NEW Zeiss Biogon 35mm F/2.8 just announced

My story & I'm sticking to it

My story & I'm sticking to it

venchka said:
Yikes! Five hundred and ninety Euros???????????

No thanks. I'll keep using my ultra compact Canon 35/2.8 and 35/2.0 UC-Hexanon lenses with a combined cost far below 590 Euros.
Click to expand...

Putting a Compact label on a 42mm long lens is an exercise in Marketing Speak.

Canon 35/2.8 = 15/16" (24mm) from face of body flange to face of lens body

Konica 35/2.0 UC-Hexanon = 1 3/16" (30mm) from face of body flange to face of lens body

Both lenses are LTM. They work almost everywhere. OK, not for the Contax/Nikon folks. Sorry.

I still don't get the point. Not fast. Not compact. Not cheap. Why bother?
 
I would really be interested in seeing how this new lens will perform. I am quite happy with my CV Ultron 35/1.7 but so far Cosina really adds the "magic touch" to a Zeiss lens.
 
visiondr said:
Beware Zeiss's weird lens length measurements. They don't measure from the bayonet flange to the front of the lens. They measure from the rear element to the front of the lens. If you look at the Cosina website, they call the Zeiss 35/2 a 43.3mm long lens. According to the Zeiss stats, that lens is 56mm long! So, the new 35/2.8 is probably more like 42mm long. That is a small lens.
Click to expand...

small yes, but still not that much smaller than the 35/2.
 
Tom A said:
Imagine a Nikon Rf with the D3 sensor and the extreme ISO that sensor can achive. Full frame and 6400 ISO with very little noise. I am speculating here, but a Digital rangefinder with the much improved sensor technology of the D3 sensor would be a formidable camera.
Click to expand...

I'd settle for a 1.5x crop and D300 sensor with live view, thank you. 🙂

Get well soon, Tom.
 
venchka said:
I still don't get the point. Not fast. Not compact. Not cheap. Why bother?
Click to expand...

I'm with you Wayne. Not small at all. A number of faster 35s are way smaller,
including the CV 35/2.5, 40/2 Summicron and Rokkor, Summicron 35/2, etc. Even the J-12 ....

Just look at it and think of the 43mm filter size.

Roland.
 
A week or so ago, there was a thread on this forum asking what people would like to see from Zeiss. Most folks wanted faster, more exotic lenses, but I suggested compact, slower lenses, a continuation of the "C" series. I'm excited to hear about this new offering, and can't wait to see what's around the corner. Fast or small, it's all good news.
 
Everyone should have a 35 UC Hexanon.

One thing about these new lenses being developed by Zeiss and CV. It just seems like these two companies would want (seperately or together) to have their own digital RF.
I know that film isn't dead, etc. But the growth in the photo industry is on the digital side. I just find it almost unfathomable that they wouldn't have something in the works - instead of simply depending on Leica to take rangefinders into the digital age.
 
Remember, with compact size come some compromises. Even the rightfully lauded 35/2 Asph Leica has some pincushion distortion at the edges (although very small by SLR standards). The Zeiss Biogon is essentially distortion free. Perhaps the Biogon design precludes the ultra short physical dimension of the lens while gaining better distortion in the trade. Just food for thought.

BTW, for you size worriers - the Zeiss lenses I've used don't require the lens hood nearly as often as the Leica counterparts. Flare resistance is also a great benefit to the Biogon and the Zeiss coatings. So, when you slap that hood on your 'cron IV or 'cron Asph, you instantly make the lens bigger than the Biogon.
 
You could knock me over with a feather😕 I did not expect this. The f2 35mm everyone says is great at f4 and at smaller aperatures. So is a f2.8 35mm gooding to be better than the f2 35mm at f2.8, maybe. However, my main puzzlement is that the weight 200g (as mentioned by back alley) only 40g lighter (same weight as Nokton f1.4 35mm). Also how much shorter in length ,1mm? - surely not. If it was 10mm+ OK, but not 1-3mm (Someone will have to get one and compare with the f2 35mm😀, let me know when you do). Well I suppose it is lighter than the 35/2,5 Summarit😉
A f2.8 85mm C, made in Japan and less than half the price of the f2 85mm, I can see the logic there.
 
Wouldn't the performance be better than the 35/2? I don't know much about designs but it seems like it's less of a stretch to make a 2.8 than a 2, so the 2.8 would have better performance. I mean if the 35/2.8 is better than the 35/2 then one could supplement with the CV 1.4. Sounds like a plan!
 
This new lens is 8 mm shorter than ZM35.2

This new lens is 8 mm shorter than ZM35.2

According to the product flyer for the ZM 35/2, the length of the ZM35/2 is 63 mm with caps on. See

http://www.zeiss.com/C12571FF00438F7A/0/4C6DE03741AABC5CC12573D400566380/$file/flyer-zm-b-2-35-en.pdf

Zeiss states that the new ZM35/2.8 is 55 mm length with caps on.
So this is an 8mm reduction in length, which is a decent reduction. If you compare the images of the f2.8 and f2, then you can see that the 2.8 is significantly shorter.

