Opinions about 35mm lenses

[Jamie Pillers]

I just ordered a 'new' ZM body and I think I have just enough $ left to buy a nice modern 35mm lens. I'm currently weighing the differences between the Biogon 35/2 and the CV 35/1.7 Ultron.

I like lenses that soften up a bit wide open (for portraits, still lifes, etc.) and then become beautifully sharp after f4 or so.. and stay that way all the way to f11 or so. And I'd like a lens that's not overly "warm" or overly "cold" (re: color rendition).

Anyone out there have opinions about the above two lenses, or some other lens that I should be looking at? I think I'll have about $700 to spend on this GAS attack.

 

[ferider]

Congrats on the camera, Jamie 🙂

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Hi Roland,
Well... I'm a bit nervous about the purchase. I'm selling all my CV kits in order to buy it. Got my fingers crossed... hoping that the viewfinder will better suit my eye.

Getting back to the lens.... I'm looking for a 35mm lens that will give me something different from the Canon 35/1.8. What do you think? Do you have any experience with the Zeiss lens or the Ultron?

And, by the way, I said in my original post that I'd like "beautiful sharpness" in the f4 to f11 range. By that I think I mean that the contrast is not super high... more painterly.

 

[Avotius]

Go for the zeiss lens and don't look back because it is exactly what you are looking for. Good wide open but getting better a little stopped down to where it becomes really great.

 

[ferider]

Go for the Biogon, Jamie. The Ultron is a great lens for sure, but the 0.9m min focus has always bugged me. Makes it difficult to use for portraits. Together with the Canon you will have old and new. And can control the rest with film choice.

Best,

Roland.

 

[funkaoshi]

I have the Ultron. I got it last month, haven't shot too many rolls of film with it yet. It's a nice enough lens, though the close focus is 0.9m. That might be a problem. It is a bit muted with the way it renders a scene. I like it more than the Skopar it is replacing, which was very high contrast at times. Here is a shot a bit wide open. And this is a random shot stopped down. (You can see all my photos by looking at the link in my signature.)

 

[funkaoshi]

I would add that I've heard nothing but great things about the Biogen, but it's probably twice as much as an Ultron.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Thanks everyone for the educated opinion. I have to say... "damn". I was hoping someone would say the much cheaper Ultron, or even the much, much cheaper Color Skopar are The Best. 🙂 As they say, you get what you pay for.

Thanks again. Now the search... used Biogon in excellent condition!

 

[rover]

If these are the two lenses you are condidering, then you can't make a bad choice. I am a very happy Ultron user, but I am tempted by the Biogon.

 

[funkaoshi]

The Ultron is a very nice lens. If you really need the Biogen, then i'd get it, but I suspect the Ultron would do you just fine. The Skopar is a steal for the price and the size. The only reason I bought the Ultron was because I found a copy used, it was much faster, and it's not quite as 'loud'.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Thanks, funkaoshi. Yes... I want to avoid "loud" in my lens choice. So I'll cross the Color Skopar off the list. I already have a 50 Color Skopar... so I can use that when I need "loud" 🙂.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

One more related question: What does the "C" mean on certain Zeiss lenses? It doesn't seem to designate a slower or faster lens category since there's a "C" 35/2.8 and a "C" 50/1.5.

 

[Bingley]

I've got both the 35 skopar and the 35 ultron and like them a lot. I don't think I'm a good enough photographer to take advantage of the biogon's qualities to justify the substantial additional cost. And when I look at the work others have produced w/ the ultron (e.g., Tuna), I think this lens is more than good enough for me.

One other thought, though, would be to look at 40 as well as 35: summicron C, rokkor, and CV would all fit w/in your budget, and could give you some other options. 40 is not that far from 35...

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Thanks Bingley. I'll take a look at Tuna's work. I'm with you on the idea of 'do I really need the Biogon quality' if I'm not skilled enough to take advantage of its capabilities.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Ah... of course! Unfortunately that doesn't mean the same thing the car industry means... i.e.: compact = cheap. 🙂

 

[back alley]

i also was going to suggest the 40 rokkor or leica lens, sounds like what you are looking for.
if speed is not a strong factor, my personal favourite is the zm 35/2.8.
it's a marvelous lens, nice and small without being fussy small.

 

[mfogiel]

This is Biogon 35/2 at f4.0 and on a not very sharp film:

The secret to make it appear really sharp, is to shoot at 1/1000 or better 1/2000th of a second, otherwise you will never see the potential resolution.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Other than the slower speed, do you have any sense of how it compares to the 35/2... image-wise?

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Or maybe I need to work on my hands' "image stabilization". 🙂

 

[back alley]

Other than the slower speed, do you have any sense of how it compares to the 35/2... image-wise?

i sold my zm 352 to get the 35/2.8.
the f2 is a great lens but the 2.8 has a touch more character i think. slightly less contrast and a bit different look to it.

i have images posted here somewhere but also on flickr if you care to look.

joe