Could this be the ultimate lens?

[Huck Finn]

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.

Zeiss & CV report their specs differently. CV uses the same standard as Leica, which is the length of the lens that protrudes beyond the mount. Zeiss, however, reports the entire length of the lens, including the mount. So, you can't make direct comparisons between the 2 specs.

You can obtain comparable specs for the ZM lenses by looking them up on the Zeiss section of the Cosina website.

Measuring only the length of the lens beyond the mount, the ZM 35/2 is 43.3 mm long - same length as the Planar & the Leica 50/2 Summicron.

 

[jsuominen]

Zeiss & CV report their specs differently. CV uses the same standard as Leica, which is the length of the lens that protrudes beyond the mount. Zeiss, however, reports the entire length of the lens, including the mount. So, you can't make direct comparisons between the 2 specs.

You can obtain comparable specs for the ZM lenses by looking them up on the Zeiss section of the Cosina website.

Measuring only the length of the lens beyond the mount, the ZM 35/2 is 43.3 mm long - same length as the Planar & the Leica 50/2 Summicron.

Thanks for info Huck, I didn't know that detail. I just checked few minutes ago from the Cosina site - and by using AltaVista Babel Fish translation - the CV lens date:
- CV Ultron 28/1.9: maximum diameter × total length/φ 55.8×63.1mm
- CV Ultron 35/1.7: maximum diameter × total length/φ 55×47.7mm (the hood included)
- CV Nokton 50/1.5: maximum diameter × total length/φ 60×54.5mm (the hood included)
- CV Nokton 35/1.2: maximum diameter × total length/φ 63×77.8mm

I wonder, why they include also the hood length in those two lenses? Well, maybe the hood is more permanently attached to those two and for the other it's just an accessory...

 

[Olsen]

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...

This must be the perfect lense: high resolution, contrast and hardly any distortion; the little sister of Hasselblad SWC 905.

 

[ljsegil]

Followup Time for the 35/2 ZM Biogon

Followup Time for the 35/2 ZM Biogon

OK guys, it's been a month since this thread slid off the charts, which should have been ample time for you Biogon owners to get some more use out of your 35/2 lenses. So what do people think of their 35/2 Biogon now, with a little more experience under your belts? Are you more or less enthusiastic about its qualities? Could it still be the ultimate lens? What do you think? I've been sitting on the fence all this time, wondering if I should put my 35mm Summilux ASPH on the market and change over to the Zeiss (is that downgrading? I'm sure there are those on another forum who would say so). Anyway, I would like to know what people think of the ZM now, so please chime in, and any pictures you would care to post would be most appreciated.
Thanks to all
LJS

 

[x-ray]

As much as I love the Biogon I have to ask what would you really gain by selling the summilux and getting the Biogon. do you really think there is that much difference either way? I would say that if you can't achieve your ultimate results from any of the current crop of lenses than it's not the lens as much as it is the photographer. Keep the summilux and learn to use it. Save the money and enjoy photography and stop the constant searching for the magic bullet. There is no magic bullet.

 

[Sofa King]

There is no magic bullet.

Right, and next your gonna tell me there's no easter bunny

Anyway, here are some b&w shots I've just uploaded today.

 

[x-ray]

Right, and next your gonna tell me there's no easter bunny

No easter bunny but there is a Santa Clause!

 

[ljsegil]

X-Ray--keep in mind I can sell the Summilux for substantially more money than the cost of the Zeiss. Not often that buying a lens can make one richer. Thus, my interest in an update of people's evaluation of the lens. Besides which, I think the look of many of the posted images from the Biogon is very special, and not matched by what I have captured with the Summilux. Hard to know if it is me or the lens, but rather naturally, I like to think that perhaps a better lens might make me at least appear a better photographer (talk about wishful thinking).
LJS

 

[Trius]

No easter bunny but there is a Santa Clause!

Oh no there isn't!

Chico: "You can't a fool a me there ain't no sanity clause" (to Groucho)

-- A Night at the Opera

The Biogon may not be the ultimate lens, but ultimately I want to get one.

I really like what I've seen here.

 

[splitimageview]

How's this for a description of the 35/2 Biogon? Sounds like this indeed could be the ultimate!

"You are bidding a Carl Zeiss ZM Biogon T* 35MM f/2 fit leica M mount. It is not worse than Leica Summicron-M 35mm f/2 ASPH, but only 1/3 price. Just buy it now!"

 

[rich815]

Gorgeous shots Sofa!

 

[indianavince]

Keep in mind as much as we want, all sample lenses are NOT the same.

I rid myself of a Nikkor 28-70 f2.8 that never seemed sharp... only to buy another I tested that is nearly Zeiss sharp.

 

[kipkeston]

Sofa, nice shots, very sharp well done.

I've just started really using mine this week. Finally got my body. The photos I've noticed have a truly unique look that I've never seen before from any lens and the bokeh is great. I love it.

 

[Conner999]

Sofa- nice shots. the 1st one of the gent asleep against the train? window is gorgeous - for a lens that's supposed to be contrasty (never nosted that in the 35/2 ZF I owned), the shadow detail and grayscale gradiations are excellent.

 

[Uncle Bill]

I tried out a Biogon .... and I really like it.

I tried out a Biogon .... and I really like it.

While it may not be the "ultimate" 35mm lens but then again, I love the results I got from trying David S. Chang's at the September RFF meeting and I want one...

 

[StuartR]

Not to dispute your results, but did you do something to that photo, like run a mosaic filter or something on it? The trees and umbrellas look weirdly soft and detail-less. Is it a digital IR shot?