S
suzums
Guest
Thanks for sharing your review! Some lovely photos you have shot!
Finally, The Carl Zeiss 28mm f2.8 Biogon Report
- Thread starter Avotius
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 93
- Views: Views 80K
maddoc
... likes film again.
Avotius, a very interesting and informative review. Again, I really enjoyed both, your photos and your comments.
Judging from your photos however, this lens wouldn't fit my needs, way to much contrast ... The Zeiss lenses designed for Hasselblad are well balanced for contrast, sharpness and color rendition but for 35mm the Leica lenses still have the edge, especially the pre-ASPH designs for BW photography.
Judging from your photos however, this lens wouldn't fit my needs, way to much contrast ... The Zeiss lenses designed for Hasselblad are well balanced for contrast, sharpness and color rendition but for 35mm the Leica lenses still have the edge, especially the pre-ASPH designs for BW photography.
Avotius
Some guy
AVOTIUS: Wonderful article.....Thank You
in particular your thoughts on B&W film w/ the 28 & spot on RE: the 3 dimensional aspect 'airiness'
What do you think of the 50/planar ?
I am considering it
best-H
Thanks
got to love that air stuff, I did a little blurb about the 50 Planar a while ago here http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48816 worth taking a look at if you are thinking about it.
nzeeman
Well-known
love that photo of the guy where you cut off feet. i think that it is not mistake. i think photos are more dynamic when you cut a part of object. when full object is in photo it is boring...
Avotius
Some guy
Hm......probably wont, my next lens will probably be an ultra wide like 18 or 21.
Hm.....I would take the zeiss if you can afford it. But then again I dont know much about the hexanon besides that some of them have white bubbles in them.
I say wait and find out. I think the new 28 f2 looks very nice as well, but I am going the zeiss direction and am happy with my 2.8. Needless to say though the new cv f2 will be something special.
Great report. The picture of the intersection in Hong Kong jogged my memory, and I dug out this picture taken in June 08, also with the ZM 28 Biogon. Is that a coincidence or what?
Small world eh?
Its not that I didnt like the photo, its just that the flare is pretty intense in that one. I actually like the photo but its a little different then my usual type. I have not used the Contax G version of this lens though.
Thanks. If you have found that the lens is not to your taste then that is also a good thing of this mini review, got to know your information both ways after all.
tomasis
Well-known
I agree. Which 28 lenses have low or medium contrasts?
Nice review, Avotius. I think I have commented same thing about Planar. Great on color shoots, horrible at B&W
It might exist any way for film developer to reduce contrast on film?
Avotius
Some guy
there is, developing your own film and the things you can do while its in the developer can drastically change the characteristics of the image, especially the contrast. I will be working on that next.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Nice review Avotius
I too enjoy this lens and the only thing that's stopping me from keeping it is the CV Ultron - but if it does not hold a candle to this lens (after tests) then obviously the ZM 28mm is going to be kept in my bag
I shot this wide open, ISO320, 1/8s - so it's uber shaky but what I noted was the "star signature" from the one video light in the top left corner - there have been very few lenses where I can get that sort of effect - it's a great lens for sure
Cheers
Dave
I too enjoy this lens and the only thing that's stopping me from keeping it is the CV Ultron - but if it does not hold a candle to this lens (after tests) then obviously the ZM 28mm is going to be kept in my bag
I shot this wide open, ISO320, 1/8s - so it's uber shaky but what I noted was the "star signature" from the one video light in the top left corner - there have been very few lenses where I can get that sort of effect - it's a great lens for sure
Cheers
Dave
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I have commented same thing about Planar. Great on color shoots, horrible at B&W
is that what avotius is saying? i didn't read it that way...
OT: in defense of the planar, if you search the archives, you will find Tom A saying that the planar is the finest modern 50 for B+W (he shoots exclusively B+W). But such discussions are probably moot, especially if they aim to be definitive (which I definitely hope not), since so many other factors besides the lens could influence the final look of the print.
Last edited:
tomasis
Well-known
you're right. It is just one of my few 0,02 cents
Such things are only subjective as you said Too much perfectness can be counterproductive for some people. Like digital sensors could be overblown or anything else. But if I was avid color shooter, I would adopt all Zeiss ZM lenses But my searching ended up when I recognized that my style dont require sharpest and best available since I shot grainy iso 400, 1/15 so CV or russian can be equally good for me as planar for you So I look here for fun I say Summicron is better than Planar. It's a joke, remember
Avotius
Some guy
I did not say I think the zeiss lenses are horrible at black and white, maybe not so good at first because its more work to get results out of them, but if you look at the black and white photos, I think there are some great looking tones in there and once I start fine tuning the technique im sure it will be better, but as always, these are not vintage style lenses, cant expect them to render black and white like a dual range summicron.
tomasis
Well-known
Of course, Im looking forward to your B&W shoots when you tune more. I'm looking for a 28mm lens to purchase. so anything is of interest for me. I might ditch Elmar Asph 28mm as alternative if its contrast is too high same as Biogon though I like much its compactness. The new CV 28/2 looks as an interesting alternative.
back alley
IMAGES
don't forget the rokkor 28/2.8...its small and sharp.
Avotius
Some guy
I figured someone might chime in about the rokkor. I have never actually used one so I could not comment on it. But im sure it has its following and strong points as well.
Turtle
Veteran
ZMs are not horrible for B&W at all. This is utter hogwash that is usually a product of people not having control over processing and printing, whether they do it themselves or not...many people who propagate this fable have never owned or even used one...
If someone uses grainy film, I would agree that there is no need to rush out and get a super sharp lens, but with grainy film the ZMs produce - wait for it - grainy photos. I have produces images that have an older world feel using these very modern lenses too. That can be infused through lower contrast printing in part, but also film & paper choice.
I use ZMs exclusively for black and white. I have used a whole bunch of other lenses in Mono:
Leica asph and non-asph
Bronica
Mamiya
Rodenstock
Schneider
Nikkor
Canon (incl L)
Kodak
Pentax
Fuji
The result of this is that I know ZMs to have absolutely no problem with mono whatsoever, only that their inherently high contrast is something that needs to be factored into processing and printing. Thats ALL there is to it.
The 28 ZM is a superb lens, which I agree holds up very nicely amongst the other ZM lenses.
If someone uses grainy film, I would agree that there is no need to rush out and get a super sharp lens, but with grainy film the ZMs produce - wait for it - grainy photos. I have produces images that have an older world feel using these very modern lenses too. That can be infused through lower contrast printing in part, but also film & paper choice.
I use ZMs exclusively for black and white. I have used a whole bunch of other lenses in Mono:
Leica asph and non-asph
Bronica
Mamiya
Rodenstock
Schneider
Nikkor
Canon (incl L)
Kodak
Pentax
Fuji
The result of this is that I know ZMs to have absolutely no problem with mono whatsoever, only that their inherently high contrast is something that needs to be factored into processing and printing. Thats ALL there is to it.
The 28 ZM is a superb lens, which I agree holds up very nicely amongst the other ZM lenses.
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
Since I brought it up to the table (ZM in m-mount and BW)... that was exactly my point:
their inherently high contrast that needs to be factored into processing and printing.
For this reason I stay away from a lens having "ASPH" in its name, be it from Leica or CV. I find it easier to enhance contrast while processing than to think to much about contrast before taking a photo. This is my - personal - opinion and preference only ...
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
I shot this wide open, ISO320, 1/8s - so it's uber shaky but what I noted was the "star signature" from the one video light in the top left corner - there have been very few lenses where I can get that sort of effect - it's a great lens for sure
My 50mm Hexanon sees stars as well!
tomasis
Well-known
you forgot crappy digital sensors
there are nothing to do no matter how many brands you know Turtle
Veteran
Tomasis,
Digital is a different beast to B&W film capture - I was only referring to Mono. I don't shoot digital RF but can see the issue there. My only gripe is this urban legend that states that the ZMs are really hard to shoot mono with because of their high contrast. It just isn't true. I think the key is to have lenses that are contrast matched so you get similar contrast across a roll or rolls of film. That makes it a lot easier to balance your processing and print without leaping up and down the contrast range. My ZM shots show none of the 'harshness' or 'blown highlights' that some claim are the result of the lens (read a problem with the lens). It amazes me that people make such sweeping statements only to admit that they don't process their images and print them...or that they are 'used' to other lenses and so their D&P is dialed into that. If we are talking vintage lenses there can be a few grades difference (about one grade between a ZM and some other non-asph Leica glass I have used a little). Then there is flashing/fogging for high contrast scenes that are hard to tame. For my Afghanistan prints I use this technique for perhaps 50% of my images and it because I don't want to turn the rest of the image to mud by reducing overall contrast, only bring the highest values down. Sure a lower contrast lens might prevent that, but they will also reduce contrast elsewhere in the tonal scale.
One thing I would say, is that if your other lenses are low contrast and you are shooting mono, adding one ZM could be a spanner in the works, but as a set they work beautifully and I am sure work fairly seamlessly with Leica asph lenses.
Digital is a different beast to B&W film capture - I was only referring to Mono. I don't shoot digital RF but can see the issue there. My only gripe is this urban legend that states that the ZMs are really hard to shoot mono with because of their high contrast. It just isn't true. I think the key is to have lenses that are contrast matched so you get similar contrast across a roll or rolls of film. That makes it a lot easier to balance your processing and print without leaping up and down the contrast range. My ZM shots show none of the 'harshness' or 'blown highlights' that some claim are the result of the lens (read a problem with the lens). It amazes me that people make such sweeping statements only to admit that they don't process their images and print them...or that they are 'used' to other lenses and so their D&P is dialed into that. If we are talking vintage lenses there can be a few grades difference (about one grade between a ZM and some other non-asph Leica glass I have used a little). Then there is flashing/fogging for high contrast scenes that are hard to tame. For my Afghanistan prints I use this technique for perhaps 50% of my images and it because I don't want to turn the rest of the image to mud by reducing overall contrast, only bring the highest values down. Sure a lower contrast lens might prevent that, but they will also reduce contrast elsewhere in the tonal scale.
One thing I would say, is that if your other lenses are low contrast and you are shooting mono, adding one ZM could be a spanner in the works, but as a set they work beautifully and I am sure work fairly seamlessly with Leica asph lenses.
tomasis
Well-known
turtle, I agree. I wouldn't worry a lot if I use only films. I have seen some nice samples from Tom A. I believe that Zeiss top priority for now is 35mm films then they probably are waiting for digital sensors full format 35mm and improved DR so they dont need release again when it needs "better". The new Summarit lens lineup pleased me at positive way because it has not very high contrast so they Leica probably thought more of available two different mediums. To get consistent contrast of all lenses from Zeiss is good point for them who shoots films, I'd agree.
I'm looking for Hexanon, Elmarit asph and 4th, Biogon, Rokkor, CV 2.0 and 3.5 comparisons. Who cares to make such big comparisons?
Somebody suggested Rokkor here. I think it sounds interesting.
I'm looking for Hexanon, Elmarit asph and 4th, Biogon, Rokkor, CV 2.0 and 3.5 comparisons. Who cares to make such big comparisons?
Somebody suggested Rokkor here. I think it sounds interesting.