actually how small is the little 35mm biogon C?

M

meandihagee

Well-known
Local time
4:17 AM
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
216
View My Gallery
compared to the nokton 35/1.4? i mean when it's mounted on the camera.

i can't seem to find the size as the zeiss site only says the length with the caps on.

i want to get a portable lens, comparable with the size of the nokton 35/1.4 and hopefully fit in the black bessa case.

thanks
 
About the same size, a little moreso cylindrical than conical 🙂 similar length.

This really is a stellar lens, if you can cope with f/2.8 it has very attractive background blur and is very sharp even at maximum aperture. Great separation of subject from background (if this is the look you want) and great for landscapes stopped down.
 
It's a little bit larger than the Nokton. You really shouldn't choose between these lenses based on weight and size. They are as different as lenses can be.

Here's the Biogon to the right and a Summicron-C 40/2 on the left, which is a little bit smaller than the Nokton.

DSC_9740.jpg


DSC_9742.jpg
 
From the pictures you can see it's pretty small. To put in a number: it protrudes about 30 mm from the body w/o cap or shade, 36 mm with the cap on. I just got it today...
 
Makten said:
It's a little bit larger than the Nokton. You really shouldn't choose between these lenses based on weight and size. They are as different as lenses can be.

Here's the Biogon to the right and a Summicron-C 40/2 on the left, which is a little bit smaller than the Nokton.
Click to expand...

Makten, I wonder how do both lenses compare on the M8. I have the 40 too and I´m quite happy although I find there´s a huge difference from f2 to f2.8... Any input?
 
Kozhe said:
Makten, I wonder how do both lenses compare on the M8. I have the 40 too and I´m quite happy although I find there´s a huge difference from f2 to f2.8... Any input?
Click to expand...

The Biogon renders very different, with high contrast and low spherical aberration. The Summicron is smoother and gives a bit of veiling flare (single coated I guess) in hard light. The Biogon has also very smooth bokeh, which sort of makes up for the slower speed.
 
Makten - Thank you for posting the images, the 'above' shot is the first image that has given me a sense of the C-Biogon's size on an "m'. If it's not too much trouble, could you also put on record an 'above' shot of the lens with the hood, and give some feedback about intrusion of the hood into the M8's field of view [separate illustrations of the hood suggest to me it might be rather too large].

I have searched everywhere for feedback about this lens, and I think I've read everything there is about it on the 'net. The C-Biogon is very appealing to me as my first-choice 35mm lens, but I'm amazed that little is written about the lens [not withstanding a few fans here]. I'm on the verge of buying one, hoping that it is an unheralded gem, but hoping it doesn't have warts which are too embarrassing to discuss in polite forum postings. Erwin Puts suggested that the 35mm f2.0 version Biogon would have been better had Zeiss restrict the design to f2.8. Aside from the [no-issue for me] maximum lens aperture; have Zeiss successfully 'nailed' the design with the C-Biogon f2.8 version? Also, can someone please confirm for me that the lens retains it's resolution characteristics at infinity? All hands-on feedback will be gratefully received.

.................. ChrisC
 
Makten, thank you for the pictures, you are very kind.

i'm still wondering though if it is a lot bigger than the nokton 35/1.4 as i want to know if it will fit the bessa case.

do any of you have both of these lenses?

thanks again
 
ChrisC said:
Makten - Thank you for posting the images, the 'above' shot is the first image that has given me a sense of the C-Biogon's size on an "m'. If it's not too much trouble, could you also put on record an 'above' shot of the lens with the hood, and give some feedback about intrusion of the hood into the M8's field of view [separate illustrations of the hood suggest to me it might be rather too large].
Click to expand...

I'll try to do that tomorrow! The hood is vented, so it doesn't bother me at all when using it on the M8. On film or M9, the lens itself will be within the field of the viewfinder though.

I have searched everywhere for feedback about this lens, and I think I've read everything there is about it on the 'net. The C-Biogon is very appealing to me as my first-choice 35mm lens, but I'm amazed that little is written about the lens [not withstanding a few fans here]. I'm on the verge of buying one, hoping that it is an unheralded gem, but hoping it doesn't have warts which are too embarrassing to discuss in polite forum postings. Erwin Puts suggested that the 35mm f2.0 version Biogon would have been better had Zeiss restrict the design to f2.8. Aside from the [no-issue for me] maximum lens aperture; have Zeiss successfully 'nailed' the design with the C-Biogon f2.8 version? Also, can someone please confirm for me that the lens retains it's resolution characteristics at infinity? All hands-on feedback will be gratefully received.
Click to expand...

I think the only reason is that people choose the 35/2 because of the speed and because it's not that much more expensive. In my case, I was soooo bloody tired of lenses shifting focus when stopping down, that I thought the 35/2.8 would be nice. And it is! I really love it.

visiondr said:
I imagine, then, that you didn't tax the lens in any contra-jour lighting. The results are not pleasant.
Click to expand...

😕😕😕 The Biogon-C 35/2.8 is one of the most flare resistant lenses there is.

L1001360.jpg
 
With respect to flare, Erin Puts had a long article on the subject and he agrees with other posters: the Biogon-C is one of the most flare-resistant lenses available.

@VisionDR, were you using a digital M? One thing that might account for your results (which diverge from pretty much everything else I've read about the 35/2 Biogon) is that the shiny sensor of digital cameras can make some lenses flare a lot worse than they do with film, due to internal reflections.
 
I own the 21 2.8, 28 2.8, 35 f2 and 50 planar and they are amazingly flare resistant. The 28 is probably the weakest of the wides on flare but still pretty good. Its all or nothing i.e. flares not at all, or does so so badly that the frame is destroyed. Its not like many lenses that regularly flare but in a manageable way. I have had it flare a few times in 3 years in Afghanistan and I routinely shoot into the sun.... but only a handful of times. The 21 has never flared. Not once; same goes for the 35 biogon and 50 planar.

I have never used lenses on any system so devoid of veiling flare as the ZM Biogons. I believe the 35 biogon has amongst the lowest flare of them all and the 25 is similar to the 21. Veiling flare is related to overall contrast and the ZMs are regarded as some of the highest contrast lenses out there with a very clean/clear look that is a direct product of such low veiling flare.
 
visiondr said:
I imagine, then, that you didn't tax the lens in any contra-jour lighting. The results are not pleasant.
Click to expand...

How much experience do you have with "biogon lenses"?

Your flickr shows only a few shots with the 35mm Biogon (different to the C-Biogon being discussed of course) and all of them show great contrast with no traces of flare or veiling. Not even on the shot shooting straight at the partly cloudy sky.

Any chance you could share one of the shots that show veiling glare?
 
Thanks for the pictures above!

But, can somebody post a picture comparing the size of the biogon 2.0 vs 2.8 mounted on an M Body? I really like the 2.8, but i'm still unsure about the extra speed and weight.

Does I need a lens hood for the Biogon-C?
 
PeMaty said:
But, can somebody post a picture comparing the size of the biogon 2.0 vs 2.8 mounted on an M Body? I really like the 2.8, but i'm still unsure about the extra speed and weight.
Click to expand...

Not directly, as I don't have both 35s. However from what is available on the Zeiss web site, the Biogon 35/2 should be the size of the Planar 50/2, while the C-Biogon 35/2.8 is substantially smaller. See attached picture, which shows (from top) the Planar 50/2, the Biogon 35/2, and the C-Biogon 35/2.8.


PeMaty said:
Does I need a lens hood for the Biogon-C?
Click to expand...

It just depends on how much you want to rely on its flare resistance and how much stealth you need. I got the "35/50" hood mainly for my Planar 50/2, but I'm using it on the C-Biogon as well. It fits all three lenses.
 

Attachments

  • Planar50_Biogon35_CBiogon35.jpg
    Planar50_Biogon35_CBiogon35.jpg
    18.8 KB · Views: 0
Sometimes, if I can hold the camera with one hand securly, I wave my left hand, out of shot, about above the camera to throw it into shaddow. Works mostly for me and reduces 'flare' consideraby.

Sometimes people even wave back !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom