ZM 35/2.8 lens - whats up with it?

Krosya

Krosya

Konicaze
Local time
11:54 AM
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
3,550
Ok, there has been some talk about this lens. A few people here on RFF already got it (Joe, Tom, some others). I even saw some "test shots" by "noimunity". However, I'm yet to see anything special about this lens other than it's size. It's not cheaper. Its not faster. I have not seen a single picture with it where it even (to me) looks as good as ZM 35/2. Not many pics online that I can find with it. Not many people seem to run out and get one. Far less talk about it even compared to CV 35/1.4.
So, what gives? Is it really as much of a flop as CV 35/1.4 turned out to be? I had high hopes for Zeiss and in some lenses they really did do an outstanding job. But cosina and Zeiss seem to have fallen back lately.
I hope that someone can post some images from ZM 35/2.8 that will prove me wrong. Cause, as I said, so far I have not seen single photo with it that would make me even consider it. Where is it's personality? Or is small size of this lens it's ONLY selling point? Please show me it aint true! ;)
 
I'm sure it performs great, but yeah - I'd never buy one myself, I can't see any particular point in it for me. I saw one in a camera shop in bangkok yesterday, sitting next to the 35mm f2 biogon. While the f2.8 was clearly smaller, the size difference wasn't huge (from my admittedly hazy memory seemed same width but around 1 - 1.5cm shorter). For me the slight size benefit is definitely not worth the loss of a full f-stop.
 
i see it differently.

it is cheaper - though not as much as the maximum aperture is smaller (compared to the zm biogon 35mm/2.0).

it delivers at least the same quality as the zm biogon 35mm/2.0.

it even seems to have the "same personality" as the 35mm/2.0 - which some people also fail to see, by the way.

i think the 35mm is very popular, so most RF photographers already own one. there is just few reason to get the 35mm/2.8 if you already own one of the other 35mm.
supposed i was in the market for my first 35mm, this one would probably be my first choice. but since i already own the 2.0 biogon, other lenses are higher on the wishlist.

kind regards
sebastian
 
sebastel said:
i see it differently.

it is cheaper - though not as much as the maximum aperture is smaller (compared to the zm biogon 35mm/2.0).

it delivers at least the same quality as the zm biogon 35mm/2.0.

it even seems to have the "same personality" as the 35mm/2.0 - which some people also fail to see, by the way.

i think the 35mm is very popular, so most RF photographers already own one. there is just few reason to get the 35mm/2.8 if you already own one of the other 35mm.
supposed i was in the market for my first 35mm, this one would probably be my first choice. but since i already own the 2.0 biogon, other lenses are higher on the wishlist.

kind regards
sebastian
Click to expand...

Well, the only 35mm lens I have is CV 35/1.2. And it's great, but I was thinking to get a smaller, lighter 35mm lens as walk-around lens. This new ZM was something I was hoping for. Even at 2.8. I tried CV 35/2.5 and it didnt agree with me - good lens, just didnt feel right. I like pics I see from Biogon 35/2. But little I have seen from 35/2.8 ZM just doesnt do it for me. Maybe I haven't seen enough. I hope so. Plus for I think it's overpriced for what it is. Now, if it was "Amazing" with lots of character - sure - I'd fork out the cash. But so far it's just, well.....blah. I dont think it has same personality as 35/2 ZM. Thats why I hope to see some pics here from it and to prove me wrong. So, so far Biogon 35/2 looks like a lens I should get. I wish that Zeiss made 35/2 as small - now that would be a great lens, assuming it would retain all it's character.
 
Krosya said:
Is it really as much of a flop as CV 35/1.4 turned out to be? I had high hopes for Zeiss and in some lenses they really did do an outstanding job. But cosina and Zeiss seem to have fallen back lately.
Click to expand...

i dont think 35/1.4 was a flop. i just think people start to worry only after reid review, but judging from net photos it seems like best 35mm option considering price+speed...

but for 35/2.8 i agree - it is in same situation as new summarit line. :( many people see nothing special i think. i dont know about distortion of 2.8 - knowing that zeiss lenses have low distortion - maybe that and compactness are its high points...
 
Well, CV 35/1.4 came with such a bang, yet I've seen maybe 3-4 photos from it that I like. I think CV 40/1.4 is as good and is cheaper.
 
Too much competition. Not much cheaper than a good used Summicron, certainly not than a 40/2, and then there is the phenomenal Color Skopar (all smaller and faster).

So you've got to dislike Leica and CV lenses or love the ZM brand enough to go out and buy one ...

Tell me, between the (smaller & faster) UC Hex and the new Biogon, which would you pick ?

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you've only seen 3-4 good CV35/1.4 photos because there are a lot less photos out there taken with that lens than with the FAR more popular 40/1.4.

Someone posted an bunch of side-by-side photos with the 35/2 and the 35/2.8, and the 35/2.8 does seem like a very nice lens. I just don't like the idea of giving up a stop of flexibility.

I do agree that the size advantage isn't a big enough deal. What I'd really like is a small (and affordable) 85/2.8 from Zeiss.
 
Last edited:
Unsexy specs and unsexy looks. This lens, while outstanding in performance, is just not very tempting because of it's low speed. It's small only relative to other Zeiss lenses.
 
i like it.
granted i have not processed any film from it yet...but i have seen enough photos to be impressed and know that it's is as good as the 35/2.

but, having had the 35/2, this lens is downright tiny in comparison/feel when shooting and well worth the price of admission, for me.
but i am a zeiss user, love the zeiss ikon and the zm lenses so it makes sense for me to use it. i don't need speed so i don't feel at a disadvantage and the loss of dof/oof area is minimal.
i had the cv 35/1.4 for a short while and it's a great lens, but it turns out i'd rather have an extra body (r3a) than another 35 lens.
i don't know about reviews but i never seemed to have focus issues with mine.
the 2.8 is still at least half the price of the new summarits so my pocket is not hurting too badly ;)
it's all about choice and what's important to each person.

joe
 
I'm betting sales of this lens aren't exactly going through the roof. I think that's largely because they missed the price point on the lens. Had it come in closer to the price of the new CV 35/1.4, it might be worth giving it a whirl.
But at this price, I'd much rather go with an older summicron or 35 UC Hex if I were looking for compactness.
 
'Is it really as much of a flop as CV 35/1.4 turned out to be?'

The CV 35/1.4 is a flop, really? Didn't know. Guess I better stop using it . . .

04910001.jpg

M6TTL, CV 35 1.4 SC, New TMY

​
As to the Biogon 2.8, I didn't understand the appeal until I got used to the small size of the CV 35 1.4. The Biogon F2 seems huge by comparison, and I'm thinking of replacing it with the 2.8 for the times when I want a 35 that doesn't have the distortion of the CV; when I need speed, the 1.4 is hard to beat at this price point.

FWIW, the UC Hex doesn't focus down to .7, which is something I find useful on a 35.
 
Matt(1pt4) said:
'Is it really as much of a flop as CV 35/1.4 turned out to be?'

The CV 35/1.4 is a flop, really? Didn't know. Guess I better stop using it . . .

04910001.jpg

M6TTL, CV 35 1.4 SC, New TMY

​
As to the Biogon 2.8, I didn't understand the appeal until I got used to the small size of the CV 35 1.4. The Biogon F2 seems huge by comparison, and I'm thinking of replacing it with the 2.8 for the times when I want a 35 that doesn't have the distortion of the CV; when I need speed, the 1.4 is hard to beat at this price point.

FWIW, the UC Hex doesn't focus down to .7, which is something I find useful on a 35.
Click to expand...

Nice pic ... but there's some pretty strange looking stuff happening up in the top right OOF area!
 
'Nice pic ... but there's some pretty strange looking stuff happening up in the top right OOF area!'

Wide Lens + Wide Aperture + Foliage = uh, weird stuff

The DOF just isn't shallow enough to throw all that foliage into line.
 
ferider said:
Tell me, between the (smaller & faster) UC Hex and the new Biogon, which would you pick ?
Click to expand...

easy. the biogon. much closer minimum focus.
better contrast and nicer oof transition. better build. well, maybe not better build, but on the one I've seen it was...

but if you can only get one and need the speed, get the 35/2 or another lens.
 
Last edited:
I have put about 115 shots with the 35mm f2.8 C Biogon on our Flickr site. However, it is virtually impossible to judge a lens performance from small size down loads.
I find it very sharp (think 35f2 Asph etc) and with a bit more snap in the contrast than the rest of the Zeiss lenses. No direct comparisons between the ZM 35f2 and various Summicrons yet, but it is certainly holding its own against them.
As for the Nokton 35f1.4 being a flop! I disagree with that. It does show a slight focus shift on a M8 - but how much of that is the digital sensor set up and/or lens is still up for discussion. I have two of the 35f1.4's SC version and use them with M2's and so far they have behaved impeccably. To a great extent they have taken over the position of the pre-asph 35f1.4 in my "low light" kit. I got rid of my 35f1.4 Asphs years ago as they were very disappointing. Too much flare and the quality was OK, but not spectacular!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom