NEW Zeiss Biogon 35mm F/2.8 just announced

I think the main advantage of the lens will be it's more compact size and possibly marginally better performance at f/2.8 (only a guess without seeing more specs and MTF graphs) but by f/4 they should be very close. Whether or not this is worth the slight reduction in price compared to the 35/2 is up to the individual. I suspect for those that don't really use f/2 in their 35 mm focal length shooting and want compactness with the best possible performance, the new Biogon C will be more attractive.
 
Andrew Sowerby said:
The price, I assumed, would be significantly less than the f/2 Biogon. But, like others have said, for an extra $80 why not get the extra stop?
Click to expand...
The Japan list price is 17,000 yen (US$160) less for the C Biogon than for the current Biogon. Hard to know at this point how this will translate into street prices for people outside Japan, but one can always hope.

The MTF graphs are on the Cosina Zeiss site. Hard to compare to the f2 Biogon since the apertures are different, but it looks like they are two very different lenses. Can anyone compare and comment?
 
Last edited:
The MTF graphs look quite similar to those of the 25/2.8 Biogon. At full aperture this small lens is quite better than the 30/2.0.

I suspect that it will be a very good performer.
 
noimmunity said:
The Japan list price is 17,000 yen (US$160) less for the C Biogon than for the current Biogon. Hard to know at this point how this will translate into street prices for people outside Japan, but one can always hope.
Click to expand...

On the Popflash website the Biogon C is $817. The regular Biogon is $876.
 
The graphs clearly show that the f2 is a much better lens.
I posted many times about the outstanding results I get with the ZM 35/2 on my M5.
I lot of people here seems not to share my opinion (e.g. Nakebia).
I said many times that this combination looks to me competitive with MF.
If I had the choice now I would buy again the f2
Cheers
Paul
 
Imagine a Nikon Rf with the D3 sensor and the extreme ISO that sensor can achive. Full frame and 6400 ISO with very little noise. I am speculating here, but a Digital rangefinder with the much improved sensor technology of the D3 sensor would be a formidable camera.
Click to expand...

Speculate away, if that helps make such a camera a reality! :D
 
Thanks Hoera. the MTF data indicates better performance than the f/2 version, mostly on axis and at the far edge as one might expect given the less demanding smaller aperture in terms of optical aberrations. I base this on similar performance at f/2.8 for the C Biogon compared to the Biogon at f/4 and better performance at f/5.6 compared to the Biogon's f/4 where it's reported to be at or near it's peak. Interestingly, the optical design is similar to the CV 35/2.5 as was the CV 21/4 was optically similar to the C Biogon 21/4.5 but I found the performance of the 21/4.5 to well exceed that of it's 21/4 sibling.
 
awilder said:
Thanks Hoera. the MTF data indicates better performance than the f/2 version, mostly on axis and at the far edge
Click to expand...

I don't think the MTF data provided (thanks for the link, horosu) is that clear. One is forced to make comparisons between performance at different apertures. For example, it looks to me like the 35/2 at f/4 is equal to or better than the 35/2.8 at f/5.6. Considering the excellent (on paper...) performance of the 35/2 at f/4, it's not clear how much real-world difference there is between these lenses from f/2.8 onwards. In that case, the practical difference may lean more towards a tradeoff of an extra stop of speed vs. smaller size.
 
I agree with the above comment as the MTF differences as are rather small. In fact, the 35/2 Biogon on paper has slightly better illumination and less distortion although again, the differences are small.
 
The Zeiss 35mm/2.8 measured MTF and technical graphs are somewhat better than the Leica Summarit 35mm/2.5 (Leica's MTFs are not measured but predicted), except for illumination, which is also lower on the C-Biogon v. the Summarit. The C-Biogon has much less distortion than the Summarit.

If I had known about the C-Biogon, I probably would have opted for it instead of the Summarit. However, the Leica is a very nice little lens, a lot like an updated Summaron 35mm/2.8 (at least in appearance, I've not used a Summaron so optically they might be quite different).
 
the CV 21/4 was optically similar to the C Biogon 21/4.5 but I found the performance of the 21/4.5 to well exceed that of it's 21/4 sibling.
Click to expand...

Is the performance that great a difference between those 2 lenses?
 
I thought so. On a scale of 1-100, I'd rank the CV as an 85-90 and the ZM as 99. The CV for the money is tops but for outright imaging, nothing beats the ZM.
 
I thought so. On a scale of 1-100, I'd rank the CV as an 85-90 and the ZM as 99. The CV for the money is tops but for outright imaging, nothing beats the ZM.
Click to expand...

Thats quite interesting. I have found the Voigtlander 21mm one of their top tier lenses in that its alot closer to its Leica equivalent than some of the others. I found the performance of the Leica 21 ASPH quite ordinary at 2.8 but a huge leap at f4. As such the more compact Voigtlander (giving me a matching set of lenses with 39mm filter threads) proved more appealing. At f4 it was behind the Leica admittedly but one stop down and they were equal, usually it takes a couple of stops in to close the gap with Leicas best (in the Voigtlander range that is). Its a tough decision to give up the filter size conformity to get the greater performance of the Biogon-C. I was hoping the difference wasnt that great LOL
 
I found the CV 21 to peak from f/6.8-8 and stopping down a little more caused some loss of sharpness probably due to diffraction effect. The ZM 21/4.5 was near peak performance across the frame wide open and stopping down a stop was needed mainly to reduce light falloff but image softening from diffraction was more gentle than with the CV 21/4. Consequently, I felt more comfortable using the ZM at f/16-22 for maximum dof at 0.5 m.
 
Last edited:
Frankie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Cosina's web site lists the length of this lens as 29.5mm, see http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/co/c-b-35/index.html

My calculations was correct.

If Zeiss will soon offer a compact 85mm as well...and a full frame digital ZM. :D
 
i have not been able to find any shots from this lens (other than the one on the zeiss site) anywhere on the net!

hard to believe that no one has bought this lens yet!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom