C Biogon 35/2.8 vs. 35/2

ChrisC said:
I hope you report back because I've been opening files from this lens and swearing a lot; good old fashioned Anglo Saxon oaths of industrial strength. Don't be surprised if you too are knocked out by the C-Biogon.
Click to expand...

This one will take the place of my beloved old Summilux ASPH. Over the last few months I've been going over slides taken with the 'lux, and a huge number of them were taken at low-middle apertures. I am sure that there will be times when I wish I had another two stops, but I'm also sure that my photography usually doesn't demand them.

From what I've been able to ascertain without firsthand experience, it's a genuinely special lens. The MTFs are on par with the 50 Summicron-M (or 35 Summarit, for that matter), but with apparently less field curvature or astigmatism than the three current Leicas. It also distorts less and, according to Puts, has less propensity to flare than any of the Leicas or the f/2 Biogon.

And from all the image samples I've looked at, I've never seen a 35 that has prettier bokeh at 2.8 -- especially with such sharpness. I have to confess that I can often spot the bokeh from the f/2 Biogon and (in many but of course not all cases) it's not to my liking (YMMV, of course). For lack of a better term, the f/2.8 lens's rendering is just better articulated, less heavy-handed.

Or so I have persuaded myself. I'll see, soon enough.

I have just read Sean Reid's new article on Reid Reviews [subscription site] where he includes the lens in tests of moderate-speed 35mm lenses on the M9. The C-Biogon excelled, and it's good to now have Sean's very favourable findings to accompany Erwin Puts and Steve Huff's. For those who are interested in coding the lens for M8/M9 use, Sean favoured coding the C-Biogon as a 35 Summicron [non-ASPH], he preferred the less aggressive file corrections for the non-ASPH to those for the current 35mm Summicron ASPH.

.......... Chris
Click to expand...
When Erwin says [admits that] a lens is better than the latest-generation Leica equivalent, that's a recommendation to be taken seriously.

Mine will be used on an M6 with film, for the foreseeable future. I will certainly report on my results.
 
Last edited:
italy74 said:
Daniel... are these pictures taken with an M8 / M9 or with an Ikon/M6/7? They have something more like a digital look than a film look. Just a curiosity.
Click to expand...

Defnitely digital, M9. I'm no good at emulating the film look as much as I prefer it in most cases.
 
So I now own one of the pretty small lenses. I like it, not only technically but also the intuitive aperture ring and the small nob on the focussing ring.

My VC Nokton 1.5 went me crazy in this discipline.

I can "feel" my current setting, just right before I take the camera to my eye.

A bokeh test Image @2.8 - Agfa APX100 in HC-110
stadt_geschichtshaus.jpg


Another Sample f4.5 - Agfa APX100 in HC-110
wanderndes_baumvolk.jpg


I'm definitly very happy with it. The extra stop.. until now it was not missed by me. f2.8 works pretty good and for AL I would prefer just another lens.

Perhaps I'm going to have an ext. VF, but for now.. I go out for shooting more and more :)
 
Last edited:
First impression: Built a bit less expensively than the Leicas (no ball bearings in the aperture clicks; metal edges left machined rather than deburred to Leica standards), but rock-solid nonetheless, without a trace of the play in the aperture or focus rings reported for some other C-Z lenses; superb focus, aperture, and DOF scales. Nicely compact.

Initial thoughts:
1. Great contrast straight from wide open. Increases just a bit at f/4 then more or less unchanged to f/8.
2. The claimed flare resistance is real. Several shots with bright lights in the frame and no reflections or obvious veiling flare (no hood). Powerlines and twigs against the sky appear etched and high-contrast.
3. Beautiful color gradients and tonality.
4. Extremely neutral bokeh.
5. Substantial vignetting at f/2.8. It's more or less gone at f/4.
6. Pretty low geometric distortion. Substantially less than Summilux-ASPH.

So far, so good!
 
Last edited:
Two pictures taken with the C-Biogon at f5.6, JPEG straight out of the camera, no sharpening
4650151598_c51d2e3562_b.jpg


4650234404_9344a836bd_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Double Negative said:
.... This lens seems quite nice indeed.
Click to expand...

For some of us it merits being a first-choice lens.

Internet forums seem to be full of fast-lens obsessives, and on-centre-definition obsessives; and those two lens characteristics [or qualities, if you prefer] come at a design price, and cost price. As my images are made to the edge of the frame, I wouldn't want a lens whose resolution noticeably falls off towards the sides and corners. The design philosophy of Zeiss appeals to me, and the C-Biogon offers us a lens with superb resolution across the frame, allied with superb correction against flare, CA, focus shift, and distortion. Had this f2.8 been Leica designed it would be smaller [good], costlier [bad], but made with a design philosophy which would likely deliver ME a less useful lens.

On re-reading Sean Reid's first part of his "35mm lenses on M9" review [Reid Reviews] I asked myself which of the lenses reviewed would I choose if [a] money was no object, and if I did not already have the C-Biogon? On the strength of Sean's review, and balanced with Erwin Puts comparison with the Leica 35mm Elmarit; I'd choose the C-Biogon as my first choice 35mm 'M' lens. Lucky me, I have an Artists' lens.


............ Chris
 
Last edited:
Progress report: two new (to me) variables at once: 35/2.8 Biogon-C, and Neopan ACROS (XTOL 1:1). First two "real" rolls using this lens, and my first time using this film. No filtration was used for any of the shots.

892106055_b2WXs-X3.jpg


892065666_kQVU8-XL.jpg


Finally picked up a bit of flare: very bright late-afternoon sun shining directly on the front element caused a reflection (upper left corner). Might be the silver filter ring. A screw-in shade should cure that. Almost no veiling flare, though. A very good result.
891815653_kt2B5-XL.jpg


893018568_NWRiN-XL.jpg


891734611_CmmR8-XL.jpg


891739151_gzYg6-X3.jpg


891762783_E35rz-XL.jpg


891705229_nkVqQ-XL.jpg


Preliminary verdict: this is a powerful little lens. I also like the ACROS, though I'm thinking it could use higher-acutence development. Perhaps a pinch of Rodinal in the XTOL?
 
Last edited:
raid said:
What is today the verdict: Biogon 35/2 or 35/2.8 and whyother than the size?
Click to expand...

I had both but I sold my C Biogon f2.8 last week because:

  • For me the ergonomics are not great, a lens this small is better with a proper focusing tab (I prefer the Biogon f2 in this respect)
  • It's a bit too contrasty for my taste (I shoot film only)
  • There's a fair amount of vignetting at f2.8
  • Sometimes I need f2.0
 
Thank you for your assessment, Lawrence. I have the 35/2 but not the 35/2.8, so I wondered if I was missing something or not.
 
raid said:
Thank you for your assessment, Lawrence. I have the 35/2 but not the 35/2.8, so I wondered if I was missing something or not.
Click to expand...
Although I haven't tried it I have a feeling that the 35/2.8 would be very good with digital where the contrast and maximum aperture are of less importance. Of course with film you can control contrast with development but I tend to use more than one lens in a roll and the C Biogon didn't really fit with the other lenses I use.
 
The 35/2 works very well with the Leica M9, in my opinion. I posted some images that I took recently with this set.
 
uhoh7 said:
I agree, however the C-biogon is a very different lens, which many prefer.
Click to expand...

Is the preference of the C Biogon over the Biogon mostly from people who shoot B&W film? It looks to me as if there is some evidence supporting my suspicion. If we focus on color film and also on digital I mages, I dare say that the Biogon is not inferior to the C Biogon, especially when uaed at 2.0 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom