Crazy about the Biogon-C 35mm - pics thread

[leicashot]

Considering that this lens is becoming the most popular lens for rangefinders, I thought it deserves it's own dedicated thread for members to post their favorite pics taken with this jewel of a lens. IMHO, it's technically the best performing 35mm lens ever made and is very hard to fault.

For those unfamiliar with this lens, I have found that:
- The 35mm focal length and f/2.8 maximum aperture is perfect in terms of depth of field. At close to medium distances it is a great documentary lens as it is super sharp and while it separates the subject from the background it still retains enough focus to make out what is in the background. Using faster lenses is too tempting to throw out the background, and thus losing too much important information, especially for environmental portraits.
- By not being able to wipe out the background it makes the photographer work harder to think more about the background when composing. This lens unlike faster lenses doesn't turn boring images into interesting ones by throwing out the background.
- It has the least distortion of any 35mm lens made for rangefinders, possibly even for any 35mm camera.
- It is the sharpest lens at f/2.8 across the entire frame, even compared to the legendary 35/1.4 ASPH models due to it's amazingly flat field.
- It is about as flare resident as any lens can get in the 35mm focal length.
- It is small, light and well built.
- It's price is the best bargain in the 35mm rangefinder lens market.
- It's colors and contrast are of modern standard and thus deliver amazing clarity and punch.

Here is an image to start us off. Taken today of an Indonesian albino muslim girl. I was only allowed one frame.

Please provide 100% crops where possible to support this lens's superb performance, especially wide open images.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi leicashot...

Do you own CV's 28 3.5?

On your images from the 35 2.8 you show both the lens and your M9 capture... It would be interesting to see the same image (any) using two lenses on the same M9 to compare them, or those two lenses on a film camera... Scanning color film means sharpness loss... If you own or can borrow a 28 3.5 for a quick test, it would be nice to compare for example OOF rendering from that small lens (one third of Biogon's length)... Both lenses are close in focal length and speed...

Thanks!

Cheers,

Juan

 

[sebastel]

hi.

i do not want to spoil your party, and in no way do i want to reduce the merits of this lens.

but this statement does not become true by repeating it over and over again:

- It has the least distortion of any 35mm lens made for rangefinders, possibly even for any 35mm camera.

why i dare to say so?
well, i read zeiss' own product datasheet.
that shows a distortion function which is almost linear, with a maximum of ca. 0.6% at 22mm distance from the image center.

now, please compare this to the distortion function for the ZM Biogon 35mm/2.0 as shown in the respective datasheet provided on the very same zeiss homepage. the distortion is lower, with a maximum close to -0.2% at 22mm distance from the image center.

even lower distortion can be found, typically in macro lenses.

and now, forget about distortion and go and take more wonderful pictures like the one shown already.
🙂
cheers,
s.

 

[paulfish4570]

This lens is, indeed, a great performer, which leads to this wacky question from someone who needs a little more weight in his kit: is there an SLR equivalent in M42 mount?

 

[ChrisC]

...... zeiss' own product datasheet.... ca. 0.6% at 22mm distance from the image center..... compare this to the distortion function for the ZM Biogon 35mm/2.0..... the distortion is lower, with a maximum close to -0.2% ........

This is not the first time that datasheets have been pointed to when discussing the merits of the two Zeiss 35mm lenses. And yet, curiously; the distortion image pictures made by Sean Reid for his illuminating "35mm lenses on M9" [subscription site] clearly showed that the C-Biogon was "almost completely neutral" and showed the least distortion of the group of lenses he tested together [including Zeiss 35 Biogon f2.0, Leica Summicron, Leica Summarit]. At the tested apertures, and chosen subject distance, and with the lens samples Sean used; the C-Biogon shone and was the least distorting of the several 35mm 'M-fit' lenses he tested. Sean's tested Biogon f2.0 exhibited some 'minor' [but demonstrable] 'wavy barrel distortion'. Of coures, all these lenses are fabulous lenses, but each representing slightly different accents of design priorities.

Leicashot has raised the bar for C-Biogon 35mm exuberance, which is comforting for me as I had wondered if my own expressions about the lens were over the top. When I bought my C-Biogon earlier in the year there was very little available feedback about the lens, and to some extent my purchase was a bit of a calculated gamble. The more recent proliferation of exuberant posts about the lens are because users are delighted by it and are spreading the word, as am I.

.................. Chris

 

[back alley]

 

[semilog]

Good idea for a thread.

Some other Biogon-C threads containing (mostly) effusive praise for the lens:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85105
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91799
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92889
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1310742

 

[leicashot]

hi.

i do not want to spoil your party, and in no way do i want to reduce the merits of this lens.

but this statement does not become true by repeating it over and over again:



why i dare to say so?
well, i read zeiss' own product datasheet.
that shows a distortion function which is almost linear, with a maximum of ca. 0.6% at 22mm distance from the image center.

now, please compare this to the distortion function for the ZM Biogon 35mm/2.0 as shown in the respective datasheet provided on the very same zeiss homepage. the distortion is lower, with a maximum close to -0.2% at 22mm distance from the image center.

even lower distortion can be found, typically in macro lenses.

and now, forget about distortion and go and take more wonderful pictures like the one shown already.
🙂
cheers,
s.

A good point...may I rephrase and say it has the least distortion of any 35mm lens I've ever used. In terms of macro lenses I am assuming you mean 50mm and above?

 

[leicashot]

How about some more?

5.6

100% crop

2.8

100%crop

corner

5.6

100% crop

 

[leicashot]

Hi leicashot...

Do you own CV's 28 3.5?

On your images from the 35 2.8 you show both the lens and your M9 capture... It would be interesting to see the same image (any) using two lenses on the same M9 to compare them, or those two lenses on a film camera... Scanning color film means sharpness loss... If you own or can borrow a 28 3.5 for a quick test, it would be nice to compare for example OOF rendering from that small lens (one third of Biogon's length)... Both lenses are close in focal length and speed...

Thanks!

Cheers,

Juan

Yes I'd like to try the 28/3.5 but it's just a tad too slow for me.

If you like here is an image from the 28mm Ultron wide open at f/1.9. Not amazingly sharp, but good enough.

100% crop

 

[Tom A]

Of course, I could gloat and say "I told you so". I have had the C Biogon 35f2.8 since it was announced ( actually a couple of weeks before it was announced). I consider it one of the best 35's made.
There are about 250 shots on our Flickr site with it and if you tag "Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8" there are plenty more by others.
It is the Summaron 35f2.8 for the new Millennium.

 

[ampguy]

I agree

I agree

In one of the other threads, praising this awesome lens, is a shot of mailboxes that shows the barrel distortion. Still a great lens, and less distortion than many lenses, but nevertheless, the distortion is there ...

If it makes the owners feel better, it probably has less distortion than the Leica 35/1.4 asph non FLE version. Also, less than many CVs like the 35/1.4, and less than the Hexar AF lens, a great one IMHO.

hi.

i do not want to spoil your party, and in no way do i want to reduce the merits of this lens.

but this statement does not become true by repeating it over and over again:

why i dare to say so?
well, i read zeiss' own product datasheet.
that shows a distortion function which is almost linear, with a maximum of ca. 0.6% at 22mm distance from the image center.

now, please compare this to the distortion function for the ZM Biogon 35mm/2.0 as shown in the respective datasheet provided on the very same zeiss homepage. the distortion is lower, with a maximum close to -0.2% at 22mm distance from the image center.

even lower distortion can be found, typically in macro lenses.

and now, forget about distortion and go and take more wonderful pictures like the one shown already.
🙂
cheers,
s.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Yes I'd like to try the 28/3.5 but it's just a tad too slow for me.

Maybe one day someone will compare those two lenses with the same image... The 28 3.5 is very sharp, and as it's my main lens I just wanted to know what I would add to my images if I used the 35 2.8 instead, apart from three times my lens' length, and that huge amount of speed... 🙂 It's a nice lens, and that's why I wanted the direct comparison...

Cheers,
Juan

 

[semilog]

If it makes the owners feel better, it probably has less distortion than the Leica 35/1.4 asph non FLE version.

No "probably" about it.

The Summilux ASPH FLE barrels to -1.6%, wave-type (roughly the same as the previous version ASPH). For pictorial work that is not super-critical, even that's not too bad. Example from the Summilux ASPH here.

