C Biogon 35/2.8 vs. 35/2

Thanks. So my thoughts were correct. B&W film users prefer the C Biogon. Else, the Biogon is preferred ....
 
raid said:
Thanks. So my thoughts were correct. B&W film users prefer the C Biogon. Else, the Biogon is preferred ....
Click to expand...
Unless they're me, in which case they prefer the Biogon for the reasons I gave earlier ;)
Also worth noting that the C Biogon seems to have a slightly narrower angle of view than the Biogon (I guess it's more like a 37mm lens).
 
I recently bought a C Biogon ZM 35mm 2.8 but ended up returning it because definition away from the most central part of the image dropped off significantly . Edge definition didn't pick up until f8. Central definition and contrast were excellent from wide open but I was stunned that for edge definition my Canon LTM 35mm F2 (type1) out performed the C Biogon . I did the side by side comparison mounting both lenses on my Fuji XE-2.
I had hoped that the Zeiss lens would represent and an upgrade in overall quality for use principally on my M2. I can only explain the poor performance of the Zeiss as being done to it being a poor example. Not something I've really read about given the universally stellar write up the Zeiss lens receives.
 
If you tested the Biogon on a digital camera you will have a worst-case scenario. The design works well on film but badly on digital (because of the ray-angles it causes), with the exception of the Leica M8, 9 and 240 which have a thinner cover glass.
 
ACullen said:
I recently bought a C Biogon ZM 35mm 2.8 but ended up returning it because definition away from the most central part of the image dropped off significantly . Edge definition didn't pick up until f8. Central definition and contrast were excellent from wide open but I was stunned that for edge definition my Canon LTM 35mm F2 (type1) out performed the C Biogon . I did the side by side comparison mounting both lenses on my Fuji XE-2.
I had hoped that the Zeiss lens would represent and an upgrade in overall quality for use principally on my M2. I can only explain the poor performance of the Zeiss as being done to it being a poor example. Not something I've really read about given the universally stellar write up the Zeiss lens receives.
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll have had a bad sample. I have the Zeiss 25 and 35 2.8s, love them both on my M6 and 240, but neither of them is suited to my Fuji xpro1 where they aren't so much unsharp as smeared at the edges. Did you try it on your M2?
 
I hadn't realised that a 35 mm RF lens could cause problems for a digital sensor. I've read here with issues related to wider lenses 15mm/21mm etc causing problems because the rear element was so close to the sensor.

Now I'm feeling more than a little foolish regarding my quick rejection of the C-Biogon. The lens looked pin sharp in the very centre with smearing starting only a little of the central axis. Certainly my 50 year old Canon 35mm F2 caused less smearing at the outer 1/3 of the image. I'm not clear how the design of the ZM lens might create this in the XE2. By contrast my CV25mmF4 shows no smearing and likewise my Topcor-s 50mmF2 don't show it.

I now regret not testing if on my M2 or Leotax F. I was just so irritated by the lens' apparent short comings that I sent it straight back. In some ways what's been said here reassures me that this lens should be ok despite my "testing"
 
I kept my ZM 35/2 Biogon but bought an M2 to put behind it when I realized what the problem was. I then bought the FE 35/2.8 Sonnar to put in front of my Sony A7S, so I have a lovely 35 that works corner-to-corner on digital and one that works corner-to-corner on film. So my solution cost a lot more!
 
But when you couldn't see the smearing on the A7S, the Biogon was brilliant!
U51008I1468763823.SEQ.0.jpg
 
The sensors in the M8 and the M9 are covered with thinner glass than other digital cameras are using. This may have been meant. In fact, some people have their SONY cameras modified to get a thinner glass cover of the sensor, and have the camera recalibrated for such a change.
 
Leica made their digital cameras to work with their film lenses, at the expense of some potential colour problems caused by a thinner cover glass over the image sensor. Sony and Fuji did not worry about backwards compatibility. Some older design lenses work better with the thicker cover glass sensors, the Canon 35 being one of the better-case examples. Sadly, as I didn't know at the time I bought it, the Biogon design is about the worst-case for a thick cover glass digital sensor I've heard of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top