and would be shooting people frequently at f/2.8-4 (and didn't so frequently shoot landscapes and architecture) --> c-biogon

When I moved to an M9 from an M8 I began to favor the biogon f/2 compared to the c-biogon. For what I shoot and how I shoot, the biogon f/2 files seem better across the frame, particularly in mixed 'scapes prints. My best shots with the c-biogon were a series using delta 100, urbanscapes that made me very happy, but I prefer the f/2 biogon with the M9.

All that said, any of these lenses should make any reasonable shooter very happy. My comments reflect a short period of obsessing over the 3 lenses I had at the same time, and needing to decide which to keep.

Good summary I would say. I do like the C Biogon a lot. As to sharpness, it may not matter much. I have only bought Zeiss lenses in the last few years and enjoy them all very much, 21,25,35,50. But I bought from the classifieds here a newer Leica lens, the 28 2.8 ASPH and I was a little taken aback at how much sharper than my 35 C Biogon this lens is. Great for architecture. I have not noticed a great difference between my v4 Summicron and the C Biogon, except that I prefer the latter. The Summicron is just for evenings now.

[kossi008]

Originally Posted by Bavaricus

When i had the C-Biogon attached to my M8 i always have been very pleased by the rendering and the sharpness. Due to several problems i turned to MFT and the C-Biogon wasn't decent anymore. Suddenly only sharp in the center while the outer areas and in the edges became more and more dull and somehow foggy. I guess in analog its still a stellar performer.

I would like to add the Sony-Nex system here. Even on my Nex-5, the 35/2.8 was tack sharp in the center, but maybe did suffer slightly in the corners. On my Nex-5N, everything is stellar now.

[gmacgregor]

Originally Posted by varchs

Is it possible for someone of you, which owns both of the lenses to post an image of them side by side in order to compare the size of them?

Here's the Biogon-C:





And the Biogon (note I had to hold the camera upright otherwise it would fall on its face)