jja
Well-known
Some great photos here! RE: b&w film shots: are you guys using a filter w/ this lens, or are you doing all your adjustments in Photoshop?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
No filters here. I have a set of colored filters for BW work that I have literally never opened. I don't feel they're needed to correct the tonal sensitivity of modern films and to me they make things look unnatural. I know that's why people use them, for dramatic effect, but I am not into that.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I sometimes use a medium orange filter for landscapes, or for cityscapes. But my two favorite films, ACROS and 2TMY, are somewhat red-shifted so as Chris says filtration is often not necessary. Otherwise there's usually a UV filter on the lens, both because it rains a lot here and I don't want to touch the front element more than I have to, and because it eliminates reflections off of the silver front ring (common to all current CV/Zeiss lenses). I don't shoot a lot of color on film anymore, but an 81A warming filter can be really nice. I used to love Fuji Provia + 81A under a lot of different daylight lighting conditions.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I'm scanning, right now. I've done a lot of wet printing in the past but at present there are time and space limitations that preclude it. The scanning is with a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000. I like making silver prints more, but that's a process thing. Of course, I like shooting film because of the process, too.
Still playing with ACROS (Legacy Pro 100, actually). Latest batches were in XTOL 1:3 (15' @ 20C, with minimal agitation in the second half of development). Now you really start to see compensating effects. There is a bit more edge-bite, and a bit more visible grain than in 1:1. The good part of this is that perceived sharpness is greater and a bit more shadow detail is retained. The bad part is that the highlights are not as buttery as in XTOL 1:1. At least, these are my initial impressions. This tells me at least that there is some malleability in ACROS, more than I might have expected from an emulsion that is apparently chock-full of development accelerators.
Last edited:
kossi008
Photon Counter
Not quite like that, but similar: I used to feel pretty naked when I had left my filters at home, but not anymore. These days, I hardly use them.
samuelphoto
Established
Comparison vs. 35/2 Biogon?
Comparison vs. 35/2 Biogon?
Any opinions as to how the ZM 35/2 Biogon stacks up against this lens? I do a lot of low light shooting and the extra speed often does matter to me. Thx.
Comparison vs. 35/2 Biogon?
Any opinions as to how the ZM 35/2 Biogon stacks up against this lens? I do a lot of low light shooting and the extra speed often does matter to me. Thx.
bwcolor
Veteran
The f/2.0 is lower contrast and maybe a bit less sharp at f/2.8.
samuelphoto
Established
Film or Digital?
Film or Digital?
Were these excellent images produced with a digtal or film camera? If film, can you share the film, the EI and the developer? Thanks!
Film or Digital?
Were these excellent images produced with a digtal or film camera? If film, can you share the film, the EI and the developer? Thanks!
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
leicashot
Well-known
I found the 35/1.2 to be as sharp as the Biogon-C at 2.8 with much much less vignetting.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I don't doubt that it's good, but I would be surprised if it were as sharp, especially off-axis. There is also hugely increased weight and volume, there is substantially more distortion, and it blocks the finder a lot more. The good news is reduced vignetting and of course the ability to work at 1.2 if needed.
There's no free lunch, is there?
jja
Well-known
Thanks to those who responded re: the use of filters. It's interesting to hear that modern films have less of a need for contrast filters (yellow, orange, red, etc.). I have all current production lenses and shoot Acros and Tri-X as my main films, and in my limited experiments I have found that a light or medium yellow filter alters tonality in a way that's pleasing to my eyes (and in ways I can't seem to replicate in photoshop).
I have a 35/2.8 on the way, so I will experiment further and see what I think.
I have a 35/2.8 on the way, so I will experiment further and see what I think.
filmfan
Well-known
Wow, this lens is ridiculously good. However, so are the photographers...
tensai
Established
I'm not the poster but some images above that post by the same photographer (on the same page) were done with an M8 and digitally developed in silver efex pro. Perhaps the OP will answer but it's my guess these were done the same way..
Last edited:
Strangeluv
Christer Johansen
Thank you
As Tensai points out, all shots taken with the M8 and postprocessed in Silver Efex Pro.
Strangeluv
Christer Johansen
What the hell....a couple of more shots.
jja
Well-known
Recently got my copy of this lens here on rff (thanks Don Hutton). Here is a sample image from a recent trip to Big Bend National Park. I tried shooting in all kinds of adverse lighting conditions to see how this lens would respond. In the photo below, I can't remember if by this time I had gotten rid of the filter, but I'm fairly certain it was shot only with the dedicated hood. Notice the lower right corner--the figure looks distorted, but I think it might just be the tilt of the head.
Arista Premium (Tri-x) @ 400, D-76:
Arista Premium (Tri-x) @ 400, D-76:
leicashot
Well-known
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Just put up 5 rolls of shots done with the C Biogon 35f2.8 and a Summaron 35f2.8 on our Flickr (Films #F646-F650). They were all shot at f2.8, using a Zeiss ZM and a M6TTL (swapped lenses between the bodies just to eliminate differences).
Conclusion: both lenses are really good at f2.8 - the Summaron 35f2.8 is slightly "flatter" in contrast - but let's face it - it is close to 50 years old and coating technology has advanced. The C Biogon 35f2.8 is a gem of a lens. Contrast is a bit higher than the rest of the ZM line - but not so excessive as to "burn" out highlights.
The Summaron is a bit smaller, uses 39mm filter and has a very clumsy aperture ring if you use a hood on it (too close to the ring). It also has the "infernal" infinity lock!
The C Biogon is easier to operate with the hood, filtersize is inconvinient (particularly for someone who has a box full of 39mm filters!).
Of the two lenses, I find that I gravitate to the C Biogon more often than the Summaron. It has a "smoothness" to the image that the Summaron lacks. Both lenses are spectacularly good at close focus - rivals the 50f1.4 Asph in that aspect.
Conclusion: both lenses are really good at f2.8 - the Summaron 35f2.8 is slightly "flatter" in contrast - but let's face it - it is close to 50 years old and coating technology has advanced. The C Biogon 35f2.8 is a gem of a lens. Contrast is a bit higher than the rest of the ZM line - but not so excessive as to "burn" out highlights.
The Summaron is a bit smaller, uses 39mm filter and has a very clumsy aperture ring if you use a hood on it (too close to the ring). It also has the "infernal" infinity lock!
The C Biogon is easier to operate with the hood, filtersize is inconvinient (particularly for someone who has a box full of 39mm filters!).
Of the two lenses, I find that I gravitate to the C Biogon more often than the Summaron. It has a "smoothness" to the image that the Summaron lacks. Both lenses are spectacularly good at close focus - rivals the 50f1.4 Asph in that aspect.
leicashot
Well-known
You didn't mention vignetting wide open. How do they compare? The biogon-c has very heavy vignetting wide open, comparable to my Nokton 1.2 wide open.