jawarden
Well-known
It's a great little lens.
It's a great little lens.
Congrats on the lens, Chris, it's a beaut. I used it for images of 30th st. Station in Philly. I like the lens a lot.
It's a great little lens.
Congrats on the lens, Chris, it's a beaut. I used it for images of 30th st. Station in Philly. I like the lens a lot.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
sleepyhead
Well-known
I have the old 35mm Biogon in classic Contax RF mount.
Does any one know if that lens has the same optical formula as this newer C lens in M mount?
Does any one know if that lens has the same optical formula as this newer C lens in M mount?
chenzhaohy
Member
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I think its a little different, because the old ones stuck so far inside the camera that they almost touch the film. The C-Biogon has more space behind the rear element when mounted, though it does stick further into the Leica than the 35mm Summicron pre-ASPH.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
More examples. ACROS again, this time in Rodinal 1:50.
...and three more, posted to the Ultimate Bokeh Thread.
...and three more, posted to the Ultimate Bokeh Thread.
Last edited:
bene
Established
I agree with you and yes Sean's insight is great. Please subscribe.
I might soon be carrying 3 35mm lens for walking around.
IE VC35f1.2 35f2v4 and the c-biogon
gavinlg
Veteran
Curious: Why do you want 3 35mms? I can understand the big 1.2 nokton and the small summicron but to add the biogon too?
bene
Established
The pre ASPH is great lens but its can be a little soft for my taste. In some light the "glow" due to undercorrection of blue look really good its great for people photographs but now always. Often I have to push the black level up. I will use it when shooting old people as it is more forgiving but doesn't give nitty realism which sometime is what I want. It give an impressionist look. Good and bad.
It doesn't give confidence when i want to print large.
Sometimes i want sharp which means the nokton in the day not something i fancy doing.
gavinlg
Veteran
Fair enough!
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
This lens continues to blow my mind.
Scanned this neg and found the following.
ACROS at ISO 100, developed in XTOL 1:1. The shaded rectangle shows the enlarged region below. It's a 1:1 enlargement of a 4000 d.p.i. scan (the lower-mag crop shown is 20 megapixels -- 5500 x 3600). The scan was done on an old Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 and is in no way optimized -- just one pass with my usual defaults. Obviously, I haven't bothered to deal with some dust spots.
The grid pattern in the ceiling essentially gives us a field-acquired MTF under extraordinarily unfavorable conditions -- handheld with a too-slow shutter speed (and indeed, there are signs of camera movement), focus most likely swung hard to the infinity stop (it was a grab shot), and the steps for the MTF are very strongly backlit, so this is a strong test of both resolution and suppression of veiling flare.
Under these absolutely awful conditions we're still easily getting 30, and maybe close to 40 lp/mm (this is the absolute limit of what the scanner can see in the film; the lack of moire tells us that there's an AA filter on the scan head).
Someone want to tell me again why I'm supposed to be shooting digital?
Scanned this neg and found the following.
ACROS at ISO 100, developed in XTOL 1:1. The shaded rectangle shows the enlarged region below. It's a 1:1 enlargement of a 4000 d.p.i. scan (the lower-mag crop shown is 20 megapixels -- 5500 x 3600). The scan was done on an old Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 and is in no way optimized -- just one pass with my usual defaults. Obviously, I haven't bothered to deal with some dust spots.
The grid pattern in the ceiling essentially gives us a field-acquired MTF under extraordinarily unfavorable conditions -- handheld with a too-slow shutter speed (and indeed, there are signs of camera movement), focus most likely swung hard to the infinity stop (it was a grab shot), and the steps for the MTF are very strongly backlit, so this is a strong test of both resolution and suppression of veiling flare.
Under these absolutely awful conditions we're still easily getting 30, and maybe close to 40 lp/mm (this is the absolute limit of what the scanner can see in the film; the lack of moire tells us that there's an AA filter on the scan head).
Someone want to tell me again why I'm supposed to be shooting digital?
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Billy Was Here!
Here's another of mine from the 35 C-Biogon. I have a lot more to scan, this lens has gotten A LOT of use lately!
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
It has such a silky zeiss bokeh...
how is OoF areas compared to CV 35mm f2.5?
how is OoF areas compared to CV 35mm f2.5?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I have not used the CV but the bokeh is superb, both in foregrounds and backgrounds. As linked above, here are three more examples.
I've developed, scanned, and carefully inspected about 15 rolls of film so far, and I just can't find a weakness in this little lump of machined metal and silica. It's the closest thing to a flawless lens for general photography that I've ever used.
Last edited:
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
Billy Was Here!
Here's another of mine from the 35 C-Biogon. I have a lot more to scan, this lens has gotten A LOT of use lately!
Chris. I remember you felt Color-Skopar 35mm you got from me was too crisp too contrasty. I sold the lens for the same reason, but Ive got another one for the time being and thinking about C-Biogon.
How does C-biogon compare with Color-Skopar? It's hard to see this from scans on computer display, you know? Probably you haven't got time to print yet, but looking forward to your opinion.
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
Well depends on which film you use for c-skopar. HP5 is good choice as it is low contrast film. But my curiosity is the OoF areas...c-skopar can be so smooth wide open too. I will try to post an image to show.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Sug,
The C-Biogon is contrastier than the 35mm Summicron version IV that I had before but not as contrasty as the 35 Color Skopar. Its about the same as the current 50mm Summicron, which I have, so I think the 35 C-Biogon and the 50mm Summicron go great together. The C-Biogon has less light falloff at the edges than the Color-Skopar too, which is nice. Overall I like the C-Biogon a lot more than the Color-Skopar.
leicashot
Well-known
The C-Ciogon is the most technically corrected lens I've ever used. Sharp wide open out to the corners, flare resistent, distortion corrected. Wide open it;s the sharpest 35mm lens at 2.8 available. What more could you want, but speed? So I have a Nokton 35 to solve that issue when it comes along.
DNG
Film Friendly
Man Chris....
You had to post and brag on the C-Biogon 35mm f/2.8...
I just received the C-Sonnar 50mm from a trade with Back Ally, and I am loving this lens and how it draws and the bokeh too... Oh yeah.... The colors are unreal on my G1.
I have been thinking of selling my 35mm f/1.4 Nokton and adding some $$ to get this lens...
Now, I am hooked, I want one.
I know finding a used one {now} is impossible after this thread was posted and read by many
Thanks for the experience your sharing with the ZM 35mm f/2.8 C-Biogon. It sealed the future for me.
You had to post and brag on the C-Biogon 35mm f/2.8...
I just received the C-Sonnar 50mm from a trade with Back Ally, and I am loving this lens and how it draws and the bokeh too... Oh yeah.... The colors are unreal on my G1.
I have been thinking of selling my 35mm f/1.4 Nokton and adding some $$ to get this lens...
Now, I am hooked, I want one.
I know finding a used one {now} is impossible after this thread was posted and read by many
Thanks for the experience your sharing with the ZM 35mm f/2.8 C-Biogon. It sealed the future for me.
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
Thanks Chris for your insights. Sounds very promising and definitely a bad influence to my GAS level. Looks like the doom is near.