35/2 ZM v/s 35/2 Contax G

[elmer3.5]

Hi, please tell me the differences between this lenses.

ZM 35/2
Contax G 35//2

How they would compare with the summicron 35/2 pre asph.

By the way are the 28/2.8 ZM and G mount different?

Thanks!

E

 

[sper]

Zeiss will tell you it's an updated design, based on the Contax version. I don't know how true this is, and I find it slightly dubious, considering the Hasselblad line of lenses changed only in appearance since they began the T* coating.

I can't say how they compare to the Leica, but lenses of this class are so good that I generally think neither are 'better,' they're just 'different.' Zeiss looks like Zeiss, Leica looks like Leica. Voigtlander looks like Leica from the 1960s (which is NOT an insult but any stretch of the imagination!).

 

[Bob Michaels]

Hi, please tell me the differences between this lenses.
ZM 35/2
Contax G 35//2
<snip>

I have substantial experience with both. Both are great lenses, right towards the top of the pyramid. There is essentially no difference if you are interested in photographs. In spite of my experience with both, I cannot tell you how each renders a resolution target or brick wall. I only made photos with them.

Neither will cause you to make good or bad photographs. It is sort of like one rates a 98 and the other a 99. The quality of your photos will be a function of your eye, heart and soul and not the lens.

 

[fuwen]

The ZM and the G are quite different in terms of optical layout for the same focal length.

That's probably ZM lenses cater more clearance between the last elements and the film plane. Also I believe manual focus and auto focus call for slightly design considerations.

I have only used ZMs. But I have no doubts Zeiss makes great lenses no matter ZMs or Gs.

 

[kbg32]

I never owned the Contax G 35 or the ZM 35. I do remember people mentioning and some reviews. that the Contax G 35/2.8 was the worst performing lens of the Gs lineup. I own many Leitz, ZM, and Voigtlander lenses. They just "draw" differently. Leitz lenses seem to have a subtleness that just etch the film, whereas the Zeiss lenses just pop, as Voigtlanders are "even". Then again it depends on the lens. Good or bad? They're just different.

There is an outfit in Japan that converts G lenses to M mount. Not cheap, but getting new life out of the fantastic G lineup is worth it.

 

[splitimageview]

Yes, the 35/2 has an undeserved reputation for being the 'worst of the G lenses' primarily because the MTFs are not quite up with the other G lenses. However IMHO that's akin to saying that the 35 Summilux ASPH is the 'worst' of the Leica ASPH lenses. 🙂

In my experience the 35/2 is an excellent performer but the key point is what Bob said above.

 

[Cron]

Zeiss ZM 2/35 is a biogon design, Contax G 2/35 is planar design. Lens diagrams are to find in the internet I think.
For myself I own a G 2/35. In my eyes it is a fine lens, but not so sharp wide open as the G 2,8/28 which I also own and use. And also not so contrasty. Stopped down to f/4 and smaller it is definitely very sharp and also contrast increases.
As I read here in the past the ZM 2/35 has much more contrast wide open and is also sharper

 

[Turtle]

The key thing is that there are different mounts, so if you have a G camera, its the G 35 you need. If you have a M mount camera, either of the 35 biogons (2.8 or 2) are outstanding. Both of the ZM Biogons are higher in contrast than pre-asph Leica 35mm lenses.

Resolution wide open? Most would say the biogon is better in the outer field all thru the aperture range but in the centre probably similar to the much smaller leica 35 pre asph. I find that while my biogon resolves quite nicely wide open, contrast is a little lower. by 2.8 it has picked up a fair bit. Certainly I have no hesitation using it wide open but would agree that there is a fair jump in performance bwteen F2 and a stop or two down. Most seem to agree that the asph cron is stronger wide open - noticeably on centre. I cannot say.

 

[elmer3.5]

Got one

Got one

...For myself I own a G 2/35. In my eyes it is a fine lens, but not so sharp wide open ... Stopped down to f/4 and smaller it is definitely very sharp and also contrast increases.
As I read here in the past the ZM 2/35 has much more contrast wide open and is also sharper

Hi, recently i found a biogon at a superb price, so i got it.

I agree with your appreciation about both lenses!

Bye and thanks!

 

[douglasf13]

I wanted to add to this old thread that the Contax G 35 is nearly an exact copy of the 35 Summicron IV pre-asph, and their mtfs are also nearly identical. The coatings are probably the biggest difference between the two lenses.

 

[gavinlg]

I've now got the 45mm f2 and the 28mm f2.8 contax G lenses. and they impressive me hugely. 35mm Planar is next. I've got a really solid feeling the internet chatter about it not being as good as the 28 or 45 is rubbish.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

I used to have a Contax G2 back in the 90s and the lens I didn't get that time was the 35 because even then it was considered to be not as good as the others. This is not to say it is bad, but the 28, 45 and 90 trio is so exceptional. I now have the ZM 35/2 and I think it is as good as any other ZM, and they are all great lenses, at least the ones that I own 🙂

 

[BobYIL]

Never had a chance to use the G35, however in terms of optical quality the G28 is a stellar lens; so good that Zeiss has maintained the same formula with minor modifications also for the ZM28.

Regarding to the Planar type G35: I's really weird why the v4 Summicron was so praised while it shares a similar design with the G35. OTOH, the G45 is also a Planar design and is sharper than any Summicron 50 or ZM 50.

IMO, as long as used on film -or on any digital via adapters- the owners of G21, G28, G45 and G90 do not need to replace their lenses with anything else.

 

[semilog]

OTOH, the G45 is also a Planar design and is sharper than any Summicron 50 or ZM 50.

That's probably enough of an oversimplification that it's not a useful statement.

The MTF charts say that the 50mm v. IV/V Summicron, the ZM Planar, and the 45mm G Planar are all comparable. Shooting conditions (amount and angle of backlight, subject distance v. aperture, etc.) would likely change the relative rankings of the three lenses. They're all terrific.

 

[BobYIL]

Planar 45/2

Planar 50/2

 

[awilder]

The Contax G 35/2 Planar has the same (or quite similar) 7/5 optical layout as the 35 pre-asph. Summicron (ver. 4) based on their optical diagrams.

 

[douglasf13]

Regarding to the Planar type G35: I's really weird why the v4 Summicron was so praised while it shares a similar design with the G35. OTOH, the G45 is also a Planar design and is sharper than any Summicron 50 or ZM 50.

I think that, compared to the other G lenses, people were critical of the G35, and it seems Contax must have designed the 35 with Leica users in mind.

35 Summicron IV and G35 mtf:

35 Summicron IV and G35 design:

 

[gavinlg]

I think that, compared to the other G lenses, people were critical of the G35, and it seems Contax must have designed the 35 with Leica users in mind.

35 Summicron IV and G35 mtf:

35 Summicron IV and G35 design:

Very interesting. Almost could be the same lens.

 

[BobYIL]

35G Planar

35/2 Summicron v.4

The differences are to be checked either on Adox CMS20 for full frame or Nex-5N for crop format; they look close enough however the difference between sagittal and tangential resolution is rather high with the Summicron.

35/2 Summicron Asph.

With the Aspherical the improvements @f2 and smaller apertures are obvious, however not a leap over the v.4.

Shortly one can state than the G35 Planar is quite a performer.

 

[semilog]

Planar 45/2

Planar 50/2

As I said. Very similar MTFs (presumably at infinity). In fact (going by MTFs alone) at the optimum aperture the ZM appears to perhaps exhibit less field curvature than the G.

Close-up performance may, of course, be different.