NEW Zeiss Biogon 35mm F/2.8 just announced

[amateriat]

Zeiss is well aware of the interest in a digital rangefinder. I've dropped them a couple of notes over the past couple of years just to put my vote in for a digital Zeiss rangefinder, most recently just over a week ago. They apparently read "numerous requests" and there are -- obviously -- a lot of queries at trade shows.

The international sales rep who responded stressed that full-frame and "high resolution" would be needed to take advantage of the ZM lenses. He didn't say, "Yes, we are working on it", or "No, not at this time". But they are "working intensely" on "forward-looking" solutions.

This goes without saying, but he also indicated a device with the above specs would not be cheap! At any rate, it'll be interesting to see what kind of presence they have at Photokina in the Fall.

Well, it's sort of like the old Hollywood joke about getting a movie finished;"Do you want it good, or do you want it Tuesday?" In the case of cameras like the M8, some people believe Solms delivered it on a Tuesday, for better or worse (not that Leica had a lot of wiggle-room in the matter). Zeiss might have the luxury of waiting Leica has lacked; remember, the ZI exists because Zeiss wanted it, not because they needed it. Presumably, Zeiss will release (or, more to the point, I suppose, sign off on) a dRF when they're good and ready, and at this late a date, that likely means something sans crop-factor. Niche-market stuff? Yeah, but that goes for almost all the camera-related stuff they do except for the optics they design for tech-related stuff like this webcam I installed for a client a few nights ago).

As far as this particular new lens goes: once upon a time, in my SLR days, I was a speed freak...Max Aperture über alles, and the slowest-speed emulsions I could get away with. This, of course, was a time when just about all films above ISO 400 (black and white, that is) generally sucked. These days, most high speed emulsions, b/w and color, suck quite a bit less, and I'm more of a low-distortion freak (why else would I tolerate carrying around stovepipes like Minolta's 28-70 f/2.8 G in my last days of SLR shooting? That lens was flat-out amazing). But I like light weight. That's partly why I switched to RFs. The fastest lens I have in my Hexar system is the 50 f/2 M-Hex, and in most low-light conditions, I can deal. would a faster lens be nicer in some ways? Yes, but there's always the matter of size and weight. And film is more pushable now tham ever before (of course, how often do you need to push, say, Neopan 1600?). Being able to grab a lens and know that you can shoot wide-open with no reservations whatsoever is sweet. Something tells me this new Biogon fits that bill, but we'll have to wait for someone trustworthy to put it through its paces, right?


- Barrett

 

[Ororaro]

Zeiss might have the luxury of waiting Leica has lacked; remember, the ZI exists because Zeiss wanted it, not because they needed it

Ah come on! This is incredibly silly! Besides, you're making it sound like the ZI is the perfect camera the earth has ever seen. And they created it just because they felt like it, for the prestige.
What else?

Being able to grab a lens and know that you can shoot wide-open with no reservations whatsoever is sweet. Something tells me this new Biogon fits that bill, but we'll have to wait for someone trustworthy to put it through its paces, right?

By reading what you wrote, I think you're trying to justify this lens way too much, for no good reason. The VC 35 1.4, 35 2.5 or even 40 1.4 are cheaper and probably just as sharp at f2.8. And they are just as compact. And if people are willing to pay more then the VC line, there is the Leica.

IMO, I'm not even sure Zeiss will sell more then 10 of these lenses. Hey, why not introduce a 35mm f5.6 Biogon for the sake of compactness while we're at it? After all, today's T-Grain films are easily pushable to ISO 6400, right? And in a few years when films and sensors will reach ISO 25000, Zeiss will come up with a 35mm f11 lens... Why not.

Barrett, I have one simple question for you: Why doesn't Canon come up with a 24-70L f8 Pro Compact Zoom if we take into account the new low noise sensor technology out there?

 

[mfogiel]

kdemas
The C Biogon 21/4.5 has one fault: it is only a f4.5 lens, as for the rest it just is a perfect lens in any aspect. When I shoot it, I always end up thinking I should have used a slower, higher resolution film to do it justice - even with Acros, when you blow up the shot, the feeling is, there was more detail there, than the film could record.

NB23
I think the C Biogon 35/2.8 will simply be a lens optically close to perfection, just like the C Biogon 21/4.5 or the Biogon 25/2.8. In these designs, Zeiss does compromise on the max speed, but not on anything else. I would personally welcome more a 35/1.4, or even 35/1.0 lens from them, but I do use a 25/2.8 and a 28/2.8 lens, and I do not feel terribly limited by their max aperture, especially when shooting outdoors, so I imagine the 35/2.8 will sell more than 10 copies, especially if the optical performance will be as I expect it.

 

[Ororaro]

I understand your point but I can't agree for many reasons (altough what you're saying seems to be what Zeiss is aiming for)... Nobody will shoot this lens wide open expecting perfect imagery. Stopping it down a stop or two will prove more effective and I doubt the f2 biogon or any other 35mm lens are much different in that regard.

Besides, for maximum image quality, I doubt a rangefinder system is the way to go, anyway. Parallax problems, handholding and the film format and the rangefinder shooting style, generally, go against perfection, as opposed to medium format or even hi-rez digital sensors where everything is measured by perfection of the tools and rezolution.

About the 24 and 28mm FL being only f2.8, I often find it limiting. With ISO 100 film, as soon as it's 5PM I can forget about using them. And if I am to use a tripod I will then prefer to use a SLR. I find the f2.8 aperture extremely limiting and I'm not sure I'm buying the "extreme image quality" trade-off. Any 35mm and 50mm lens (Sears, Zenit, Pentax, Olympus, Takumar, Konica, seagull, Minolta, Nikkor, Canon), once closed down, will approach perfection.

 

[Turtle]

I understand your point but I can't agree for many reasons (altough what you're saying seems to be what Zeiss is aiming for)... Nobody will shoot this lens wide open expecting perfect imagery. Stopping it down a stop or two will prove more effective and I doubt the f2 biogon or any other 35mm lens are much different in that regard.

Besides, for maximum image quality, I doubt a rangefinder system is the way to go, anyway. Parallax problems, handholding and the film format and the rangefinder shooting style, generally, go against perfection, as opposed to medium format or even hi-rez digital sensors where everything is measured by perfection of the tools and rezolution.

About the 24 and 28mm FL being only f2.8, I often find it limiting. With ISO 100 film, as soon as it's 5PM I can forget about using them. And if I am to use a tripod I will then prefer to use a SLR. I find the f2.8 aperture extremely limiting and I'm not sure I'm buying the "extreme image quality" trade-off. Any 35mm lens, closed down, will approach perfection.

The rangefinder system is ffar more accurate form of focusing for short focal lengths. Lens design (non-SLR) allows for lower distortion etc. In general rangefinder lenses are acknowledged for producing outstanding image quality, whether it be CV, leica, Zeiss ZM or Mamiya 7 or Bronica RF645. Try finding lenses in SLR form that consistently hit the same performance grade - you wont find too many.

If teh ZM 21 4.5 is anything to go by the 35 2.8 ZM will be pin sharp wide open and akin to the Biogon f2 at a stop down. mamiya 7 f4 lenses and RF645 lenses are the same: pin sharp wide open.

Basically if you dont find yourself shooting at F2, the 2.8 lens makes a lot more sense - smaller, cheaper (hopefully a fair bit)

 

[Ororaro]

Yes, Leica made its name mostly on their optical supremacy, I agree. But to be honest, rangefinder shooting is not exactly best for pure reproduction as copy work, no real gain in shooting architecture either. Macro is out of the question and telephoto is just a bad dream. And how can one really expect the best image quality when shooting handheld? There are too many flaws in the RF system to expect a perfect image. And digital sensors outresolving 35mm film, what's the point of going for ultra resolution in film photography? But I agree, a brickwall shot with a rangefinder lens will probably show sharper bricks. And that's about where it ends.

Please note I am not bashing RF lenses as my history talks by itself.

 

[aizan]

if zeiss could somehow convince more than 10 people to use faster film in low light...

 

[jaap]

if zeiss could somehow convince more than 10 people to use faster film in low light...

yes full agree here !!

 

[FanMan]

But to be honest, rangefinder shooting is not exactly best for pure reproduction as copy work, no real gain in shooting architecture either. Macro is out of the question and telephoto is just a bad dream. And how can one really expect the best image quality when shooting handheld? There are too many flaws in the RF system to expect a perfect image. And digital sensors outresolving 35mm film, what's the point of going for ultra resolution in film photography? But I agree, a brickwall shot with a rangefinder lens will probably show sharper bricks. And that's about where it ends.

Please note I am not bashing RF lenses as my history talks by itself.

Besides, for maximum image quality, I doubt a rangefinder system is the way to go, anyway. Parallax problems, handholding and the film format and the rangefinder shooting style, generally, go against perfection, as opposed to medium format or even hi-rez digital sensors where everything is measured by perfection of the tools and rezolution.

but why do you then use a rf at all?

 

[Turtle]

Yes, Leica made its name mostly on their optical supremacy, I agree. But to be honest, rangefinder shooting is not exactly best for pure reproduction as copy work, no real gain in shooting architecture either. Macro is out of the question and telephoto is just a bad dream. And how can one really expect the best image quality when shooting handheld? There are too many flaws in the RF system to expect a perfect image. And digital sensors outresolving 35mm film, what's the point of going for ultra resolution in film photography? But I agree, a brickwall shot with a rangefinder lens will probably show sharper bricks. And that's about where it ends.

Please note I am not bashing RF lenses as my history talks by itself.

Hmmm. Have you tried comparing a shot from, say a 35mm lens at 1/125 handheld vs tripod? Try it. If you are reasonably steady there is no difference to speak of AT ALL. At some speeds it can be sharper handheld due to lack of resonance in the human hand vs. tripod metal/carbon etc.

I doubt anyone here uses their RF for dedicated architecture, copywork or long lens work....but for super wide to short tele mine certainly produce image quality I do not find elsewhere. I guess it depends on what you mean by perfect image....

There are far too many reasons to go for high resolution in film photography to list here. Monochome digital is devoid of soul. I happen to love film because of its relative integrity and the qualities of hand prints, both aesthetic and from an ownership perspective and how it affectes and guides my approach to shooting. If you accept these reasons as valid, then might I also confess to sometimes liking very sharp images at times (sometimes I dont care - depends)???

I can think of some shots I have been taking lately that are not architectural per se, but have some large buildings in them. A lack of distortion is important as is edge to edge resolution.

I get more perfect 'street images' using a RF than any othe system, in part because it intimidates people less, I am more inclined to carry it (small) and it is nice and quiet. I can fit everything in pockets and belt pouches, which means I carry more focal lengths, so am more flexible in some regards and I can move more inconspicuously and feel less likely to be mugged.

Sure, RF is not for everything or even most things, but thats the point. If you don't understand this you have been barking up the wrong tree. however, what RFs do well, they do esceedingly well. when I use my rangefinder, I am not interested in architecture or macro work. For that I use a view camera 😉

Oh, try shooting a distant scene with a fast, wide SLR lens wide open with low light and see what happens to your edge resolution. Try the same with a Zeiss/CV/Leica lens....And yes, it can make a HUGE difference to the look and feel of the image.

Horses for courses. I am getting lots of shots here in Kabul that would be impossible with an SLR because the darned things with milk bottle zooms are just too big and intimidating. An SLR does not fit under a shirt either.

 

[jsuominen]

Hmm, I shot almost all of my few days Prague holiday photos on Easter with f/2.8 lens (Rollei-Sonnar 40/2.8 LTM made in Germany by Rollei and Zeiss). Even some inside shots at café and church. I did carry also faster 50/1.5 and 28/1.9 CV lenses, but didn't use them much. So, Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8 sounds a good travel lens!

OT: Here are my Prague photos, if you is interested. I have scanned just few of them, but more coming later on my Flickr-page:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Praha+Rollei+35RF&ss=2&s=rec

 

[Krosya]

I think it would be an interesting lens for me.......if it was cheaper. At this price - I'd take a Hexanon 35 UC if I wanted it that compact. Same goes for a possible future Zeiss 85/2.8. Hexanon 90/2.8 is soooo good, it's hard to beat and it's not expensive. I'm sure Zeiss would be if they make one.
So, any way I look at this - Hexanons all the way - all can be found without all that much effort. But I'll reserve my final judgement till I see what this new Zeiss lens can do optically. Maybe it's as good as Zeiss 25/2.8. In that case ----who knows? I might just get one. 😉

 

[Avotius]

Yeah.............so the 2.8 threw me off, I went and bought a 35 summicron instead. Woops. It was cheaper then the slower zeiss too and it has a focus tab! Hallelujah!

 

[Turtle]

As many have said, there is a good chance that the lens is great wide open and just like an f2 stopped down one stop. This is the same as with enlarger lenses; fast ones need stoppinng down more than slow ones, which perform very well wide open. Lets hope they dont get greedy on the price! I suspect they will charge too much and will lose out to the excellent CV pancake 2.

 

[Frankie]

Photogrammetric Measurement

Photogrammetric Measurement

Beware Zeiss's weird lens length measurements. They don't measure from the bayonet flange to the front of the lens. They measure from the rear element to the front of the lens. If you look at the Cosina website, they call the Zeiss 35/2 a 43.3mm long lens. According to the Zeiss stats, that lens is 56mm long! So, the new 35/2.8 is probably more like 42mm long. That is a small lens.

The length of the lens (from flange to front) is about 70% of the known 43mm filter size, or about 30mm. Basic photogrammetry.

This lens is very compact.

 

[Frankie]

I'm with you Wayne. Not small at all. A number of faster 35s are way smaller,
including the CV 35/2.5, 40/2 Summicron and Rokkor, Summicron 35/2, etc. Even the J-12 ....

Just look at it and think of the 43mm filter size.

Roland.

The Zeiss web site picture of the 2.8/35 shows the length of the lens (from flange to front) is about 70% of the specified 43mm filter size, or about 30mm...basic photogrammetry.

This lens is very compact.

 

[Avotius]

These days using my new Leica 35 summicron I am glad I didnt go for the Zeiss. My cron is a stop faster, but also with a lens this small....no focus tab means that it could be a little fiddly. Something to keep in mind for potential buyers, ergonomics is important to me and my shooting style, maybe it is to you as well.

 

[italy74]

Ciao Avotius... which tabs are you referring to, exactly? I see the distance scale there..

 

[Avotius]

I mean a tab like Leica uses, one of those twin pronged things that lets you focus with one finger. Its handy, and though this lens obviously will be fine without it, tabs are a asset for mini lenses.

 

[ferider]

The Zeiss web site picture of the 2.8/35 shows the length of the lens (from flange to front) is about 70% of the specified 43mm filter size, or about 30mm...basic photogrammetry.

This lens is very compact.

It's all relative I guess. Both Color Skopar and Summicron 35/2 are smaller and faster.