anyone buy the new 35/2.8 yet?

I have one of the old prewar Biogon 35's (with that scary rear element) and at some time this summer I will run a side by side between the C Biogon 35/2.8 and the oldie. I know that the old one is rather low contrast as it is an uncoated version and, boy can it flare if you are not careful. I will also stick a Summaron 35f2.8 on a M2 and ran these lenses parallell to each other. Could be fun and I suspect that the C Biogon 35f2.8 will sweep the floor in most aspect. It is very sharp with a certain "snap" to it.
 
Thanks for the images Tom.

Not sure which way I will end up going here. I'm on the verge of buying a 35 pre-asph summilux and I want a more modern 35 lens to go along with it.
I've been thinking about the Zeiss 35/2 but now comes this 35/2.8.
I do like the idea of the smaller lens, but I'm not sure I like it enough to give up the extra stop. Particularly not when the two prices are so close.
 
Tim. the pre-asph Summilux is a great "classic" lens. Edges can get interesting wide-open and it does tend to "smear" light spots in the OOF areas of the image. Plenty sharp though and a great compact lens.
The 35f2 Biogon is a spectacular lens by any standard. It is a larger lens than the 35f1.4 and the 35f2.8.
The combination of the Biogon 35f2.8 and the 35f1.4 Pre-asph is a ggod fit. The Summilux for low light and "vintage" black and white look. The Biogon 35/2.8 for cutting sharp stuff in good light.
Just carry both and at 6pm you switch from f2.8 to 1.4 and you should be set!
 
the larger size of the 35/2 biogon is actually pretty nice because the aperture and focus rings are more separated. i'm always futzing things up on the 35/2 summicron asph. it's great that zeiss tweaked the diameter of the aperture ring on the c biogon!
 
I added some more shots with the 35mm f2.8 C Biogon and tagged them. I like this lens! Sharp and "snappy", but not over contrasted.
Look on Flickr and tag "Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8". It is not a scientific test, but it does give you an idea about flare resistance (extremely good!) and some idea of image quality.
The production model has a better aperture ring. Less chance of "bumping focus when shifting aperture and vice versa.
 
tbarker13 said:
Thanks for the images Tom.

Not sure which way I will end up going here. I'm on the verge of buying a 35 pre-asph summilux and I want a more modern 35 lens to go along with it.
Click to expand...

Off topic but how about the Summicron-C 40/2.0 to go along with the Summilux 35 pre-ASPH ?
 
How to do a comparison?

How to do a comparison?

I will receive the C Biogon in a couple of days. I'd be happy to do a comparison test with the 35/2 Biogon, but I only have a vague idea of how to conduct a reasonable test. Same subject at same aperture(s), same distance, same lighting, same film? For the sake of convenience, I will be doing it with colour film to start (turnaround on B&W is over a week; colour is same day).
 
had it in my hands (and on my camera) yesterday.

very nice handling, the kind of compactness that is very handsome. easy to handle, too, as the focus ring feels very different from the aperture ring.

for the IQ i cannot tell ... only 1 pic taken, and the film waits for developing.

at the same time i could use the 85mm sonnar. mmmmmm! sweet lens. quite lightweight.

cheers
sebastian

(looking for a sponsor)
 
2560265536_5433016228.jpg


Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8 @ f8 or f11. Slight crop in lightroom - otherwise a straight scan in Coolscan 5000.
 
Last edited:
2554498255_844e8ee9bc.jpg


Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8 @ f4 (or around there) - it was early morning light (7.30 am) and in the shade.
 
Last edited:
tom, to load from flickr, just grab the url for the size of image you want then, back here at rff, click on the image link and paste in the url but be careful not to have 'http' in there twice. the link provides it but it also gets copied from the flickr site.
make sense?
 
I virtually never get rid of 35's - they are usually attached to M2's and I just keep rotating them around!
The f2.8 is a very good, "fair weather" lens and its size makes it comfortable to carry. The f2 ZM 35 is a bit chunky and it comes along if I only take one body/1 lens. Similar to the 35f1.2 VC - when the light dims that one springs into action.
The 35f2.8 is VERY sharp. It has a slightly different contrast than the rest of the ZM line of lenses. A bit more bite to it - not unpleasantly so and still within the range of photographic paper (without having to resort to 00 or 0 filters).
 
back alley said:
tom, to load from flickr, just grab the url for the size of image you want then, back here at rff, click on the image link and paste in the url but be careful not to have 'http' in there twice. the link provides it but it also gets copied from the flickr site.
make sense?
Click to expand...

Ouch! I think I will still be using Tuulikki as my "transfer" specialist.
 
wow!

wow!

Here is the very first photo with the ZM Biogon 35/2.8, shot wide open, JPEG straight outta the RD-1 at ISO 800.
First impression is a real knockout! Size and handling is perfect! I think I'm gonna love this lens!
2569783066_3a91ddaa01_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
yeah, i like it, too! i mean, really like it. that combination of sharpness and dreamy oof is really something.
i will borrow the 35/2 tomorrow and try them out together!
 
Is everybody selling there Biogons 35mm 2.0 to buy the new c biogon 2.8 ?
I received mine from Japan this week. I love this tiny lens. I will try to post some sample pictures. As I was in a dilemma: to buy the biogon in mint condition for 708$ or the new C biogon at 798$. I chose the later, and I'm very happy with my choice. There is only one thing, if you have large fingers, maybe the biogon 2.0 will fit you better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom