I have these 35mm lenses, do I need a Zeiss 35mm f2?

[mfogiel]

Yes, only the 35/2 Biogon can take shots like these:

 

[leicashot]

I think the question is not so much about 'need' but more so about 'want'. Considering your lust for 35mm, if you don't 'need' the speed, which it seems you don't then take a look at the Biogon-C instead.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

mfogiel,

Stellar lens and photographer!

Cheers,

Juan

 

[leicashot]

Yes, only the 35/2 Biogon can take shots like these:

Something tells me these great images have less to do with the lens, and more to do with talent and application of the lens.

 

[Vickko]

Curiosu, thomasw, did you find differences between...

Curiosu, thomasw, did you find differences between...

Curiosu, thomasw, did you find differences between the old and new 3.5f1.8's?

I'm guessing there would be differences due to the modern coatings, but I thought the optical formulas were the same.

And maybe flare behaviour might be different, due to differences in blacking materials used in the new lens.

What differences do you find?

....Vick

Vick, R's idea is not bad one...the summilux 35 asph is a very fine lens, but it is the second best 35 I have used. If i am not mistaken, though, you already have the best 35 -- the 2005 re-issue of the S-mount W-Nikkor C 35/1,8? Perhaps consider getting your copy converted to M-mount....it would cost than a zm35/2 and way less than a summilux asph 35 That's if it is not heretical to tamper with mounts according to your photographic morals!?

 

[splitimageview]

Where are your 35/1.4 Nokton, 35/1.4 V1 summilux, 35/2 Planar Contax G, 35/2.8 Topcor LTM, 35/2 Canon LTM, 40/2.8 Rollei Sonnar, and 35/2.8 Biogon-C?