Pick a Biogon.. any Biogon (for my M8)

[Stephen G]

Have an M8 and looking for something in the 25-35 range.
More and more starting to look like a ZM Biogon of some type (4 options in this range) would fit the bill.

I currently have CV @ 15/4.5 & 50/1.5.. so I have the ultrawide, as well as fast-portrait/normal covered.

Originally leaning towards the 28/2.8..
However 35/2.8 is tempting size.
And 25/2.8 seems to be get more rave reviews from users than the 28/2.8

What are the relative merits of these 4 options, other than the obvious price/size/speed/focal length differences?

Are any more suited for digital in general, and M8 in particular?

 

[ChrisC]

Have an M8 and looking for something in the 25-35 range......Originally leaning towards the 28/2.8......However 35/2.8 is tempting size........

Stephen - You will no doubt have trawled different threads here and elsewhere, and it's true that some lenses are consistently favoured more than others for their qualities, but some focal lengths are more sympathetically matched to the M8 in terms of framing one's image.

I started with the 24mm on the M8 and was driven nuts by the twinned 35mm frameline because of it's size and relative closeness to the 24mm framelines. When using the 24mm lens, that horrible '35mm rectangle' imposed itself on my picture making and negatively effected my experience of making photographs with an otherwise superlative optic. The 28mm frameline's twinning is far more user friendly and enjoyable to use, so I consider the 28mm focal length more naturally suited to wide angle use on the M8.

However, lucky me, I have a Megapearls [Japan Exposures?] 1.15 variable dioptre magnifier on my M8 and use it with a 35mm C-Biogon. The magnifier magnifies the 35mm framelines of course, but as importantly 'shifts' the 24mm framelines mostly out of sight when I'm framing images. I'd say that 35mm lens and a 1.15 magnifier is a superb user experience with the M8.

Don't buy the 35mm f2.8 C-Biogon for it's size, but do buy it because it is a phenomenal lens. For the work I do [mostly free of bokeh perversions] I don't think I can buy a better 35mm lens at any price for the M8/M9 platform [there are many things to consider what makes a good lens other than on-centre definition at normal review/camera/subject shooting distance]. After lugging heavy viewfinder camera equipment around for far too many years; f2.8 seems incredibly fast for a lens anyway.

Hope this helps, as will subscribing to Sean Reid's Reid Reviews and reading his numerous 'M' platform reviews such as '35mm lenses on M9'.

Good luck.

............. Chris

 

[mfogiel]

The 28mm Biogon is the weakest of them all, because of curvature of field, and an occasional tendency to flare. The 25mm is without a fault, but it is quite big, the 35/2 is fantastic, at f2.0 sharp enough for most purposes, but also not so compact.

 

[MCTuomey]

i've used all of them on my M8. all provide excellent IQ so the decision should be made, imho, on your preferred FL. on a M8, the 25 gives you 33, the 28 gives you 37, the 35 gives you 46. since the lenses you own give you effective FLs of 20mm and 67mm. do you want something closer to a full frame 50mm? if so, get the 35. if you want something closer to a full frame 35mm, get the 28mm. and if you want something closer to a full frame 28mm, get the 25mm. in my experience with the M8, the zm 25 feels in use closer to a full frame 28mm than its effective FL would indicate.

as suggested above, if physical size is a consideration, the 28 and the c-biogon 35 are the most compact. but if you're comfortable with the CV 50/1.5 any of the ZMs you're looking at will feel smaller in comparison.

i agree with Chris' point about the 28mm framelines. Much more friendly to use than the 24/35 FL set. That might be sufficient reason to prefer the 28mm over the 25mm. The 28mm on an M8 is a sweet spot, no doubt.

 

[Stephen G]

Thanks-
I had previously read Reid Reviews, Steve Huff, as well as trawling the forums..

It seems people are head over heels for the 35/2.8 (and I can see why, based on the output in the other thread in this forum).

The 28/2.8 doesn't seem to have the same following.

My impression is Sean Reid had a lot more praise for the 35/2.0 than the 28/2.8, compared to the competition in their focal length. Some have said the 35/2.8 gives essentially the same performance as the 35/2.0 but in a slower, smaller package.


Personally..
I wear glasses and can barely see the 28 framelines.. let alone the 24 😎
While I own the 50/1.5, I would potentially like something a bit smaller/lighter as a better walk around lens.

 

[MCTuomey]

Stephen, I'm a big proponent of not letting internet expertise get in the way of personal experience. Sean Reid, Steve Huff, etc all have interesting things to say, but they aren't you.

All the ZMs are much more alike than different, except maybe for the c-sonnar 50 at wide apertures. Hard to imagine any will disappoint unless you put weight in internet hair-splitting.

If the framelines for the 35 and 50 FLs are nice and comfortable for you, then it would seem you have your answer: a 35. The 35/2 and 35/2.8 share similar widths, but the c-biogon is quite a bit shorter.

Which one? Both are delightful. I've just sold my 35/2 and will stick with 35/2.8. I like its bokeh a bit more, which to me is sonnar-like. I'll probably miss the speed but, like you, have a fast 50.

 

[mathomas]

I've been astounded at the quality of my ZM 25mm Biogon. I also have a 35 Biogon and a 50 Planar and Sonnar. Of all these the 25 is the most impressive (well, the Sonnar is impressive but for very different reasons).

But, as said above, you need to pick the FL that will work for you.

 

[Avotius]

I am one of those few who likes my 28 biogon. It really is not the greatest lens in the world, it has flaws and there are so many other 28 options from others that I think it gets easily overlooked.

Size wise it is about the same as the 35 2.8 so in other words pretty compact.

In the time I have had the lens it has only flared ONCE shooting with the sun just inside the frame and no hood.

I have the Zeiss 21 2.8, 28, and 50 f2 and I would say the between them there is little to not like, the 50 is for sure the sharpest and most perfect of the 3. I just picked up and M8 recently and am really looking forward to using the 28 on it, which is actually why I got the 28 in the first place.

 

[jarski]

one more vote for 28 Biogon on M8. dont have any other ZM, so my comment can be put to this perspective 🙂

 

[f16sunshine]

I've had the 25, f2/35 and now, f2.8/35 from the zm line. The f2.8/35 performs as it's larger and faster brother. Seems maybe even to be sharper at wo than the f2 is at f2.8. I loved the 25 but had mechanical issues with 2 separate copies and just gave up on it. I feel like I am done now at 35mm. The f2.8/35 is perfect IMHO for a daily lens. Maybe I'll give the uberfast cvf1.2 a trial but otherwise this is it. All The zm lenses hold well their value. Start with the one you are most interested in you can always re-coup your dough.

 

[Alberti]

I like my 2.8/28 very much, using it more and more. The published specs are not "excellent" but the output of photography is the real yardstick. Only at short focus and wide open there is some wirey bokeh in the back, but I have accustomed to stop down then 1 stop. It is also interesting for me that some of my best wide shots are with a VC25mm @ F5.6. So the real experience is all important.
albert

 

[jsrockit]

I've been using the 28mm biogon as well...and feel that it is a very good lens. However, the only other 28mm M lenses I've used have been Voigtlander.

 

[ampguy]

...

...

these lens are all crap
get yourself a hexanon
you will be happy

I've been using the 28mm biogon as well...and feel that it is a very good lens. However, the only other 28mm M lenses I've used have been Voigtlander.

 

[crist]

so , maybe you can check the g biogon 28mm converted to m for japanexposures

 

[jsrockit]

these lens are all crap
get yourself a hexanon
you will be happy

Jeez, wow, zeiss lenses are crap?