Cheers, Phil
 
from the zeiss website

Technical Data
Focal length: 35 mm
Aperture scale: f/2,8 – f/22 (in 1/3 increments)
Focusing range: 0.7 m – infinity
Angular field, diag./horiz./vert.: 62°/53°/37°
Coverage at close range: 41 x 62 cm
Image ratio at close range: 1:17
Number of elements/groups: 7/5
Filter thread: M 43 x 0.75
Weight: 200 g
Dimensions (with caps): 52 mm diameter, length 55 mm


Technical Specifications

Focal length 35 mm
Aperture range 2 – 22
Focusing range 0,7 m – infinity
No. of elements/groups 9/6
Image ratio at close range 1 : 18
Coverage at close range 43 cm x 65 cm
Angular field, diag./horiz./vert. 63/54/38 °
Filter M 43 x 0,75
Length 56 mm
Weight 240 g
 
back alley said:
from the zeiss website

Technical Data
Focal length: 35 mm
Aperture scale: f/2,8 – f/22 (in 1/3 increments)
Focusing range: 0.7 m – infinity
Angular field, diag./horiz./vert.: 62°/53°/37°
Coverage at close range: 41 x 62 cm
Image ratio at close range: 1:17
Number of elements/groups: 7/5
Filter thread: M 43 x 0.75
Weight: 200 g
Dimensions (with caps): 52 mm diameter, length 55 mm


Technical Specifications

Focal length 35 mm
Aperture range 2 – 22
Focusing range 0,7 m – infinity
No. of elements/groups 9/6
Image ratio at close range 1 : 18
Coverage at close range 43 cm x 65 cm
Angular field, diag./horiz./vert. 63/54/38 °
Filter M 43 x 0,75
Length 56 mm
Weight 240 g
Click to expand...

Yes the specs showed only 1mm difference in length. But as Phil had said, the image of the ZM 35/2.8 shows clearly that it is significantly shorter (comparing the portion in front of the M mount).
 
tbarker13 said:
Everyone should have a 35 UC Hexanon.

One thing about these new lenses being developed by Zeiss and CV. It just seems like these two companies would want (seperately or together) to have their own digital RF.
I know that film isn't dead, etc. But the growth in the photo industry is on the digital side. I just find it almost unfathomable that they wouldn't have something in the works - instead of simply depending on Leica to take rangefinders into the digital age.
Click to expand...

Zeiss is well aware of the interest in a digital rangefinder. I've dropped them a couple of notes over the past couple of years just to put my vote in for a digital Zeiss rangefinder, most recently just over a week ago. They apparently read "numerous requests" and there are -- obviously -- a lot of queries at trade shows.

The international sales rep who responded stressed that full-frame and "high resolution" would be needed to take advantage of the ZM lenses. He didn't say, "Yes, we are working on it", or "No, not at this time". But they are "working intensely" on "forward-looking" solutions.

This goes without saying, but he also indicated a device with the above specs would not be cheap! At any rate, it'll be interesting to see what kind of presence they have at Photokina in the Fall.
 
I'm with Wayne. I just picked up a sweet Canon 35/2.8 from another member for 1/5 the price quoted for the Zeiss. It's truly compact with a filter size of just 34mm.

Of course, my wallet forces me to make virtue from necessity ...
 
Broke said:
Do you think there is much of a market for a slower, small 35 given the presence of so many f/2 small 35mm lenses available? At ~ same price as the F/2 biogon? That being said I'm sure it'll be a fantastic lens.
Click to expand...
I thought the same thing.

Now, if they made the f/2 formula as compact as this f/2.8, we're in business.

This price offering doesn't make sense. I guess Mr. Lee's consultants did some moonlight work for Zeiss?
 
woke up to find the press release from zeiss in my email, price is set at $817 u.s.

i look forward to seeing some results from this lens and am curious but it's doubtful i would switch it for the 35/2.
the 35/2 never seemed all that big to me really and fits nicely on the zm, as is.

joe
 
Very similar in size to the 21/4.5 C Biogon, the best superwide I've ever used. I wouldn't be surprised if optically it was the best 35/2.8 ever made and wide open if it didn't equal or better the 35/2 at f/2.8. By f/4 it should equal the 35/2. Just a hunch.
 
Its a real pity they didnt open the lens up more. Its not that cosina cant do it, my 35 PII speaks for itself. A 35 3.8 would not interest me much because I think with a lens that small you really need a focus tab or it becomes kind of fiddly. I wont be running out to get rid of my 35 PII just yet....the Leica small 35's are much more attractive.

That said, this is a Zeiss C lens, I remember when the Sonnar 1.5 came out they said C was for compact, then when all the problems were found they said C was for classic, now it seems C is for compact again, or maybe this lens will have focus shift up the wing wang?
 
The release price is never the bottom line so I think you will find when the initial run has been filled then the street price will be around $650 US with whats sure to be the most distortion free and flare resistant 35mm lens on the market. Video killed the radio star but the new 35 Biogon is sure to do the same to the new 35 Summarit.

PS I predicted a slower 85mm lens when the ZM line first came out, im certain it will get here eventually, people just arent buying the moster 85 f2's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom