Could this be the ultimate lens?

mich8261 said:
I wish people would get in the habit of dating their web articles and reviews. Is there anyway to know if this was published before the ZM newsletter?
Click to expand...

From the article:

"The company is at a crossroad this year (2005)."

Therefore, the Luminous Landscape article predates the ZM newsletter, and therefore he's gone from the 35 Summicron ASPH to the Biogon T* 2/35 ZM.
 
Last edited:
kshapero said:
Love to hear opinions on which 28mm to get.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can go wrong with the ZM 28. I shoot mine a lot more than I thought I would. I was thinking of this as a stepping stone to the Leica 28/2 ASPH, but doubt I'll ever make the switch now. Only possible reason would be the size difference- both ZM 25 & 28 are a little bigger than you might think, although I'm getting picky with that.
 
Great lens and performs well on the M8.

large.jpg

Larger Image
 
The 'rave' seemed to be building. The only reason I wouldn't get one as my primary 2/35 lens is that the alternative lens - a Summicron or Hexanon-UC - is what I would call 'ideal', still great optics AND very compact.
 
Aren't we stretching it a little here? The ultimate lens? Like the others, I have no doubt it is a fantastic lens...I own the 21mm and 25mm biogons and they are fantastic...but THE ULTIMATE LENS is a little over the top. I think that reasonable people will choose the Leica 35/2 or 35/1.4 over the biogon, just like reasonable people will choose the biogon over the Leicas. Declaring it the ultimate lens because some guy in the Zeiss newsletter says its nifty is pretty overblown.
 
I'll let "Carl Zeiss loaned me a Biogon" slide. (Loan is a noun, not a verb; to lend is a verb).

Anyway, I think I concur with the observations. I've been getting ready to get rid of this lens, but I have been discovering just how great the images are produced with this lens. Wide open is a beauty, the bokeh is nice and smooth.

It is too bad that with the vented hood it obstructs the viewfinder and enough on the bottom right corner of the framelines on my M2, M6 and M8.

The focusing was stiff, and I had to prime it over a period of a week to smooth it out.

That aside, this lens is wonderful. Really. I'm pleasantly surprised. I wish that Zeiss made a 35mm f/1.4 lens. It'd be a killer.

Here's a shot I just took yesterday that sold me definitely on it:


Leica M8 + Carl Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2 ZM
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
I'll let "Carl Zeiss loaned me a Biogon" slide. (Loan is a noun, not a verb; to lend is a verb).
Click to expand...

I believe you are correct however like many misused phrases or words when it becomes popular it can become "correct"

"Although a surprising number of critics still voice objections, loan is entirely standard as a verb."

source: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Very nice photo BTW, I just got the 35 Biogon too and love it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rich815 said:
I believe you are correct however like man misused phrases or words when it becomes popular it can become "correct"

"Although a surprising number of critics still voice objections, loan is entirely standard as a verb."

source: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Very nice photo BTW, I just got the 35 Biogon too and love it.
Click to expand...
omg -- yeah, enough people misuse the language, and it becomes the language. Ach, vel, vat ar yu going tu du? ::shrugs::

Thanks (btw). This lens is a keeper.
 
Finder said:
Not a bad lens. Almost as good as my Hexanon 35/2.
Click to expand...
Which one, the UC or the M? Just interested: I have and like both, though for different reasons and for different things. The Biogon looks like a very nice lens, though I doubt I'm inclined to get one.

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