semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
The C-Biogon is 36 or 37mm actual FL. This is another thing that I like about it: its coverage is closer to what's scribed by the M6 frame lines.
srtiwari
Daktari
I wonder if the differences in specific copies of the lenses may have more to do here than differences between their typical 'signatures'. In that case, only a near-perfect copy of each would have to be compared to make any sense of it. OTOH, if your copy is great, it probably doesn't matter much which lens it is...
Hmm, ... my c-biogon arrives in the mail today. 
kxl
Social Documentary
Interesting... I preferred #'s 1 and 4, which turned out to be the C-Biogon and Nokton v2, respectively. The 2 35's I have happen to be the 35/2 Biogon and Nokton v1, close enough cousins to #'s 1 and 4 that they seemed to have retained similar characters.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Consider also that most lenses are optimized stopped down a couple of stops. This makes the C Biogon even more remarkable as it was used at maximum aperture ( and also the Summarit 35/2.5)
They both are among the best medium speed 35's made in my "book". Of the two I prefer the Biogon, probably because I have more experience with it.
They both are among the best medium speed 35's made in my "book". Of the two I prefer the Biogon, probably because I have more experience with it.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Not sure what aspect of lens performance is being wiped, but I'm not surprised, having used the ZM 35/2 for a couple of years now and the 35/2.8 for a shorter period as well. The ZM 35/2 softens at f2 (very clear from its mtf chart). Assessing the worth of the ZM 35/2 only at f2 isn't necessarily a balanced assessment unless you shoot only at f2, obviously.
In my experience, by f2.8, the ZM 35/2 looks very much like the ZM 35/2.8 wide open in terms of sharpness, color, and contrast. Bokeh's not at the level of the c-biogon's (which is remarkable to my eye), but it's very good. The ZM 35s image very similarly, imho. And judging from the poll, since the Nokton doesn't wipe the floor with the c-biogon, it wouldn't do so with the 35/2 (beyond f2 anyway).
MCTuomey
Veteran
The c-biogon's mtf indicates that it's almost indistiguishably sharp on center at f2.8 and f5.6. Corner performance improves upon stopping down from f2.8, though. A really capable lens, no doubt.
Ljós
Well-known
Too bad a 2.8 Summaron was not in the mix. I am pretty sure it would have held its own, too
sanmich
Veteran
Hey Mike
Not sure I understand:
in your first part you seem to mean that you are not surprised by the Nokton being far better than the Zeiss, and in your second part, you seem to disagree with the statement.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Hey Mike
Not sure I understand:
in your first part you seem to mean that you are not surprised by the Nokton being far better than the Zeiss, and in your second part, you seem to disagree with the statement.
Hi Michael
Sorry for the confusion and for veering off-topic. I'm trying to say, relative to Kristian's post, that the ZM 35/2 is at its worst at f2 and by f2.8 and down it's pretty much the same as the c-biogon, which tops the nokton in this poll. In other words, it's not surprising the ZM 35/2 would fair poorly at f2 against the nokton at f2. Test the ZM 35/2 against the nokton from f2.8 on down and the ZM 35/2 would show very well (like its brother the c-biogon).
As Mr Puts has said, the 35/2 biogon is "stretched" to deliver f2.
I've never had an issue with the 35mm f/2 Biogon wide open... what are you guys seeing that you do not like?
bwcolor
Veteran
I have both f/2 and f/2.8 lenses. The larger size and relative loss of resolution at f/2.0 have me using the compact lens. Both are fine lenses. You mention that your compact Biogon arrives today, but I thought that you purchased a used copy a long time ago. Obviously, I'm confused. Nothing new there.
Last edited:
Well, I did have the 2.8 when I used the M8. Then I thought 2.8 was too slow for use as a 50mm equiv, so I sold it and bought the f/2 version. However, I always hated the size of the f/2 lens (yeah, I'm a bit crazy when it comes to size). So, now that I'm using a M9 and have a 35mm V2 summicron as well, I felt the 2.8 would be the better option for me... since it is small, sharp, and has very little distortion. Honestly, I thought the Biogon f/2 was a good performer wide open.
sanmich
Veteran
Mike,
I'm not sure about the logic of it.
I am used to f/2 lenses performing significantly better than their faster counterparts at same apertures (Nikkor f/2 vs f/1.4~f/1.2, summilux pre asph vs summicron in both 35 and 50etc.). even if the Nokton is stopped down at f/2, it may well be bested by the Biogons. In fact, the Nokton being much better than the Biogons at f/2~2.8 would really be a surprise for me.
Mentionning excellent lenses, what would be your impressions of the Hexanon-M vs the Biogons image wise?
Which one would you prefer?
cheers!
Erik Johansen
Newbie
Well,I guss we have all seeing how fast the light changes...
Ljós
Well-known
And it certainly is. Often one needs to keep the "grain-of-salt"-bag handy when reading comparisons on RFF, or fora in general for that matter. So when the term "wiped the floor with at f2" etc. is used... that might have to be read in a similar fashion as "gives grain the size of golf-balls" or "not much better than a coke bottle" ;-)
That said, the Summaron f2.8 of course leaves all other 35mm lenses in the dust, after having blown them out of the water, or the other way around, I forget which ;-) ;-)
We can count ourselves lucky to have so many choices available these days. And since it is unlikely that we will see a rangefinder lens anytime soon which goes to f1.2 and is as sharp at f1.2 as the VC Nokton and at the same time as small as the Biogon-C (not to speak about the price)... the well known game of advantages and drawbacks/horses for courses will continue.
All the best, Ljós
Moriturii
Well-known
they all look the same to me.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Michael, all I can say is that my experience and the zeiss mtf charts suggest the biogon 35/2 at f2 will not resolve fine detail as well as at f2.8. the f2 biogon at f2.8 very closely approximates the resolution of the c-biogon at f2.8. Either lens is excellent. If Kristian says the nokton 35/1.2 at f2 is superior to the biogon 35/2 at f2, that would be the only aperture where it would not be likely to surprise me.
Re the m-hex 35 and the zm 35s, I never had the opportunity to shoot them together on my digital M and doing comparisons on different capture media wouldn't be useful. Would like to do so but I sold my m-hex to a most pleasant gentleman & photographer ...
Best to you and the family!
MCTuomey
Veteran
Well, I really like using my 35/2 biogon wide open - perfect for portraits, among other things. No "issue" at all. Only pointing out that, if you like the 35/2's sharpness at f2 you will really like it at f2.8 and down ...
Harry S.
Well-known
Trust me to like the most expensive one!
Last edited: