Sonnar2
Well-known
I haven't read anything here about the new 35/2.8 Biogon which is somewhat smaller in size and weight, and cheaper than the 35/2
From Zeiss MTF diagrams it could be exspected as sharp as the 35/2.
For a "traveller lens" where size and weight counts, one stop slower is still fast enough in most cases.
Anybody has used it? Comments? Pictures?
From Zeiss MTF diagrams it could be exspected as sharp as the 35/2.
For a "traveller lens" where size and weight counts, one stop slower is still fast enough in most cases.
Anybody has used it? Comments? Pictures?
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Give Joe a chance to wake up, eh? He's on Mountain time. 
Sonnar2
Well-known
presspass
filmshooter
A nice lens and very sharp. Unfortunately, it's bigger than a Summicron, especially with the hood installed.
Of course you are putting the hood on the Summicron too?
Sonnar2
Well-known
Bigger than the ASPH.-Summicron??
back alley
IMAGES
i sold the 35/2 and bought the 35/2.8 and have no regrets. 2.8 works for me.
i prefer the smaller size and the lens is plenty sharp and still comfortable to handle.
i prefer the smaller size and the lens is plenty sharp and still comfortable to handle.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Not knowing when to stop - I have two of the 35f2.8's. Very sweet little lens. Performance is very good, even at 2.8. Virtually impossible to get it to flare too.
Go to Flickr and tag "Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8" and there are plenty of samples, both with film and "pixels".
I tend to use mine on M2's - fits well and is comfortable to hold. Not "small" - at least not when comparing with VC 35f2.5 or Summicron 35f2 I/II/III - but lighter than the 35f2 Asph and the slightly larger diameter makes it fast to for "follow focus" shooting.
Just went to Flickr and checked: under the tag "Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8" there are a couple of 100 shots in color and in my Flickr stream there are 229 in black/white. Joe also has a lot of stuff with the RD1/35f2.8.
Go to Flickr and tag "Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8" and there are plenty of samples, both with film and "pixels".
I tend to use mine on M2's - fits well and is comfortable to hold. Not "small" - at least not when comparing with VC 35f2.5 or Summicron 35f2 I/II/III - but lighter than the 35f2 Asph and the slightly larger diameter makes it fast to for "follow focus" shooting.
Just went to Flickr and checked: under the tag "Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8" there are a couple of 100 shots in color and in my Flickr stream there are 229 in black/white. Joe also has a lot of stuff with the RD1/35f2.8.
Last edited:
sanmich
Veteran
how would you feel the Biogon 2.8 compares to the skopar in terms of their resistance to flare?
Thanks
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Modern lens coating is quite amazing. Most lenses we get today are virtually flare proof - compared to the "good old days" when we used our hand, hats even hoods to shoot into the lights.
I haven't seen much difference between the 35f2.5 and the Biogon 2.8 when it comes to flare. At 2.8 I find the Biogon has an edge in sharpness compared to the 35f2.5 @2.8 - but not enough to say that one is not usable while the other one is! So much depends on how and what you shoot too. In any case, I dont give flare any consideration when using either lens.
The 35f2.5 Skopar II is tiny and a great lens for travel - the Biogon 35f2.8 is bigger, but not "bulky" as the 35f2 Biogon. If you have the 35f2.5 (which uses 39mm filter if that is a consideration) - spending the money on the 35f2.8 is not going to make a big difference. If you are considering either one - it is a matter of ergonomics and economics more than performance.
I haven't seen much difference between the 35f2.5 and the Biogon 2.8 when it comes to flare. At 2.8 I find the Biogon has an edge in sharpness compared to the 35f2.5 @2.8 - but not enough to say that one is not usable while the other one is! So much depends on how and what you shoot too. In any case, I dont give flare any consideration when using either lens.
The 35f2.5 Skopar II is tiny and a great lens for travel - the Biogon 35f2.8 is bigger, but not "bulky" as the 35f2 Biogon. If you have the 35f2.5 (which uses 39mm filter if that is a consideration) - spending the money on the 35f2.8 is not going to make a big difference. If you are considering either one - it is a matter of ergonomics and economics more than performance.
sanmich
Veteran
sanmich
Veteran
And by the way, if flare is not an issue and the hood is not used, the skopar (that I have) realy turns my M2 into a FLAT camera. quite incredibly small....
noimmunity
scratch my niche
The C Biogon is a lovely lens. I love the slight vignetting wide open.
The Biogon 35/2 has less distortion, but in practice both are nil.
The 35/2 isn't that big.
I miss having a ZM 35...
The Biogon 35/2 has less distortion, but in practice both are nil.
The 35/2 isn't that big.
I miss having a ZM 35...
MichaelHarris
Well-known
You guys are killing me. I got all set to get an 85mm on my trip to Chicago and now I find out Zeiss has a 35 2.8. I had heard the 35 f2 wasn't as strong as some of the other Zeiss lenses so never bought a 35.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Simple solution is obvious - buy both!
All joking aside, I have had the 35f2 since it came out and has had no problems with it, mechanical and optical. As with any mechanical object - there can be problems - but in most cases - problems are minor.
The 35f2.8 is a sweet lens - sharp, nice contrast (slightly higher than in the rest of the ZM line - but not as high as to give you problem).
The 85f4 I have only shot a limited amount with this lens. Seems good - but wether it is better than an Elmarit 90f2.8 or an Apo Lanthar 90f3.5 I cant say.
I have said it before and say it again. Modern lenses are in most instances as good as we ever need. Today we have films with resolution, even at higher iso's that we could only wish for 10-15 years ago - and if you are shooting digital - the resolution of the sensor has more to do with the end result than the brand of lens you are using.
All joking aside, I have had the 35f2 since it came out and has had no problems with it, mechanical and optical. As with any mechanical object - there can be problems - but in most cases - problems are minor.
The 35f2.8 is a sweet lens - sharp, nice contrast (slightly higher than in the rest of the ZM line - but not as high as to give you problem).
The 85f4 I have only shot a limited amount with this lens. Seems good - but wether it is better than an Elmarit 90f2.8 or an Apo Lanthar 90f3.5 I cant say.
I have said it before and say it again. Modern lenses are in most instances as good as we ever need. Today we have films with resolution, even at higher iso's that we could only wish for 10-15 years ago - and if you are shooting digital - the resolution of the sensor has more to do with the end result than the brand of lens you are using.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Dunno where you heard that ... I don't own it, but my opinion, from what I've seen, is that it's a great lens. Perhaps not in the same class as the 25, but with it's own intriguing character.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
That 35/2 Biogon is one of the stars of the ZM lineup.
MichaelHarris
Well-known
Thanks guys! Now I have three choices when I get to Central Camera. Well four if I count the hope that they have a used Epson Rd-1.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Erwin Puts dished the zeiss 35/2.0 on his website some time ago. If I recall he put it behind the Leica 35mm/2.0 III.
notturtle
Well-known
Any talk about the 35 Biogon being a slouch is either due to having one that slipped thru the QC, a damaged used one, or brand bashing. Most credible users regard it as sharper than the V4 cron wide open and in some cases up there with the asph wide open. It has remarkable corner sharpness from wide apertures and is generally spectacular. Contrast is moderately high, not insanely so as some people complain. I shoot mono with mine and get wonderful tonality and beautifully printable negs. To be frank, if you cant cut it with this lens, the lens is not the problem. Its one of the best all round lenses I have ever owned. The 25 is regarded as a star, but some say it has slightly higher contrast. I have the 21 2.8, 28, 35 f2, 50 f2. The only one that is a hair weaker is the 28 in the corners on large prints (and a slight tendency to flare without the hood under extremely nasty conditions when the others might hold up) but it is not enough to worry about.