Phantomas
Well-known
I have an opportunity to buy a mint ZM Biogon 2/35mm lens. Fair value - about 2/3 of extortionate European prices. The focal length itself is a no-brainer: in (LT)M mount I've got 12mm, 21mm, 40mm and 50mm so 35 would fit nicely into the gap. Plus I enjoy that FL - I always find it very comfortable and natural to frame with the Hexar AF (with fixed 35mm).
Also, I'm a great admirer of Zeiss glass - I find results from G series lenses spectacular, and the Hassie lenses, they're in a league of their own.
However, upto now all my RF gear has been built up on a budget, all my RF lenses are either CV or FSU and I've been content with their quality, built and all at the given price. So what I'm really wondering is, is this particular lens actually worth it? Does ZM 2/35 provide results that set it apart from the others, does it have a "signature"? Or are the differences so marginal that I'd be better off getting two CV lenses (like 1.4/35 + 1.9/50) at almost the same price?
Hmmm... I'd like to get a ZM, and I can afford it at the moment at a cost of neglecting other glass GAS for timebeing, just wondering if it will make me happy or "oh well, it's just another 35mm, just with Zeiss logo on it).
And if you want to show your photos with this lens I'd appreciate it.
Also, I'm a great admirer of Zeiss glass - I find results from G series lenses spectacular, and the Hassie lenses, they're in a league of their own.
However, upto now all my RF gear has been built up on a budget, all my RF lenses are either CV or FSU and I've been content with their quality, built and all at the given price. So what I'm really wondering is, is this particular lens actually worth it? Does ZM 2/35 provide results that set it apart from the others, does it have a "signature"? Or are the differences so marginal that I'd be better off getting two CV lenses (like 1.4/35 + 1.9/50) at almost the same price?
Hmmm... I'd like to get a ZM, and I can afford it at the moment at a cost of neglecting other glass GAS for timebeing, just wondering if it will make me happy or "oh well, it's just another 35mm, just with Zeiss logo on it).
And if you want to show your photos with this lens I'd appreciate it.
Turtle
Veteran
IMHO a 28 would fit in better than a 35. However, as for the Zm 35 f2 it is a superb lens in every technical sense. It produces incredible corner performance from wide open and a stop down the centre is very sharp indeed and very usable wide open. Low vignetting, no distortion, the best flare control of any lens I have ever used etc. Overall, I think it a great lens. Whether it is worth it to you, is for you to decide, but the lens is not lacking. The only issue is that it is a bit bigger than the competition, but still no bigger than a 50 summicron, which nobody complains about.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I think it is a very good lens, based on on-line samples and reviews I've seen. I'd convinced myself to buy one, some time ago. But then an M-Hexanon 35mm/f2 came up (that doesn't happen too often) and I decided to go that way instead. I've been anything but unhappy with my choice, but I do think (from samples I've seen) that the CZ Biogon often gives a somewhat different "typically Zeiss" look, especially in colour.
...Mike
...Mike
fuwen
Well-known
Nice lens, no complaints......
http://www.fuwen.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=82&Itemid=144
http://www.fuwen.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=82&Itemid=144
David_Manning
Well-known
I'm very satisfied with the Zeiss T* Biogon 35/f2. There is no flare to speak of (coated, 9-element lens). It's the most modern M-mount 35, I think. Also, if you're a perfectionist, it allows 1/3 stop exposure increments.
An example from this lens:
What the lens looks like, mounted:
An example from this lens:
What the lens looks like, mounted:
Phantomas
Well-known
Thanks guys, that's quite reasuring. Just wanted to hear that it's worth paying almost double as opposed to say CV 2.5/35 or 1.4/35.
Now hoping the lens will still be available while the last funds are gathered.
Now hoping the lens will still be available while the last funds are gathered.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
In both cases, I'd say, "yes."
That's not to say either CV lens is a slouch, but if given the choice...
Seconded. I was well impressed but like my 35/1.4 pre-aspheric Summilux too much to switch, even though the Biogon may be objectively a better lens. You'll see it was my favourite when I first reviewed the then-new ZI system: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/zeiss.html.
Tashi delek,
R.
Last edited:
Tim Gray
Well-known
I thought it was a great lens when I had it. I switched to 28mm though.
pevelg
Well-known
The 35mm ZM f2 lens was my all time favorite rf lens in the 135mm format. I've owened every jupitar, nokton 40mm, 35mm ultron, 75, 85, 90, 135x2, etc, etc. The most expensive lens i've owned was the 90mm leica macro lens, a superb lens. The biogon is by far my most favorite though, even more that the 25mm biogon which I also owned.
Turtle
Veteran
Although it does not have double the performance of the 35 Pancake II for example, you have to pay a LOT more than the biogon to get equivalent performance in other lenses. Wait till you shoot a distant scene at 2.8 or f4 and note how darned sharp the edges are. Good luck getting it to flare too.
Spyro
Well-known
First post, hi 
Just bought the Ikon + Biogon 35/2 kit and put a couple of rolls through it. Like yourslef I've been shooting the Hexar AF a lot before that so this might make sense to you: its a very different lens, well made and very sharp, but it has a very different rendering of oof areas, it looks... neutral. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but if you liked the Hexar's rendering maybe get something else. Not sure what though, a summicron pre-asph maybe?
Just bought the Ikon + Biogon 35/2 kit and put a couple of rolls through it. Like yourslef I've been shooting the Hexar AF a lot before that so this might make sense to you: its a very different lens, well made and very sharp, but it has a very different rendering of oof areas, it looks... neutral. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but if you liked the Hexar's rendering maybe get something else. Not sure what though, a summicron pre-asph maybe?
AJ_W
Member
I purchased one recently and had the chance to scan in a few rolls yesterday.
Images from the Biogon seems to have very high contrast compared to my 50 M-Hexanon and 40mm M-Rokkor lenses. But no complaints as to image quality.
The build quality is good, but the M-Hexanon and M-Rokkor just seem to be a notch above. The focus ring on my sample is not as smooth as the other two lenses.
Images from the Biogon seems to have very high contrast compared to my 50 M-Hexanon and 40mm M-Rokkor lenses. But no complaints as to image quality.
The build quality is good, but the M-Hexanon and M-Rokkor just seem to be a notch above. The focus ring on my sample is not as smooth as the other two lenses.
mfogiel
Veteran
Great lens, versatile, sharp when you need it, but also creamy. No flare, nice in and out of focus passage, very well balanced. Could be smaller, that's the only thing you can say.
kram
Well-known
It must be a special lens, because it seemssto be on my ZM 80% of the time. The lens legend -ZM 25mm f2.8, does not get out much (and I have had flare on 1 photo, whereas no flare on any photos with the 35mm?).
JohnyD
Member
Great lens, versatile, sharp when you need it, but also creamy. No flare, nice in and out of focus passage, very well balanced. Could be smaller, that's the only thing you can say.
very nice shoot, i like the feelings of the first one!
David Murphy
Veteran
I think there's little doubt the 35/2 ZM is a tour-de-force of optical and mechanical engineering. However, you might also consider the CV 35/1.7 Ultron, at about 1/2 to 1/3 the price of a 35/2 ZM. It's also a stunner, perhaps quite as sharp wide open, but awfully good.
Mfogiel: Stunning shots - you've got talent
Mfogiel: Stunning shots - you've got talent
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
I love mine.
Rowse
Gothamscapes
Zeiss 35mm Zm
Zeiss 35mm Zm
Hi, this is my first post by the way. I own the 35mm Biogen and it's the only 35mm RF lens I've ever used yet. Very sharp, high contrast for B/W, and excellent flare control. Size isn't an issue for me, as I came from using SLR lenses. Overall, for the price it's probably the best current 35mm RF lens on the market. You really can,t go wrong with it.
Zeiss 35mm Zm
Hi, this is my first post by the way. I own the 35mm Biogen and it's the only 35mm RF lens I've ever used yet. Very sharp, high contrast for B/W, and excellent flare control. Size isn't an issue for me, as I came from using SLR lenses. Overall, for the price it's probably the best current 35mm RF lens on the market. You really can,t go wrong with it.
Phantomas
Well-known
Thanks a lot people, needed no more to be convinced
The lens has been paid for, should have had it by now but some mix-up in postage routed it back to sender. Hopefully will have it in my hands by the end of the week to start shooting with it.
Heh, I realised I don't even have an M-mount camera with 35mm framelines except for R-D1, but that's got to go (and fund another film RF with, yes, 35mm framelines).
The lens has been paid for, should have had it by now but some mix-up in postage routed it back to sender. Hopefully will have it in my hands by the end of the week to start shooting with it.
Heh, I realised I don't even have an M-mount camera with 35mm framelines
except for R-D1, but that's got to go (and fund another film RF with, yes, 35mm framelines).
Phantomas
Well-known
Oh no, no M8 for me. If there was anything that a few days spent with R-D1 has taught me is that I'll be staying away from digital RF, from crop digital RF that is. Great camera, just not my cup of tea. I'm sticking with film for timebeing.