Could this be the ultimate lens?

Scho, a good shot which shows the zeiss 'feel' well. One question: how does the balance of the 35mm compare to the 50mm. it weighs more but the mass of the less (methinks) is futher back towards the film plane, and overall the balance of the camera body and lens may make the camera feel lighter (sorry for the rambiling).
 
kram said:
Scho, a good shot which shows the zeiss 'feel' well. One question: how does the balance of the 35mm compare to the 50mm. it weighs more but the mass of the less (methinks) is futher back towards the film plane, and overall the balance of the camera body and lens may make the camera feel lighter (sorry for the rambiling).
Click to expand...

Thanks Kram. I really don't notice much difference with either lens mounted on the M8. They are like twins in my bag and I need to look twice to see if I've mounted the biogon or planar. I haven't had time to use these lenses much yet with the ZI, which may produce a different feel with the lighter body.
 
"Myers is known for his pioneering work in Digital intermediate image processing for monochrome images."

Maybe they loaned it to him for use on the ZI-D prototype :)
 
Tom A said:
I think that the term "best ever" is a bit over the top. The 35f2 is a REALLY good lens and I have not found anything to complain about with it. It is a big lens compared to the Leica 35's, but once it is on the camera, you forget it.
Most of my shooting is with medium speed black/white so resolution figures are of limited interest as most modern lenses will out resolve Tri X!
I like the whole line of Zeiss lenses as they have a remarkable consistency to their rendition. Very smooth, medium contrast and it does not matter if it is a 21 or a 50, the neg's look similar, only the angle of view changes.
At the moment I have been using the 21/4,5 ZM Biogon and, yes it has less distorion than any of the 2.8's (Zeiss/Leica) and it is a small compact lens. I dont know if it is "better" than the 21/2,8 ZM or the Leica 21/2,8 ASPH. The Zeiss line is interesting for one reason, it is a brand new lens line, designed from the ground up to perform as well as they can be made within the constrains of cost. The formulas used are tried and true - Zeiss in many ways are better lens designers than Leica and although Leica currently makes what I consider two of the best Rf lenses ever made, the 50f1.4 ASPH and the 75f2, Zeiss has a better program across the board!
The Planar 50/2 is in my estimation a better lens (for me) than the Summicron 50, the 25/2,8 ZM is a favourite of mine as it "looks" less wide than the 21 and the 28/2,8 ZM gets used occasionally, but in that focal length I prefer the miniscule 28/3,5 VC. The fact is that all of these lenses, by Zeiss, by Leica and by Voigtlander and others can do everything I want them to do and the brand does not really matter.
This said, one M2 is sitting on my table with the 35/2 ZM on it, the other one has a 50f1.5 ZM Sonnar on it and my R3M sports a Jupiter 85/2 - The Zi has the 21/4 VC-P lens. As long as I dont screw up, all of these will do a good job for me. We have a tendency to fret to much over specifications that are put out by manufacturers rather than just go out and shoot! I very much doubt that my shots are better because i use lens A instead of lens B based on optical charts. They might be better because lens B handles better in my hands instead!
Click to expand...

Tom, well said, well said.
 
Tom A said:
I think that the term "best ever" is a bit over the top. The 35f2 is a REALLY good lens and I have not found anything to complain about with it. It is a big lens compared to the Leica 35's, but once it is on the camera, you forget it.
Most of my shooting is with medium speed black/white so resolution figures are of limited interest as most modern lenses will out resolve Tri X!
I like the whole line of Zeiss lenses as they have a remarkable consistency to their rendition. Very smooth, medium contrast and it does not matter if it is a 21 or a 50, the neg's look similar, only the angle of view changes.
At the moment I have been using the 21/4,5 ZM Biogon and, yes it has less distorion than any of the 2.8's (Zeiss/Leica) and it is a small compact lens. I dont know if it is "better" than the 21/2,8 ZM or the Leica 21/2,8 ASPH. The Zeiss line is interesting for one reason, it is a brand new lens line, designed from the ground up to perform as well as they can be made within the constrains of cost. The formulas used are tried and true - Zeiss in many ways are better lens designers than Leica and although Leica currently makes what I consider two of the best Rf lenses ever made, the 50f1.4 ASPH and the 75f2, Zeiss has a better program across the board!
The Planar 50/2 is in my estimation a better lens (for me) than the Summicron 50, the 25/2,8 ZM is a favourite of mine as it "looks" less wide than the 21 and the 28/2,8 ZM gets used occasionally, but in that focal length I prefer the miniscule 28/3,5 VC. The fact is that all of these lenses, by Zeiss, by Leica and by Voigtlander and others can do everything I want them to do and the brand does not really matter.
This said, one M2 is sitting on my table with the 35/2 ZM on it, the other one has a 50f1.5 ZM Sonnar on it and my R3M sports a Jupiter 85/2 - The Zi has the 21/4 VC-P lens. As long as I dont screw up, all of these will do a good job for me. We have a tendency to fret to much over specifications that are put out by manufacturers rather than just go out and shoot! I very much doubt that my shots are better because i use lens A instead of lens B based on optical charts. They might be better because lens B handles better in my hands instead!
Click to expand...



well said, Tom.
 
Greetings

Greetings

Just to set the record straight...

Zeiss lent me a ZM 2/35 for evaluation. I fully expected to send it back after shooting a few test rolls, then return to my Leica ASPH. I was greatly surprised in viewing the test rolls and contacted Zeiss telling them that I was not about to return the lens---it was that good. Zeiss asked me if I would consider writing an article as I further dialed in to the new lens. I agreed to do so. Zeiss did not pay me to write the article or evaluate the lens.

As for writing for a corporate news site, publishing in the photo industry and for online publications has changed dramatically in the past few years. Traditional magazines are collapsing, as the content is old before the publication makes it to press. Online publications may be more timely, but the financial model for their efforts is often lacking---and most are hyper focused on furthering their own interests and their publication scope is narrowing. Lacking other avenues to get the word out on their products, more and more corporations are publishing themselves. Whether this is creditable is always a big question, but I hope readers that know my work will have some degree of faith that I am going to speak my opinion without bias.

Whether one decides for themselves that the ZM 2/35 is as I stated in my article, is a personal matter. I can only hope that it stimulates experimentation. There are certainly many fine lenses. For me, it is the ZM 2/35 that is mounted.

Apologies to the english majors for any misuse of the language. The article was copy edited by a professional copy editor before it was shipped to Zeiss. Zeiss clipped out a good portion of the article I wrote and published it without my further review---which generally is not an accepted practice in the publishing world. Nor is my german good enough to confirm the validity of the translation.

I think what continues to impress me about the ZM 2/35 is the spectacular images that result from the lens---and at a price point that is stunning for the image quality. I feel that it is the best lens at this focal length that I have ever used. I do believe that the ZM series have triggered a response by Leica in the production of the Summart lens series, and it remains to be seen if their response will once again lead to further innovation.

One of the key issues with the current crop of Leica ASPH lenses is whether the design approach has lead to a reduction in smoothness in bokeh and depth by optimizing for minimal distortions in the focal plane. I tend to believe this to be the case, and it has been brought up for discussion by Erwin Puts and others. I feel that the ZM is a "more relaxed" lens. It is always smart to check multiple sources of information, and the ZMs are no exception.

In my opinion, Tom is certainly in the right mindset in suggesting that one needs to go out and photograph---optimal lens or not. What works for me is not necessarily any one else's cup of tea, and certainly my cheers for the ZM 2/35 are an opinion. But I do stand behind my opinion.

Pete Myers
Santa Fe
 
Last edited:
Pete Myers said:
Just to set the record straight...
Click to expand...
An excellent response, in spirit and content. Thanks so much for doing that here, directly.

...Mike
(For the record: I don't have the lens, haven't used it and have no real opinion about it.)
 
I just downloaded some stuff shot with the ZM 35f2 on my Flickr site (see below how to get to it). Combining it with the Presto 400 and Td 102 developer (The Film Developing Cook Book) gave me some really pleasing shots from a Vintage Car Show here in Vancouver on Saturday.
 
Those are impressive, Tom. It's amazing that your cron DR still can give an eminently modern lens a run for the money.
 
For the Vintage car shoot I only used the 35f2ZM and a 50f2 DR with the Presto 400. There is a Pan F sitting in the darkroom waiting for "souping" today and that was shot with the 21f2.8 ZM.
The 50 DR is still a very good lens. Heavy and maybe not the worlds most convinient close up system, but in bl/w it still "rocks". A bit more flare than modern lenses, but certainly high enough resolution to satisfy 400 asa film.
The 35f2 ZM is quite outstanding- rivals anything Leica makes, at least in bl/w. My only complaint is the physical size of it! It is a handfull to say the least. Smaller than the 35f1.2, but not by much!
 
I dont have the 35f2 M-Hex any more so my"judgement" is probably a bit fuzzy. The 35/2 Hex is a largish lens, but I suspect that the ZM 35 is even bigger. It feels a bit like a 50 Summilux pre-asph in size! It is not that it is "humongeous", but compared to the pre-asph Summicron it feels big. I used to have the 35f1.4 Asph and one of the reasons I dumped it was the size (the other was the incessant flare!). With the 35/2 ZM I probably can talk myself in to accepting it because of the image quality!
 
ErikFive said:
How is the size of the ZM35/2 compared to 35/2 M-Hex. Do you know? Really nice shots btw.
Click to expand...

Erik:

I don't have a ZM 35/2 for comparison, but I'm looking at a new 35/2 UC-Hexanon and it is nearly the smallest lens in my kit. Smaller than the 40mm Nokton, and even smaller than the 40mm Summicron C with the hood and cap attached. Really TINY. And a great performer. For grins I'd really like to see a side-by-side real world comparison of the ZM 35/2, the UC Hex, and the Summicron ASPH.

- John
 
Sorry I have to disagree with Tom. The 35 ZM isn't large at all and no where close to my 35 1.2. In fact it's almost the same size as my 50 planar which is the size of a 35mm film box. Not large. Yes it's larger than the v4 summicron that I had but it's not large by any stretch of the imagination. Large is the Canon 35 1.4L. I'll do my best to do a side by side shot of the 35 1.2, 35 ZM, 50 Planar ZM and the 35 summicron asph tomorrow.

The discussion of size reminds me about a group of old men talking about the size fish they caught or taking about their pe*#s, well you know what I mean.
 
foto_fool said:
I don't have a ZM 35/2 for comparison, but I'm looking at a new 35/2 UC-Hexanon and it is nearly the smallest lens in my kit.
Click to expand...
Yep, the UC-Hex 35/2 is small: about half the size of the M-Hex 35/2, which is a very different lens (I have both, but not with me right now for a more precise comparison).

...Mike
 
My reason for finding the 35 Biogon big, is that I have been using Summicrons in all its varied versions for 40+ years. These are very small and compact lenses compared with the ZM 35/2 ( apart from the 35f2 Asph which is slightly bigger than the 35f2 IV but much more "dense". I suspect my hands have grown used to the small 35/2's and if I continue to use the ZM 35/2 they will get used to it. It is worth the effort too. The size of the 35f1.2 is substantial, but just like a Noctilux or Summilux 75, you accept it for the specialized nature of the lens.
I did play with the ZF 35f2 whilke in japan in March. Now, there is a BIG 35 lens!
 
Reading this late tonight is killin me, as I forgot I can move into a ZF lens for my F3HP. The 35 in ZF mount. I think that this would be a stellar lens for me, as I have been looking for a new lens. Zeiss now has bitten me. Price and performance looks like Zeiss has it "hands down" right on the money. Will Zeiss make a ZF 28/2.8? Thats what I really want! :D
This has been a great read tonight!

Cheers
MArk
Quito, EC
 
x-ray said:
I'll do my best to do a side by side shot of the 35 1.2, 35 ZM, 50 Planar ZM and the 35 summicron asph tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Waiting for your shots. According to specs ZM 35/2 length is 56mm and weight 240g; CV Ultron 35/1.7 is 47,7mm and 203g; CV Nokton 50/1.5 is 54,5mm and 243g; CV Nokton 35/1.2 77,8mm and 490g.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom