David Home
Newbie
Hi there.
I am in the final stages of buying a RF and am leaning toward the Ikon with a 35 lens. The other consideration is a used M6 or M4-P.
I have been using a Canonet 1.7 for a while to see if I like the RF concept and have learned that I do.
Everyone who owns a Biogon 35 seems to own the F2 model. I would like the extra stop as much as the next person and the price is only marginally higher then the 2.8 model. But I want to consider all the Zeiss options. So the 2.8 will be slightly smaller and lighter I understand. I read that the 2.8 version is optimized for lowest possible flare. Is that it? Are there any other reasons to consider the 2.8 model?
Thanks for any thoughts or experiences.
Regards, David
I am in the final stages of buying a RF and am leaning toward the Ikon with a 35 lens. The other consideration is a used M6 or M4-P.
I have been using a Canonet 1.7 for a while to see if I like the RF concept and have learned that I do.
Everyone who owns a Biogon 35 seems to own the F2 model. I would like the extra stop as much as the next person and the price is only marginally higher then the 2.8 model. But I want to consider all the Zeiss options. So the 2.8 will be slightly smaller and lighter I understand. I read that the 2.8 version is optimized for lowest possible flare. Is that it? Are there any other reasons to consider the 2.8 model?
Thanks for any thoughts or experiences.
Regards, David
Zonan
Well-known
A story and review on the 2.8 at Steve Huff's blog in the past few weeks:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2009/12/17/zeiss-zm-35-c-biogon-2-8-lens-review
Rick
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2009/12/17/zeiss-zm-35-c-biogon-2-8-lens-review
Rick
JRG
Well-known
If you hand this string
'site:www.rangefinderforum.com biogon 35/2.8
to Mr. Google, you'll get a bazillion links to threads in the archives here, many of which compare the 35/2.0 and 35/2.8 (and other competitors).
'site:www.rangefinderforum.com biogon 35/2.8
to Mr. Google, you'll get a bazillion links to threads in the archives here, many of which compare the 35/2.0 and 35/2.8 (and other competitors).
Penceler
Established
For film I think I would go with the 2.8. For an M8 I'd opt for the 2.0 as a faster normal lens. Either way it comes down to a great slightly faster lens vs a great slightly smaller lens. Such problems.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
I'll second this. The Nokton is godly and out-speeds the ZM 35/2. Wide open, the 35/2 is just a tad soft (a tad). If I could go back I'd buy the 2.8. Of course, I didn't know I'd buy the Nokton.
Bingley
Mentor
I don't own either lens, but check out back alley's gallery and flickr for some very impressive shots w/ the 35/2.8.
horosu
Well-known
I had both lenses at one point or another and as a user of the M9, I decided for the C- Biogon and I am very happy. The handling is fabulous (I hate focusing tabs), the lens is petite and the resolution is impressive, even at 2.8, much better than the bigger brother. Furthermore, with the new firmware update (1.16) released a couple of days ago, the in-camera vignetting correction is much more effective.
Last edited:
Makten
-
I've got the 2.8 for my M8, and it's one of the best lenses I've ever tried (and I've tried A LOT of lenses). Extremely flare resistant, low distortion (none on the M8), smooooooth bokeh and the special Zeiss rendering.
Last edited:
aizan
Mentor
the c biogon is overpriced compared to the biogon, but if you really really really like the smaller size, that's the one i would get. if not, just get the biogon.
Makten
-
As if largest aperture is the only parameter dictating the price of a lens?
I've got the more expensive Distagon 35/2 SLR lens too, and the Biogon-C is the better lens in most respects. I havent tried the Biogon 35/2 though, but from what I've seen, the less-than-expected difference in price takes account for less good wide open performance, flare and more distortion of the Biogon 35/2.thrice
Established
I just ordered the C-Biogon, and it's all your fault Makten!
back alley
IMAGES
you won't be disappointed.
Turtle
Mentor
I think the below gives a very distorted perspective on the 35 F2. To put these comments in perspective:
The 35 F2 is the most flare free lens I have ever used. I would not recommend anyone get the 2.8 version 'to avoid flare of the F2'. Good luck making the 35 F2 flare in normal use! I shoot mine in Afghanistan, often towards the blazing sun and have not a single frame in four years with flare. Zero. No hood. Some of my other lenses have flared (SLR zooms very much so, 28 ZM a couple of times).
The 35 F2 has incredibly low levels of distortion. Almost zero and so little it is miles ahead of most commonly lauded 35s. I believe it is better than the 2.8 version (check Zeiss site to be sure).
Wide open performance I cannot compare as I do not have a 35 2.8. It may well be a little better at 2.8 than the F2 lens at F2.8, but I find the 35 F2 picks up substantially from F2 and is pretty darned good at 2.8 and blistering at F4. The 35 F2 certainly has less vignetting at wider apertures.
The 2.8 version is reportedly higher in contrast - higher than most of the ZMs and in line with the 25 2.8. This may or may not suit.
My personal view? If you need the speed, dont hesitate on the 35 F2. if you dont and want a smaller lens, get the 2.8.
The 35 F2 is the most flare free lens I have ever used. I would not recommend anyone get the 2.8 version 'to avoid flare of the F2'. Good luck making the 35 F2 flare in normal use! I shoot mine in Afghanistan, often towards the blazing sun and have not a single frame in four years with flare. Zero. No hood. Some of my other lenses have flared (SLR zooms very much so, 28 ZM a couple of times).
The 35 F2 has incredibly low levels of distortion. Almost zero and so little it is miles ahead of most commonly lauded 35s. I believe it is better than the 2.8 version (check Zeiss site to be sure).
Wide open performance I cannot compare as I do not have a 35 2.8. It may well be a little better at 2.8 than the F2 lens at F2.8, but I find the 35 F2 picks up substantially from F2 and is pretty darned good at 2.8 and blistering at F4. The 35 F2 certainly has less vignetting at wider apertures.
The 2.8 version is reportedly higher in contrast - higher than most of the ZMs and in line with the 25 2.8. This may or may not suit.
My personal view? If you need the speed, dont hesitate on the 35 F2. if you dont and want a smaller lens, get the 2.8.
As if largest aperture is the only parameter dictating the price of a lens?
Makten
-
You're probably right, but the 35/2.8 is certainly not "overpriced"; that's all I really wanted to say. It's a stellar little lens which is as good as it gets, except for the lesser speed.
Edit: And I don't know about the corner performance on full frame of course. But from what I've seen in tests, it does very well.
I just ordered the C-Biogon, and it's all your fault Makten!
I hope you'll like it! I think you will, considering your photos with the 25 Biogon and 35 Summilux.
Last edited:
Tim Gray
Well-known
I can't say I've used the 35/2.8, but the 35/2 is an incredible lens. It might be a 'bit soft' wide open, but that's only compared to stopped down. I would (and have) shot this lens wide open with no hesitation. There is nothing to complain about sharpness-wise wide open.
I never got it to flare either. And it has almost zero distortion. I know charts aren't everything, but looking at the respective Zeiss pdfs, the 35/2 has pretty much zero distortion while the 35/2.8 gets to around .5-1% at the edges (which might not be noticeable on a crop camera).
The 35/2 is larger than the 35/2.8 (and the Leica 35/2) but it's still a totally manageable size. About the size of a 50 Summicron. Maybe a hair shorter.
I'd say if you absolutely don't need f/2, either because you've got a 35/1.4 or 35/1.2, or even another 35/2, or because you just don't use lenses at f/2, then go for the 35/2.8. It sounds like a wonderful lens. If you might need f/2 and it will be your only lens, then go for the 35/2 - you won't be sorry.
I never got it to flare either. And it has almost zero distortion. I know charts aren't everything, but looking at the respective Zeiss pdfs, the 35/2 has pretty much zero distortion while the 35/2.8 gets to around .5-1% at the edges (which might not be noticeable on a crop camera).
The 35/2 is larger than the 35/2.8 (and the Leica 35/2) but it's still a totally manageable size. About the size of a 50 Summicron. Maybe a hair shorter.
I'd say if you absolutely don't need f/2, either because you've got a 35/1.4 or 35/1.2, or even another 35/2, or because you just don't use lenses at f/2, then go for the 35/2.8. It sounds like a wonderful lens. If you might need f/2 and it will be your only lens, then go for the 35/2 - you won't be sorry.
thrice
Established
Probably not very Nate, from what I've seen the out of focus rendering and *gag* '3D' quality of the Zeiss is better. Sharpness of the little CV is stunning, and it's a little less than half the price. But I do like me some ZM glass. The build quality is likely a little better on the 35 C-Biogon. I haven't used the CV but word is the C-Biogon is immune to flare, a feature I would like on the 35 lux asph and enjoy on my 50/2.5 Color-Skopar.
Turtle
Mentor
I have a pancake II and it is super. Performance is better than 'quite sharp,' but they likely vary a fair bit. I find mine extremely sharp. Not quite up to the biogon at wider apertures but close a stop down and identical two stops down, even around the edges. Just a bit more vignetting wider open and a stop or two for the corners to match the biogon on FF. From F5.6 on it is scorching with reasonably even illumination and very good at all apertures.
It is also tiny, relatively cheap and seems to be made 'well enough.' Its a great walkaround lens, but if you shoot a lot at wider apertures it is not the best bet due to vignetting and reasonable but not perfect edges wide open on FF. The centre is tack sharp from wide open. As sharp as any lens I have used.
It is also tiny, relatively cheap and seems to be made 'well enough.' Its a great walkaround lens, but if you shoot a lot at wider apertures it is not the best bet due to vignetting and reasonable but not perfect edges wide open on FF. The centre is tack sharp from wide open. As sharp as any lens I have used.
Last edited:
parsec1
parsec1
I have just brought a 28 2.8 biogon and was wondering what kind of drawing it might produce. I think I'm now quite confident.
