efix
RF user by conviction
Hey guys and gals,
I'm currently in a state of urgent GAS, despite having no cash to spend. Anyways, I just rediscovered my love of the Zeiss look, and I'm now seriously considering exchanging my Voigtländer lenses for Zeiss lenses (once again).
Let me digress and recover my lens history.
When I first got my M8, I purchased a 35/1.4 Nokton. Didn't like it, exchanged it for a 35 Biogon, which I really loved for its bold colours, strong contrast and three-dee-ness. But I found 35mm on the M8 too restrictive, so I sold the Biogon and got a 28mm M-Rokkor and a 50/1.5 Nokton. The Rokkor wasn't fast enough, so I upgraded to a 28/1.9 Ultron.
The Nokton is really a good lens with smooth bokeh, sharp enough at f/1.5, small and light. Not outstanding, but a solid performer. No complaints.
The Ultron, though, is large and heavy, and while providing beautiful bokeh wide open, it is a bit glowy and lacks sharpness until stopped down to f/2.8. It's also not very contrasty wide open. All in all a bit "flat". Stopped down, though, it's very good.
But I have to say, while my CV lenses are good performers, I do miss that special something I got from my Biogon. I thought I'd prefer a lower contrast lens, but I always end up pushing contrast to levels I'd get from a Zeiss lens straight, without any further processing. Also, I loved the 35 Biogon's colours, and the 3D-pop. Colour, contrast, 3D: I want this look back.
So, should I go for a 28 Biogon and 50 Planar? I know they're a stop slower than my current lenses (and I wouldn't want the Sonnar for the focus shift - would I?), but they would give me back that wonderful Zeiss look. Should I? Should I not? This is really tough, seriously ...
EDIT: Oh, and if you'd like to make things worse for me, please do provide me with some image samples taken with said lenses!
(Preferrably wide open on M8, but other cameras welcome, too!)
I'm currently in a state of urgent GAS, despite having no cash to spend. Anyways, I just rediscovered my love of the Zeiss look, and I'm now seriously considering exchanging my Voigtländer lenses for Zeiss lenses (once again).
Let me digress and recover my lens history.
When I first got my M8, I purchased a 35/1.4 Nokton. Didn't like it, exchanged it for a 35 Biogon, which I really loved for its bold colours, strong contrast and three-dee-ness. But I found 35mm on the M8 too restrictive, so I sold the Biogon and got a 28mm M-Rokkor and a 50/1.5 Nokton. The Rokkor wasn't fast enough, so I upgraded to a 28/1.9 Ultron.
The Nokton is really a good lens with smooth bokeh, sharp enough at f/1.5, small and light. Not outstanding, but a solid performer. No complaints.
The Ultron, though, is large and heavy, and while providing beautiful bokeh wide open, it is a bit glowy and lacks sharpness until stopped down to f/2.8. It's also not very contrasty wide open. All in all a bit "flat". Stopped down, though, it's very good.
But I have to say, while my CV lenses are good performers, I do miss that special something I got from my Biogon. I thought I'd prefer a lower contrast lens, but I always end up pushing contrast to levels I'd get from a Zeiss lens straight, without any further processing. Also, I loved the 35 Biogon's colours, and the 3D-pop. Colour, contrast, 3D: I want this look back.
So, should I go for a 28 Biogon and 50 Planar? I know they're a stop slower than my current lenses (and I wouldn't want the Sonnar for the focus shift - would I?), but they would give me back that wonderful Zeiss look. Should I? Should I not? This is really tough, seriously ...
EDIT: Oh, and if you'd like to make things worse for me, please do provide me with some image samples taken with said lenses!
(Preferrably wide open on M8, but other cameras welcome, too!)
Last edited:
tensai
Established
I really feel what you are saying. I shoot medium format and a D700 and can't justify another camera/format. But so often when I see samples from the 35 biogon on film or on an M8/M9, I want to buy a rangefinder and a proper scanner just to be able to shoot that lens. I love it.
aleksanderpolo
Established
If Rokkor is too slow, then ZM 28 will also be too slow too...
efix
RF user by conviction
Yes, that's true. But in this case, it's not so much about the speed, but about the lens' signature. I just love the Zeiss signature. And I believe (or try to convince me that I believe, not sure at the moment) that I could live with a slower lens if it has a special signature, like the Zeiss lenses do. The M-Rokkor's drawing doesn't speak to my soul (while being very decent nonetheless), but the Zeiss drawing does. That's my dilemma ...
Would you like any from the Zeiss 28mm that aren't wide open? Here are a couple, both M8:
Last edited:
nex100
Established
a zm 25mm will probably be a better performer than the 28mm although I think you will not be disappointed by either.
the 50mm planar is superb but i prefer the 50mm c sonnar.
the 50mm planar is superb but i prefer the 50mm c sonnar.
efix
RF user by conviction
Wonderful colours and contrast, just what you'd expect a Zeiss lens to deliver! I am really tempted ...
efix
RF user by conviction
Yes, I've read the ravings about the 25, and it does seem to be much more appreciated than the 28. But if one can trust Ken Rockwell's judgement, the 28 is on par with the 28 Elmarit. And I prefer a 28 for a) it's angle-of-view (25 on the M8 is a bit too wide for my taste) and b) the fact that I can't make out the full 24mm framelines in the M8 viewfinder. The 28mm framelines are easier to see and use.
How would you describe the differences between the Planar and the Sonnar? (Despite speed and focus shift)
MCTuomey
Veteran
I've been pleased with all four of these lenses. Zeiss lenses render very closely as a group (except maybe the c-sonnar wide open), regardless of focal length, which is one reason I like them so much: consistency. When it comes to Zeiss ZM lenses, I think you can truly buy based simply on preferred focal length without concern for IQ variation.
I think the 28mm FL on the M8 is a sweet spot effective focal length, also finder-wise. Just my 2 cents.
Last edited:
MCTuomey
Veteran
From f5.6 and up, not so different at all. From f1.5 to around f2.8, the sonnar shows somewhat less sharpness and contrast, a more gentle look. The planar is consistently "modern" at all f stops. I own and use both, unable or unwilling to let either go.
RobertB
Established
I had both and sold both. The 28 biogon for a 28 summicron, and the 50 planar for the 50 summarit.
I loved the 28 biogon. Rich of sharpness and contrast. Sometimes I think I liked the biogon over the summicron for its contrast. But the speed and build of the summicron did it for me.
The planar didn't work correctly on my m8, focus was off and the biogon had much more contrast and zeiss pop, so I traded it in for a 50 summarit. The summarit was a absolute joy to use with its focus knob, small size and good build. However the relative slow speed makes me think of giving the planar (or maybe a summicron) a second change.
Some shots with the biogon:
I loved the 28 biogon. Rich of sharpness and contrast. Sometimes I think I liked the biogon over the summicron for its contrast. But the speed and build of the summicron did it for me.
The planar didn't work correctly on my m8, focus was off and the biogon had much more contrast and zeiss pop, so I traded it in for a 50 summarit. The summarit was a absolute joy to use with its focus knob, small size and good build. However the relative slow speed makes me think of giving the planar (or maybe a summicron) a second change.
Some shots with the biogon:
Steven Veit
Newbie
The answer to your question is certainly YES. The knowledge you seek may only be found through obtaining and using the new lenses which you have identified. If you do not possess them, you are bound to wonder about them endlessly with no possibility of satisfactory resolution. Viewing sample photos taken with these lenses would constitute an unnecessary distraction, and would serve only to delay the pursuit of your quest.
I know. I have been there...
I know. I have been there...
Rogier
Rogier Willems
First I rented the Zeiss 25mm and loved the look. Then bought a new Elmarit 28mm and did not like the results. So sold it 3 months later and bought a Biogon 35mm (love it!). Have been going back and forth for a while about a wide angle and decided that if wide than really wide and ordered a CV15mm.
Regardless if I where you I would choose the Zeiss 25mm as its a bit wider than the 28 but further apart from a future 35 or 50 purchase.
If you like a sharp well defined and contrast rich look go for the Zeiss!
I made various albums about the different lenses used so far on my M8.
Taken with M8 + Zeiss 25mm:
Untitled by Rogier Diver, on Flickr
L1001093 by Rogier Diver, on Flickr
Regardless if I where you I would choose the Zeiss 25mm as its a bit wider than the 28 but further apart from a future 35 or 50 purchase.
If you like a sharp well defined and contrast rich look go for the Zeiss!
I made various albums about the different lenses used so far on my M8.
Taken with M8 + Zeiss 25mm:
Untitled by Rogier Diver, on Flickr
L1001093 by Rogier Diver, on Flickr
Alberti
Well-known
I've got that 28mm and I like it's liquidity. here goes an example.Hey guys and gals,
- - - So, should I go for a 28 Biogon and 50 Planar? They would give me that wonderful Zeiss look.
Please do provide me with some image samples taken with said lenses!
The Planar has this special look too, that I call liquidness. I've seen it several times.
it's a good match I think.
(To see larger file : the original )
albert
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Does this help?
M5 + Zeiss 35mm f2 Biogen + Arista 400@800
M5 + Zeiss 35mm f2 Biogen + Arista 400@800
efix
RF user by conviction
GAS ... don't talk to me about GAS ... (If you can identify the novel by which this line was inspired, you win a virtual handshake!
)I know. I have been there, too
efix
RF user by conviction
MCTuomey - thanks. I prefer a 28 on the M8 as a "walkaround" lens, too. I have read about the Sonnar and seen samples. I know Sonnars are said to have a very special, unique look. The focus shift holds me back from getting the Sonnar. But I think I am going to one a Sonnar (not necessarily the 50 ZM) at one time ...
RobertB - thanks for your samples and comments. I understand why you prefer the Summicron. Believe me, if I could afford one, I'd get one in a heartbeat But I think I'm seriously in love with the Zeiss look, though ...
Rogier - thanks to you, too, for your pics and comments. I've seen some very good offers for 28 Elmarits recently (one for 1300 €, one for 1100€), but they're a) still almost twice the price of a 28 Biogon, b) don't have the Zeiss look and c) aren't optically better than the 28 Biogon if one is to believe what KR says. On the pro side they're probably a bit better built and a tad smaller. Btw, your pics from the 25 look very nice. If the 28 exhibits a similar look, then I'm sold
Alberti - I reckon with "liquidity/liquidness" you're referring to the typical Zeiss look? Would you say the 28 Biogon and 50 Planar exhibit similar signatures in drawing?
filmtwit - thanks I've had a 35 Biogon for a couple months, and only sold it because I couldn't afford three lenses. It's simply brilliant ...
RobertB - thanks for your samples and comments. I understand why you prefer the Summicron. Believe me, if I could afford one, I'd get one in a heartbeat
But I think I'm seriously in love with the Zeiss look, though ...Rogier - thanks to you, too, for your pics and comments. I've seen some very good offers for 28 Elmarits recently (one for 1300 €, one for 1100€), but they're a) still almost twice the price of a 28 Biogon, b) don't have the Zeiss look and c) aren't optically better than the 28 Biogon if one is to believe what KR says. On the pro side they're probably a bit better built and a tad smaller. Btw, your pics from the 25 look very nice. If the 28 exhibits a similar look, then I'm sold
Alberti - I reckon with "liquidity/liquidness" you're referring to the typical Zeiss look? Would you say the 28 Biogon and 50 Planar exhibit similar signatures in drawing?
filmtwit - thanks
I've had a 35 Biogon for a couple months, and only sold it because I couldn't afford three lenses. It's simply brilliant ...Turtle
Veteran
If you like 28mm and like Zeiss you wont be disappointed with the 28 ZM. It can flare more than the 21 or 35 biogons but its still quite hard to provoke. Very sharp and indistinguishable IQ from the others on prints. Ignore the MTFs. In real use this lens is every bit as sharp as the others in my use. Its a cracker.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Personally, I like the sonnar look and the shift has never been a problem. But, since you are using an M8 with a crop factor the 50mm f1.5 Sonnar would be approx. 75mm. I think that is the issue for the M8.
Rogier
Rogier Willems
The smaller size of the Leica 28 provoked me to order it without ever having held or used it assuming it would be as great as every one raves about.
Turns out the smaller size was wat gave me trouble handling it...
Turns out the smaller size was wat gave me trouble handling it...