The Summarit is -1.8 or -1.9%. Very usable.

Both the Biogon-C and Summicron ASPH are outstanding: about -0.6%, progressive. Probably the only 35 available with less geometric distortion is the 35/2 Biogon, which is effectively perfect in this regard.

With every one of these lenses, the amount of distortion observed in the field will likely depend on focal distance. All the above figures are of course for focus at infinity, which is where you want geometric distortion to be best-corrected anyway, most of the time.

 

[leicashot]

Maybe one day someone will compare those two lenses with the same image... The 28 3.5 is very sharp, and as it's my main lens I just wanted to know what I would add to my images if I used the 35 2.8 instead, apart from three times my lens' length, and that huge amount of speed... 🙂 It's a nice lens, and that's why I wanted the direct comparison...

Cheers,
Juan

Half a stop can make a big difference in the field. I do have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to lens speed and with the M9, it must be f/2.8, but maybe one day I'll make an exception for the 28/3.5 considering you're so attached to it. 😛

 

[leicashot]

Of course, I could gloat and say "I told you so". I have had the C Biogon 35f2.8 since it was announced ( actually a couple of weeks before it was announced). I consider it one of the best 35's made.
There are about 250 shots on our Flickr site with it and if you tag "Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8" there are plenty more by others.
It is the Summaron 35f2.8 for the new Millennium.

Hey Tom, over the years since photo.net I've always trusted your judgement on lenses and probably wouldn't have even considered this lens unless I heard it form you first, so thanks!!!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Half a stop can make a big difference in the field. I do have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to lens speed and with the M9, it must be f/2.8, but maybe one day I'll make an exception for the 28/3.5 considering you're so attached to it. 😛

Clear concepts you have! 😛

My life would be so different if you try the 28 3.5, or if I try the 35 2.8... That's what photography is about! 😀 I think I'll remain in darkness... 🙂

Cheers,

Juan

 

[leicashot]

Clear concepts you have! 😛

My life would be so different if you try the 28 3.5, or if I try the 35 2.8... That's what photography is about! 😀 I think I'll remain in darkness... 🙂

Cheers,

Juan

I know what you mean. There are too many great options available for the M and sometimes it's better we just admire from a distance and concentrate on our photography with the equipment we have. I'm still trying to finalize my kit and not 100% sure this gem will stay, but right now it's perfectly comfortable. The only other lens I've ever been so excited about is the Zeiss 100mm f/2, as well as other ZF lenses for my D3s, which are absolutely killer - even better than my M9 and any lens combo....but thats another story :bang:

 

[coelacanth]

Maybe one day someone will compare those two lenses with the same image... The 28 3.5 is very sharp, and as it's my main lens I just wanted to know what I would add to my images if I used the 35 2.8 instead, apart from three times my lens' length, and that huge amount of speed... 🙂 It's a nice lens, and that's why I wanted the direct comparison...

Cheers,
Juan

I'm curious about this too. Now I have both lenses and think they are great combination, but I haven't got direct comparison shots as I just ran a test roll yesterday with the 35/2.8. I shall run a test soon.

From a non-direct comparison, I can see 28/3.5 is more contrasty and has tendency of clipping the highlights more easily under harsh light condition.

I personally have no problem with F3.5 vs F2.8. They work pretty much the same for me.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I'm curious about this too. Now I have both lenses and think they are great combination, but I haven't got direct comparison shots as I just ran a test roll yesterday with the 35/2.8. I shall run a test soon.

From a non-direct comparison, I can see 28/3.5 is more contrasty and has tendency of clipping the highlights more easily under harsh light condition.

I personally have no problem with F3.5 vs F2.8. They work pretty much the same for me.

Hi coelacanth,

So cool you have both... I hope you test them with the same images and include close focusing at f/4... Of course their difference in focal length and maximum aperture will be evident in the OOF rendering, but it would be very nice to see those two together... Both are sharp enough, so that's secondary to me... About contrast, yes, the 28 is contrasty but as long as it's taken into account while shooting and developing, it's no problem... It took me by surprise once, though: the first time I used it for a 3200 push... With normal films and developments its almost nothing, but with that push and the high contrast involved, my highlights were real high, so my printing times were longer... Hope you do a cool test someday!

Cheers,

Juan