Just got the C-Biogon 35mm f2.8

coelacanth said:
I'll post some sample shots (B/W, Neopan 400) in the evening.
Click to expand...

This lens has made me not want to shoot 2TMY and Neopan 400 so much anymore... It seems to scream for ACROS in the daylight, and Neopan 1600 at night...

961627073_yx2v2-L.jpg


Osaka, near the train station. Biogon-C wide open, Neopan 1600 in XTOL 1:1. Scene was darker than it looks...
 
Last edited:
For the sake of testing, I'm running LegacyPro (neopan400) @ 400, but planning to shoot Arista Premium (trix) and LegacyPro @ 1600 as I always do. I personally like the @1600 results with Neopan400 more than its rated 400 speed. (Ah, maybe I should just go ahead and shoot this roll @1600)

I've seen ACROS shots with this lens that you posted here and they are really lovely. How do you describe the characteristics of ACROS especially coupled with this lens? It's always hard to see the real characters in digital image, but I've never seen it in actual prints.
 
Looks big, compared to the v3 and Color Skopar you sold, Sug 🙂

J/K, congratulations and wondering what you get with the Biogon .... Have fun.
 
semilog said:
This lens has made me not want to shoot 2TMY and Neopan 400 sortch anymore... It seems to scream for ACROS in the daylight, .
Click to expand...
Semilog, a quick micro-hijack ;-), since you brought up Acros and TMY2: in your personal experience, how would you describe the difference in final imagery between Acros and TMY2? I am only starting to look at those two films and have developed negatives so far, but no chance to make prints in the darkroom... Do you see a significant difference in grain size?
All the best, Ljós
 
ferider said:
Looks big, compared to the v3 and Color Skopar you sold, Sug 🙂

J/K, congratulations and wondering what you get with the Biogon .... Have fun.
Click to expand...

It is bigger than the 35 Summicrons and the 35 Color-Skopar II, but its still not huge...its smaller than a 50mm Summicron, and the image quality makes the slightly large size worth it.
 
Roland, (I know j/k) it is almost same profile as v3 Cron, but the C-Biogon's front end is wider due to 43mm filter size vs 39mm on Cron. I'll have to see this for myself, but from what I've been told so far, the benefit of C-Biogon is that it's very resistant to flare so you don't need hood as often while v3 Cron was quite prone to flare and the hood bumped up the overall size. But I must say Cron with Leitz hood looked sexy as xxxx.

Color-Skopar P (I) had the same 43mm filter size and pretty much the same profile all the way, probably C-S is slightly shorter.

The shot above makes C-Biogon hure due to iPhone4's wide angle lens.
 
Last edited:
coelacanth said:
How do you describe the characteristics of ACROS especially coupled with this lens? It's always hard to see the real characters in digital image, but I've never seen it in actual prints.
Click to expand...

Agreed that it's hard to tell once we're in the digital domain. The main attribute that I'm getting from ACROS in XTOL 1:1 is smooth tonality -- especially from about zone VII to IX. The results with ACROS, XTOL, and the baby Biogon feel closer to a 645 negative than any 35 mm setup that I've personally used.

At reasonable magnifications there just isn't any grain, and at unreasonable magnifications (such as 40X; keep reading) the grain is not ugly. The film feels very fast for 100 ISO. What I mean by this is that the shadows keep enormous solid detail so they still feel like shadows, but the highlights don't get out of control.

Another example. This time a kind of boring, water-spotted frame. Biogon-C, ACROS & XTOL 1:1.

964566610_MezgX-M.jpg


The inset (from the lower left corner) shows 1:1 pixels from a 4000 dpi (20 Mpixel) scan. Grain with a condenser head enlarger would be even less obtrusive. There is some grain aliasing from the scan, and I've applied a sharpening filter to the bottom sample (Lightroom: 70%, 0.8 px). No contrast adjustments apart from what's in the upper image. This JPEG looks slightly worse than a .tiff does on my monitor.

On most monitors, this is a 40X to 50X enlargement from the negative.

On center, it's even sharper (microcontrast is higher). Exposure would have been 1/1000 at f/4 or so.

964676284_JsTCL-O.jpg


The Biogon-C appears to be as good as the film. In both cases I'm completely limited by my technique; I only rarely use a tripod. The downside is that in Seattle, even at the height of the summer it's sunny/11 or sunny/8, and once the clouds move in it's simply too dark to shoot at ISO 100 with an f/2.8 lens. Perhaps more tripod work is in my future....
 
Last edited:
Ljós said:
Semilog, a quick micro-hijack ;-), since you brought up Acros and TMY2: in your personal experience, how would you describe the difference in final imagery between Acros and TMY2? I am only starting to look at those two films and have developed negatives so far, but no chance to make prints in the darkroom... Do you see a significant difference in grain size?
All the best, Ljós
Click to expand...

I know I like both films a lot, but I don't yet have a real handle on the differences. It seems to me that under good conditions (in the field, not in the lab), the 2TMY resolves almost as well as ACROS (in lp/mm), but even in XTOL, which tends to round out the shoulder of 2TMY, it's much easier for the highlights to get out of control. Also there's much more perceptible grain in 2TMY, especially from about zone V down, and although it's vastly better than the early versions of TMAX400, it's still a T-grain film. Make no mistake: both ACROS and 2TMY are exceptional for what they are, but ACROS is still ISO 100 and 2TMY is ISO 400, and for the latter you pay a price.

I'd say that 2TMY comes close to the abilities of Plus-X 20 years ago; ACROS in XTOL starts to look like the old Plus-X, shot at 645 format. These may be exaggerations, but they are not huge exaggerations (and if they are, I trust that Freakscene will give me the rap across the knuckles that I deserve).

Here's an example of that ACROS almost-645-smoothness, again with an M body, the Biogon-C, and XTOL:

892099134_Towhf-L.jpg


One advantage of 2TMY is that you can shoot at 800 without additional development, so you can run rolls shot at 400 and 800 in the same tank.

Until this last batch I'd never souped Neopan 1600 in XTOL. N1600 in XTOL is a revelation. I'd never really liked the 1600 before but now I am smitten. Previous experiments were done back when I was using HC-110, and my results with that combination were invariably disgusting (that doesn't mean, of course, that it's a bad combination; only that I hadn't figured it out). The problem I now face is that I can't get N1600 rebranded as Legacy-something, and it's $5/roll 🙁.
 
Last edited:
My film scanner is a cheap CanoScan 8600F with regular film folder so it's not absolutely flat or preserved details as good as those better canners.

Cheapo Hakuba MC UV filter that I had in my office was on it with no hood. I'm getting B+W MC Haze filter because I don't plan to use hood or carry lens cap.

Over all, while it's got good contrast and sharpness, it's quite well preserving highlight and shadow details, and I'm very happy with the result. Look at the second shot for flare resistance.

The combination of tiny knob and regular focusing grip area was new to me, but I think it can be pretty handy. I have relatively small hands so your milage might vary, but I didn't have any problem with aperture ring being close to focusing ring. But again, I'm used to smaller lenses so your milage might vary.

I can't wait to shoot more and print some in darkroom. Thanks everyone for pushing me into the chasm of GAS. 😀
 
Last edited:
If you've got to use a filter, Heliopan is overrated; get a B+W if you feel wealthy, or a Hoya HMC if you're sane.

I sometimes use one of these hoods, more for mechanical protection than flare resistance. They cost 90% less than the Zeiss bayonet units.
 
Last edited:
semilog said:
I'd say that 2TMY comes close to the abilities of Plus-X 20 years ago; ACROS in XTOL starts to look like the old Plus-X, shot at 645 format. These may be exaggerations, but they are not huge exaggerations (and if they are, I trust that Freakscene will give me the rap across the knuckles that I deserve).
Click to expand...
Thanks semilog for your assessment!
All the best, Ljós
 
jsrockit said:
Yeah, it's just that simple... except that I only want one 35mm lens...
Click to expand...

Flow chart:

If you need a faster lens, don't get this one...
-> If you need a Leica-style focusing tab, don't get this one...
-> If you need a rectangular hood (it does look cool!), don't get this one...
-> If you need it to say "Leica," don't get this one...
-> If you need an even smaller lens, don't get this one...
-> If you need a less expensive lens, don't get this one...
-> If you want a "vintage" look to the images, don't get this one...
-> Otherwise, definitely get this one...
 
Nice semilog! Those are the thoughts going through my brain. I think I'm going to go zeiss at 28mm and summicron at 35mm... but the images look so damn nice from this lens. Grrr. I'm going to just think it over for awhile.
 
jsrockit said:
and larger as well though...
Click to expand...

I got the 35/2.8 mainly because I was absolutely smitten by its OOF rendering at 2.8. It's better in this respect than the f/2 Biogon or any of the Summicrons, IMO. It's also smaller, cheaper, and more flare-resistant than the Summarit, which would be my other top choice in a 35 at present. For my purposes, both the Summarit and the Biogon-C are superior to the Summicrons (ASPH or otherwise) or the f/2 Biogon.

Sometimes I still miss my old Summilux ASPH, though (wipes a way a single tear; fade to black).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom