Sonnar2
Well-known
I'm heavily interested in the new Zeiss 2/35 as addition to my Voigtländer 1.7/35 and old Canon 2/35... from MTF-figures as published by Zeiss, performance looks very promising...
Are there comparisons against the current leaders coming from Leica (Summicron ASPH) and C/V. This lens is offered in Germany for 899 EUR (silver). I'm aware it's bigger than other 35mm f/2...
I saw a test at http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/03/28/1240.html but bablefish/google leaves this with to much Japanese for me to read..
cheers, Frank
Are there comparisons against the current leaders coming from Leica (Summicron ASPH) and C/V. This lens is offered in Germany for 899 EUR (silver). I'm aware it's bigger than other 35mm f/2...
I saw a test at http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/03/28/1240.html but bablefish/google leaves this with to much Japanese for me to read..
cheers, Frank
Huck Finn
Well-known
Sonnar2 said:
Not as compact as a Summicron, but pretty similar size to your Ultron.
Sonnar2
Well-known
Yes, but I would exspect much better sharpness and contrast for the price, somewhere in the range of my best 50mm's...
Huck Finn
Well-known
Early reports on the 35 Biogon sound promising, but I doubt that you'll get a lot more for your money with any lenses other than Voigtlander from any other manufacturer, be it Zeiss, Leica, or whomever. IMO you'd have to want the characteristics of the lens to make it worth the extra money. The 35 Biogon seems to offer very even resolution across the entire field & almost no distortion. Sharpness & contrast? I think that they all do this well.
Sonnar2
Well-known
The 35mm Ultron isn't amgong the best C/V lenses. You don't see any more details like on the 25mm Snapshot Skopar pics (double image area). Color saturation and contrast is inferior to my 40 year old Canon 2/35 (at least at middle apertures). From a modern 35mm I would expect perfomance in the area of the best 2/50...
Huck Finn
Well-known
Interesting . . . I'm surprised because I have heard & read good things about the Ultron. A lot of people seem to like it. It sounds like the 35 Biogon will be an upgrade. Like you, I am looking forward to more definitive reports.
Sonnar2
Well-known
Maybe few people compared the Ultron 1.7/35 with the C/V 25mm, or 15mm (which IMHO is the sharpest of all). I bought it because tests suggests it's sharper (and faster) than the 2.5/35. For critical work like landscape and architecture (20x30 cm prints and larger) it's the wrong lens. I admit it's better than the old Canon wide open, but weights the same as the Canon *and* the snapshot skopar...
Huck Finn
Well-known
Anyone I've talked to about the Biogons raves about their flat field & minimal gemetric distortion. This new 35 Biogon corrects a weakness in the Contax G system, which was the lack of a Biogon in a 35 mm lens. It does sound like the ideal lens for your purposes - landscape & architecture - & I can see why you'd like to see some actual photos before you make your decision. I haven't seen any yet except for the ones you sited in your original post & the ones on the Zeiss Ikon website. I imagine that we'll start seeing them now that the lens is in circulation.
tom_f77
Tom Fenwick
Sonnar2 said:
Interesting indeed...
I've got the 35/1.7, the 35/2.5(P1), the 25 and the 15, but I generally only use tri-x and t400cn, and they all seem great to me. Maybe I will load a roll of Acros100 and see whether I can rank them for "sharpness"...
I know I've read that the Ultron has lower contrast than the 35/2.5 but higher resolution, which all complicates discussions of sharpness, but I've never tried to prove it myself; I just use the 2.5 when I want a small lens and the 1.7 when I don't.
Tom
mtokue
Well-known
Frank, the Japanese lens test that you mentioned in post#1 is a 8 35mm lens test on the RD-1
and to cut a long story short.
The testers final conclusion is that if he had to choose just one lens he would choose the CV
Ultron.
You have to bear in mind that he is making this statement with the RD-1 in mind so the fact that the Ultron has slightly lower contrast is a plus on the RD-1.
Cheers
Mike.
and to cut a long story short.
The testers final conclusion is that if he had to choose just one lens he would choose the CV
Ultron.
You have to bear in mind that he is making this statement with the RD-1 in mind so the fact that the Ultron has slightly lower contrast is a plus on the RD-1.
Cheers
Mike.
David Kieltyka
Clicking away feverishly
I've briefly used the new 35mm Biogon, belonging to a friend, on my R-D1. It's a great lens...plenty sharp, crisp contast wide open, very even performance from center to corners at all apertures. The new 50mm Planar, which I own, shares these characteristics. But for now I'm sticking with my 40mm Summicron-C. Its coverage is a better match for the R-D1's 35mm framelines and I'm more than happy with its imaging qualities. I really like its compact size & the way it handles too.
Unless you must have ultimate center sharpness (get a Leica 35mm ASPH) I don't think you can go wrong with the Biogon.
-Dave-
Unless you must have ultimate center sharpness (get a Leica 35mm ASPH) I don't think you can go wrong with the Biogon.
-Dave-
S
Sean Reid
Guest
The Biogon 35/2 is one of the lenses I've been testing for an upcoming review of fast lenses on the R-D1. I can't speak to it's performance on film but here are a couple summary excerpts from the current 19-page draft:
"Leica 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH – This lens, its 50mm brother, the Zeiss Biogon, and the Nokton 50/1.5 were my favorites in the test. The 35/1.4 is very fast, compact, lightweight, sharp and has an absolutely beautiful way of rendering both in-focus and OOF areas. It includes a vented hood that allows one to see most of the area within the R-D1’s 35mm frame lines. This is an all-around wonderful lens with a slight tendency to over-expose the highlights in contrasty light.
Zeiss 35/2.0 Biogon – This is a very impressive little lens. Wide open, it’s not as sharp on center as the Leica 35/1.4 is at F/2 or even at F/1.4 but it’s even sharper than the Leica in the outer zones. Micro-contrast is a little lower than that of the Leica 35/1.4. This is one of those lenses that made me pause and just stare for a moment when I first opened the files in Photoshop. Like the two Leica F/1.4 lenses, it has a beautiful way of rendering both in and out of focus areas. The Zeiss is about the same size and weight as the Leica 35/1.4 and, with a Voigtlander vented hood mounted, it blocks just a small amount of the 35mm frame line area on the R-D1. It is a great lens, although like the Leica 35/1.4 it does have a slight tendency to overexpose the highlights in contrasty light. I’m sure that many are curious as to how the 35 Biogon compares to the Leica 35/2.0 ASPH but unfortunately, I didn’t have one of the latter on hand to compare with. The Zeiss draws differently than the Leica 35/1.4 but is equally worthy of consideration for photographers who don’t need the extra aperture speed of the 35/1.4. The Zeiss is also less than half the price of the Leica. I’d love to see an F/1.4 35mm Biogon.
Canon 35/2.0 – This very compact and lightweight lens can’t match the more modern lenses in the outer zones at large apertures but its center sharpness is quite good. If a lower contrast lens with strong center sharpness appeals to you, the Canon 35/2 is worth considering, especially as a “sunny day” lens. By F/8 it’s fairly sharp across the frame. Its size and weight are strong assets and its design provides a certain amount of lens shading even without a hood. It does not block the R-D1’s 35mm frame lines at all."
I'm waiting for a new copy of the 35/1.7 to test before I draw any final conclusions about its quality but I'm fairly certain that the Zeiss will significantly outperform the Ultron in the outer zones at wider apertures. I'm not going to make any judgements about its on-center performance until I test the new copy.
The Biogon 35/2.0 is an excellent lens.
Cheers,
Sean
"Leica 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH – This lens, its 50mm brother, the Zeiss Biogon, and the Nokton 50/1.5 were my favorites in the test. The 35/1.4 is very fast, compact, lightweight, sharp and has an absolutely beautiful way of rendering both in-focus and OOF areas. It includes a vented hood that allows one to see most of the area within the R-D1’s 35mm frame lines. This is an all-around wonderful lens with a slight tendency to over-expose the highlights in contrasty light.
Zeiss 35/2.0 Biogon – This is a very impressive little lens. Wide open, it’s not as sharp on center as the Leica 35/1.4 is at F/2 or even at F/1.4 but it’s even sharper than the Leica in the outer zones. Micro-contrast is a little lower than that of the Leica 35/1.4. This is one of those lenses that made me pause and just stare for a moment when I first opened the files in Photoshop. Like the two Leica F/1.4 lenses, it has a beautiful way of rendering both in and out of focus areas. The Zeiss is about the same size and weight as the Leica 35/1.4 and, with a Voigtlander vented hood mounted, it blocks just a small amount of the 35mm frame line area on the R-D1. It is a great lens, although like the Leica 35/1.4 it does have a slight tendency to overexpose the highlights in contrasty light. I’m sure that many are curious as to how the 35 Biogon compares to the Leica 35/2.0 ASPH but unfortunately, I didn’t have one of the latter on hand to compare with. The Zeiss draws differently than the Leica 35/1.4 but is equally worthy of consideration for photographers who don’t need the extra aperture speed of the 35/1.4. The Zeiss is also less than half the price of the Leica. I’d love to see an F/1.4 35mm Biogon.
Canon 35/2.0 – This very compact and lightweight lens can’t match the more modern lenses in the outer zones at large apertures but its center sharpness is quite good. If a lower contrast lens with strong center sharpness appeals to you, the Canon 35/2 is worth considering, especially as a “sunny day” lens. By F/8 it’s fairly sharp across the frame. Its size and weight are strong assets and its design provides a certain amount of lens shading even without a hood. It does not block the R-D1’s 35mm frame lines at all."
I'm waiting for a new copy of the 35/1.7 to test before I draw any final conclusions about its quality but I'm fairly certain that the Zeiss will significantly outperform the Ultron in the outer zones at wider apertures. I'm not going to make any judgements about its on-center performance until I test the new copy.
The Biogon 35/2.0 is an excellent lens.
Cheers,
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
Paul T.
Veteran
Of course I'm awkward, and would like to see the Biogon up against the pre Asph 35/2... but this is still really helpful and useful food for thought. All the Zeiss lenses are intriguing.... one thing I wondered, Sean, was whether it's true, as has been reported, that the Zeiss lenses are optimised for use with a digital sensor. That, therefore, they vignette less then the competition. I believe you said both the Leica 35/1.4 and the Zeiss 35/2 showed no vignetting on the R-D1- did any of the others? IS there any theory to back up the fact the Zeiss lenses might show less vignetting?
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Most of the better 35mm (and longer) RF lenses don't show much vignetting on the R-D1 (as one can see in the last lens test) so I didn't even do vignetting tests this time around. It's really much more of an issue with the wider lenses. None of the lenses I tested this time around showed any significant vignetting in normal picture making. We won't know much about whether or not the Zeiss lenses vignette much less than the others until we try them on a FF digital rangefinder.
Cheers,
Sean
Cheers,
Sean
Sonnar2
Well-known
Hi Sean,
thanks very much for the detailed report. I second your appraisal of the Canon 2/35 as excellent "sunny day lens" in the words best meanings. I love it at f/5,6-8. Here it beats the Ultron for my feeling - or at least the Ultron brings no advantage for carrying its extra weight. Amazing: Canon 2/35 matches the 15 and 25mm C/V better than the C/V Ultron, not only in small size and weight, but in image definition, color saturation and contrast. Yes, very small details are slightly better visible with the Ultron, that's true. And maybe a B&W-photographer with his own lab can live with its lower contrast. I do mostly color negs and slides. I have some comparison shots at http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_RF_e.html#CANON_RF_2-35mm
Anyway the new Leica ASPH.'s 35mm may beat them all. This should be expected, if alone for the high price. The 1.4/35 ASPH. is out of my reach anyway. From the MTF-figures published the new Biogon should be level with the 2/35 Summicron ASPH for half it's price. But in reality, on film? That's the big question. Put aside money 2 months vs. half a year!
As for vignetting: the graphs published states that it is in between the pre-Asph. and the current Summicron (if comparing Zeiss with E.Puts figures). From these diagrams it can be exspected that the Biogon is nothing like a "low contrast/ high sharpness" lens (see the high 10lp/mm figure)... what also amazes me at these Leica diagrams is that is says the ASPH. Summicron is superior to the Pre-Asph. only wide open... (whoever needs it at that speed may pay the price ;-)
cheers, Frank
thanks very much for the detailed report. I second your appraisal of the Canon 2/35 as excellent "sunny day lens" in the words best meanings. I love it at f/5,6-8. Here it beats the Ultron for my feeling - or at least the Ultron brings no advantage for carrying its extra weight. Amazing: Canon 2/35 matches the 15 and 25mm C/V better than the C/V Ultron, not only in small size and weight, but in image definition, color saturation and contrast. Yes, very small details are slightly better visible with the Ultron, that's true. And maybe a B&W-photographer with his own lab can live with its lower contrast. I do mostly color negs and slides. I have some comparison shots at http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_RF_e.html#CANON_RF_2-35mm
Anyway the new Leica ASPH.'s 35mm may beat them all. This should be expected, if alone for the high price. The 1.4/35 ASPH. is out of my reach anyway. From the MTF-figures published the new Biogon should be level with the 2/35 Summicron ASPH for half it's price. But in reality, on film? That's the big question. Put aside money 2 months vs. half a year!
As for vignetting: the graphs published states that it is in between the pre-Asph. and the current Summicron (if comparing Zeiss with E.Puts figures). From these diagrams it can be exspected that the Biogon is nothing like a "low contrast/ high sharpness" lens (see the high 10lp/mm figure)... what also amazes me at these Leica diagrams is that is says the ASPH. Summicron is superior to the Pre-Asph. only wide open... (whoever needs it at that speed may pay the price ;-)
cheers, Frank