sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
on several occasions, i have found that some RFF members seem not to like the ZM biogon 2.0/35mm.
now asking out of pure curiosity: why?
what is it about this lens you do not like?
of course, if you actually like it, i'd be also happy so see reasons to like it.
and, maybe the term "like" is not appropriate - if so, feel free to use different concepts to describe your ideas (if you want to).
cheers,
& springtime greetings from partly sunny somewhere in europe.
sebastian
now asking out of pure curiosity: why?
what is it about this lens you do not like?
of course, if you actually like it, i'd be also happy so see reasons to like it.
and, maybe the term "like" is not appropriate - if so, feel free to use different concepts to describe your ideas (if you want to).
cheers,
& springtime greetings from partly sunny somewhere in europe.
sebastian
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I don't know about "dislike" so much, as these things tend to depend on a combination of taste and, to an extent, matching lens to subject matter. I don't own the Biogon 35/2. I was considering it and would probably have bought it, except I was lucky enough to pick up a hardish-to-find Konica M-Hexanon 35/2 instead.
My impression, when I was looking, was that the Biogon has a "modern" look, being near-equally sharp across the frame (rather than a sharp centre and soft edges) and with well-defined out-of-focus detail rather than "soft-smear" OOF rendering. It seems very sharp after about f2.8 and seems to be quite contrasty. To my view it produces deep blacks (perhaps with some loss of shadow detail) and also bright, saturated, colours.
I like its overall look and quibble only slightly over sharpness wide-open and those deep blacks. I'd use something different for some photos needing a "delicate" rather than "bold" overall look, but think it would be a fine general-purpose 35.
...Mike
My impression, when I was looking, was that the Biogon has a "modern" look, being near-equally sharp across the frame (rather than a sharp centre and soft edges) and with well-defined out-of-focus detail rather than "soft-smear" OOF rendering. It seems very sharp after about f2.8 and seems to be quite contrasty. To my view it produces deep blacks (perhaps with some loss of shadow detail) and also bright, saturated, colours.
I like its overall look and quibble only slightly over sharpness wide-open and those deep blacks. I'd use something different for some photos needing a "delicate" rather than "bold" overall look, but think it would be a fine general-purpose 35.
...Mike
willie_901
Veteran
The only thing I don't like about this lens is it feels about 15% too big and the lens cap is annoying.
Mechanically it is excellent. Of all the lenses I shoot (Nikkor SLR and RF) the negatives from the Biogon 35/2 require the least amount of post processing contrast/levels adjustment. It seems to be flare resistant. It could be my lack of experience with other lenses, but after using this lens for a year, I have no desire to try another 35mm lens.
willie
Mechanically it is excellent. Of all the lenses I shoot (Nikkor SLR and RF) the negatives from the Biogon 35/2 require the least amount of post processing contrast/levels adjustment. It seems to be flare resistant. It could be my lack of experience with other lenses, but after using this lens for a year, I have no desire to try another 35mm lens.
willie
back alley
IMAGES
i think it's a great all purpose lens for rf photography.
good contrast but not too contrasty, very sharp and a great feel to it in use.
good contrast but not too contrasty, very sharp and a great feel to it in use.
ronnie_retro
Established
I've had the ZM 35/2 for about two years now and am pleased as punch with it. I shoot slides,and particularly value its ability to accurately reproduce high color saturation and its razor sharpness where I shoot, usually between 2.8 and 5.6. 35mm slides seem to have a "medium format" look. What's not to like?
jjovin
Established
Just to comment on "(perhaps with some loss of shadow detail)" in Mike's reply above
since I read similar comments on other occasions. My film of choice these days is Delta 100 because I like sharp and contrasty images. I control shadow details by the amount of split-developing the negatives in a borax solution. Shadow details can also be controlled by the same process with other films.
So, because the biogon produces contrasty images some people may feel there could be more details in the shadow areas. Well, they seem to be there. They are just waiting to be extracted.
Regards,
Zoran
since I read similar comments on other occasions. My film of choice these days is Delta 100 because I like sharp and contrasty images. I control shadow details by the amount of split-developing the negatives in a borax solution. Shadow details can also be controlled by the same process with other films.
So, because the biogon produces contrasty images some people may feel there could be more details in the shadow areas. Well, they seem to be there. They are just waiting to be extracted.
Regards,
Zoran
Avotius
Some guy
I just got my hands on a copy of this lens from my friend to try out, with the hood on its massive on my bessa, the camera almost finally hangs right! haha...little bessa joke...ok ill stop now.
I got some prints back yesterday, I was not so happy with the wide open performance, the contrast is lower, nothing that you might not be able to fix in post processing but since I shoot wide open a lot it makes me wonder if the leica 35 cron asph might not be more up my alley. The rest of the shots at around 8-11 are pretty darn sharp so no worries there but I like a little more consistency...I duno....its because of Don's (xray's) comments that I didnt just jump all over the leica 35 cron asph....I wish I could get a hold of the leica lens to try out as well....its something of a miracle that I found one to test (and I have to give my first born away for borrowing this for a few hours).
I think in the end what I prefer more about the leica is the more punchier look to the images shot with xp2. While the zeiss is no slouch im just not 100% sure I would be willing to slap down the yuan for one yet...
I got some prints back yesterday, I was not so happy with the wide open performance, the contrast is lower, nothing that you might not be able to fix in post processing but since I shoot wide open a lot it makes me wonder if the leica 35 cron asph might not be more up my alley. The rest of the shots at around 8-11 are pretty darn sharp so no worries there but I like a little more consistency...I duno....its because of Don's (xray's) comments that I didnt just jump all over the leica 35 cron asph....I wish I could get a hold of the leica lens to try out as well....its something of a miracle that I found one to test (and I have to give my first born away for borrowing this for a few hours).
I think in the end what I prefer more about the leica is the more punchier look to the images shot with xp2. While the zeiss is no slouch im just not 100% sure I would be willing to slap down the yuan for one yet...
Last edited:
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
thanks to everyone for your thoughtful contributions.
hope i can make my own experience soon!
cheers
sebastian
hope i can make my own experience soon!
cheers
sebastian
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
I guess the point is that somebody like to use lenses wide open. I instead like to maximize MTF which should be around 5,6 -8. That said it seems to me a leap ahead in optical technology. I like it better thatn the Summicron 50, which I put in the outstanding category