Biogon 35/2.8

The C Biogon 35 f/2.8 is one of three C designated lenses Zeiss has in its range, the others being the 21 f/4.5 Biogon and 50 f/1.5 Sonnar. I have all three, the C means Classic as well as Compact.

So expect some slightly nostalgic rendering in colour, though I think this is more noticeable on the 21 and 50, particularly the latter which has a less sharp (compared to say the Leica 50m m Summilux-ASPH) , dreamy approach wideopen, but is very sharp when stopped down.

I find the 21 a great travel lens in sunny climes when speed is not really required, I haven't shot it on the ZI but this is with the M8:

453565129_Rxnmp-XL.jpg
 
I had heard the 35 f2 wasn't as strong as some of the other Zeiss lenses so never bought a 35.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

Actually its none of these things. I think you will find some confusion in this instance between the Contax Zeiss G lens range and the ZM Zeiss lens range, in the Contax G lens range the 35mm f2 was considered to be the weakest in the range but thats only because, although a good lens in its own right, all the others were so outstanding that it was slightly eclipsed by them.
 
I prefer the Biogon 2/35 over the latest Summicron.
For me it's that Zeiss 3D that just pulls me in everytime.
Would love to try that ZM 2.8/35 as the size is so nice compared to the f2 version.

Here is a shot that I have shown often us the 2/35 (maybe too often) that really says Zeiss.

click on the image in the next window(s) to go full size.
 
I'm also considering this lens against the 35/2 biogon (and some others on a different thread).

Is anyone finding the slightly narrower angle of view on the 2.8 a burden compared to the f2, or is it not relevant in the field?

I'd like a smaller lens than the f2 if possible, but not sure if I can live with the loss of 1 stop.

BTW, does anyone have a picture of these lenses on camera for size comparison - compared to each other and, say, a v3/v4 'cron?

P.S. great dog pic!
 
I thought this lens (biogon) was more popular - only 3 pics posted in this thread! Hmm. I'm love to see more.
 
Ah, you ask, you receive! Thank you, wonderful shots.

Are those with the 2.8C, or the 2? Whichever lens took them is a cracker - amazing sharpness and contrast.

Does anyone have any examples of portrait type shots with nice OOF backgrounds with the 2.8C?
 
Looks fantastic. Are you pleased with it - do you find you miss the extra stop of the f2?

How's the bokeh, etc. in comparison?
 
the zm is small though, just not tiny.

if you go to the zeiss site and click on zm lenses and then click on any lens, you will see all their lenses lined up against each other. the 2.8 is much smaller then the 2 and it's easy to see that.
 
back alley said:
i had the 35/2 originally but wanted the smaller lens so i sold the 2 and then bought the 2.8.
i do not miss the speed and yes, i am very pleased with it.
i don't really pay much attention to bokeh.
Click to expand...

That's cool, I do like smaller lenses. Do you tend to use slightly faster film then, like a 400?

I looked at your flickr; I really like your work btw, and there is a great little shot you've titled "ripe tomato" which shows beautiful bokeh...

Seems like a cracker of a lens!
 
3dit0r said:
That's cool, I do like smaller lenses. Do you tend to use slightly faster film then, like a 400?

I looked at your flickr; I really like your work btw, and there is a great little shot you've titled "ripe tomato" which shows beautiful bokeh...

Seems like a cracker of a lens!
Click to expand...

i missed this post before, sorry.

i normally use xp2 rated at 200 when using film.
with the rd1 i set the iso at 200 and sometimes at 400 if need be.
thanks for the kind words, i need to go look at 'tomatoes' again...

joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom