Zeiss Biogon 35mm f2.0 T* ZM

W

whitecat

Lone Range(find)er
Local time
8:46 AM
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
1,345
Thinking of getting one of these but I wonder if the extra stop is worth it. I don't just mean the money, but the size, weight, bokeh, etc. I would appreciate your comments. I use a 35mm Summicron now.
 
Well, if you are using a 35 Summi, are you unhappy? What more are you looking for? The Biogon is an excellent lens optically, a matter of personal taste if it is better than the Summicron. It is about the size of a 50 Summicron if you have one of those around to judge the difference in size.
 
I believe the Biogon is sharper and has more contrast. But it's also a tad bit bulkier. It's really your call as to what you're looking for. If you're selling the 'cron, then you'll end up with a bit more cash in your pocket as well.
 
maybe think about the zm 35/2.8.
it is sharp, has a different look to the images than the 35/2 and is a really nice size.
i've quite happy with the change from the 2 to the 2.8
 
I have the 35f2 ZM (as well as aslew of Summicron's) but I find myself grabbing the 35f2.8 ZM more and more. It is small and compact and I like how it works in black/white. Damned sharp too, but so are all the other 35's. I find that I more and more choose lenses that are small and compact and does not hamper my "style" - such as it is. Probably wisdom from age (and a really crunched up back) - lighter is better and any lens in my bag or on my camera is a better lens than the one left at home!
 
How good is the C Biogon wide-open (i.e. f2.8?).

I ask because I want a 35mm lens for my M6TTL - currently my only lens is a 50mm Summarit f2.5. I'm quite happy with these slower (f2.5/f2.8) lenses, as long as they can be used wide-open. I also value small size and 'handiness', so I have been looking at the Zeiss C Biogon, the 35mm Summarit, the CV Color-Skopar, or perhaps (if only i can find one) a s/h v4 Summicron.
 
tom uk, go to Flickr and tag Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8 and you will see a lot of shots done with it. I find it very good wide open - sharp and with a nice medium contrast (a bit different contrast from the rest of the ZM line - but not inferior, just a different look). I have the 35f2 too and that one gets used when I know that the light is difficult - but for "regular" light and as a walk around lens, it works well,
 
If you're looking for a fast(ish) 35, you could also look for a Canon 35/1.8. It's small, sharp, and a pleasure to use (except for the #^$*ing infinity lock).
 
I fooled around with both the 35 Summicron ASPH and the 35 Biogon ZM f2.

It was, to me, hard to discern the difference between the two when it came to sharpness and bokeh; but then again, I wasn't shooting brick walls or newspapers or newspapers pinned to brick walls or... well, you get the idea.

The only reason I sold the Biogon was, I had paid quite a princely sum for the Cron and it was only slightly smaller (without the hood) and it was 6-bit coded.

Otherwise, I would have just hung onto the Biogon and resold the Cron (which I eventually did anyway because I loved the VC 35 f1.4 Nokton) :)

Cheers
Dave
 
dcsang said:
The only reason I sold the Biogon was, I had paid quite a princely sum for the Cron and it was only slightly smaller (without the hood) and it was 6-bit coded.

Otherwise, I would have just hung onto the Biogon and resold the Cron (which I eventually did anyway because I loved the VC 35 f1.4 Nokton) :)

Cheers
Dave
Click to expand...

I benefited from your sale, and it's a great lens. I used the Biogon for a while in Africa but found that I generally prefer Leica color shots to Zeiss (they seem more aesthetically pleasing to me, at least). But besides that, I was surprised to find that the Summicron Asph does not seem that much smaller than the Biogon b/c I shot the ZM lens without a hood and use the large rectangular one for the Cron. If I'm not mistaken, the weight of both lenses is almost the same.

A final note- I didn't like the images I would get with the biogon wide open. Some of the shots seemed unusable for me, with a big drop in contrast from 2.8 to 2. I think the sharpness is there, it just tended to look washed out. It could very well be the flare since I didn't use a hood - maybe someone else has insight on it.
 
Last edited:
"If I'm not mistaken, the weight of both lenses is almost the same."

Per the Zeiss and Leica owner's manuals: The Biogon weighs 240g. The 35 Cron Asph weighs 255g if black, and 340g if silver. (All weights w/o hood.)
 
3030552233_188c09fdd3.jpg


Leica 35mm F2 8elemnt at F2

3030552537_6e5265c5dd.jpg


Zeiss ZM 35mm F2 at F2

3030552307_0b515722a4.jpg


Leica 35mm F2 8elemnt at F5.6

3030552629_7272410e82.jpg


Zeiss ZM 35mm F2 at F5.6

I sold my 8element leica, the ZM 35 has an unbeatable price, I paid less than half of what I sold for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom