Anyone interested in ZM 35 f2 vs CV Pancake II?

[Turtle]

Some further comments:

I shot a roll of film largely into the Afghan sun about an hour before sunset. The sun was incredibly strong. In some frames the sun it direct into the lens with no obstructions and in other there is a very small tree partially occluding some of the light, but still letting most through. In all shots I used a yellow MRC B&W and flare resistance was superb.

Most frames show no sun spots or other artifacts and there is very little or no obvious reduction in contrast of backlit people. Edges remain relatively crisp, especially in frames where explosure was not overdone.

I also shot some through an open tomb with a dingy interior and incredibly bright light beyond the open end as well as some bright side lighting. Halation was nicely controlled and the frames look great.

In a couple of rames where the sun was just out of the frame, shot slightly earlier (i.e. higher in the sky) there are some subtle rays of light (flare) creeping in but very controlled and localised and not of the sort that ruins the image but feels an acceptable part of it (unlike the 28 ZM, which when it flares does so in a way that completely ruins the images).

I cannot be sure that the B&W MRC filter improved matters by controlling light better on first contact with the lens, but the results were exceptionally good and I cannot complain. I shot in really nasty light and the lens was an absolute champ.

I do find the lens small to use and often use it pre-focused in the snapshot role. This lens really is without fault knees if you want a street/reportage lens for when light is ample. I have shot frames with somewhat busy bokeh, but have managed to do that with every lens I have ever owned if the light/distance/aperture combo is bad enough. If you want a walkabout lens and would rather not have $1500 of Leica sitting on the front of a camera, this is the one to buy IMHO. $370 with hood, over 4 x cheaper than a summarit (with hood) and over 7 x cheaper than a summicron asph. What a bargain.

 

[f16sunshine]

Thanks for your excellent report.
Does anyone know?? Have the optics changed since the LTM CV2.5/35 or simply the packaging? I have the old LTM and find it excellent but, have not actually done any comparisons to the Biogon 2/35.

Edit
never mind I found the info at CQ. No change in optics.

 

[Turtle]

I recently acquired a Summarit 35 2.5, a lens known for modest contrast and great peformance. It performs similarly to the ZM f2 biogon in a smaller package with less speed and more modest contrast. The CV in comparison with the summarit, is the same on centre but slightly softer around the edges until stopped down a few stops. The CV vignettes more too. The Summarit is ever so slightly lower in contrast from what I can see and a slightly stronger performer, esp around f2.5-f4 in the corners/edges.

For $319, the pancake 2 is still a superb performer and in terms of image performance, there is so little between them a couple of stops down that one has to admire the little CV. In terms of bokeh, the summarit is known to be absolutely superb and i found the same, but the CV was equally good apart from extreme close ups, where the Leica lens was somewhat smoother, but not by as much as some would have you believe.

For most shots at average distances; however, the two are very similar indeed. I could put images on the table, printed at 10x8 or even 16x12 shot on both lenses from f4-f11 and I am supremely confident that most would seriously struggle to assign images to lenses. Really, the CV is an incredible little lens that is not a seriously inferior option to a V4 cron, summarit, biogon etc. It is not quite as capable as the other 35s I own (but very close a stop or two down), but it is also a third of the price and only a little more than 60% as big as even the 35 summarit!

A lot of the differences I noted in corner performance would not even be visible on some prints unless the original scene had a lot of fine detail in the corners. Shooting average street scenes without this sort of very fine detail, you would see even less difference I suspect.