Pics From My Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm Biogon

[wjlapier]

A few snapshots from the Zeiss Jena 35. First I will say the lens is much lighter in weight than the 21! I like the heft of the 21, but the 35 feels great on my S2 and setting the f-stop is a breeze. I shot these today downtown Walla Walla, WA. Nothing special--just something for me ( and others ) to see how the lens does. Most shots are f/8 1/500th or some variation.

Anyway, I find the lens to be sharp. I did try a few f/2.8 shots but missed focus--wasn't paying attention to my distance to the subject. Oh, I was using Fuji Superia Reala ISO 100 film and using the VC II meter.

Bill

 

[payasam]

Excellent definition, no visible vignetting. A monitor screen is not the best way to judge, of course.

 

[Tom A]

I just shoot some stuff with my Biogon 35f2.8. I was trying it out against the new Zeiss C Biogon 35f2.8. Using a Nikon S2 - no visible focus shift (but for once the sun was shining so it was a sheer pleasure to stop down and fire away.
I find it a very good black/white lens - medium contrast, smooth mid tones and detailed blacks. So, it might flare in the highlights a bit, but so what!
I also think that from a point of construction - nobody will ever make a lens like the old Zeiss Biogon's!!!! Overkill maybe, but after 60+ years it still is smooth as butter!
Nice seing color done with it. Thanks.

 

[David Murphy]

Remarkable quality by any standard. Was this the pre or post war version?

 

[wlewisiii]

I have a nice Jupiter 12, but I've been slowly converting my Contax lenses to pre-war CZJ and that's one I've yet to get. This is good incentive towards getting it. Alas with my budget it'll probably be awhile ... 😉

Very nice work with it - thank you for sharing!

William

 

[wjlapier]

The lens is the post war one I was asking about in another thread.

I attached a pic of the 21 and 35 side by side.

Bill

 

[Tom A]

This is with a prewar 35mm f2.8 Biogon.

 

[David Murphy]

Tom, that's a fine shot with the pre-war Biogon. The other sample photos I've seen of pre-war Biogons also have remarkable contrast and sharpness compared to most other (if not all) prewar 35mm camera lenses.

For those who've never seen one (at the risk of helping to drive their eBay prices higher), the Biogon has a build quality second to none in my view. The only lenses that come close in regards to fit-and-finish are some of the Nikon rangefinder lenses from the 50's. The Jupiter-12 (a good and very useful lens) is not even in the same league quality wise. If you appreciate fine metal work, precision machining and optics, you'll find it a joy to handle and use one.

 

[Tom A]

David, I agree wholeheartedly with you. My only beef with the Zeiss Biogon's of that era is the aperture controls! On the 35f2.8 it is not too bad, but on the Biogon 21f4.5 the numbers are miniscule and on a chrome ring! Try to see that in bright light. The Tessar 28f8 is another great lens - uncoupled, but I usually put it on my SW Zeiss ZM with an adapter, stop it down 1 or two stop and go hyperfocal with it!
The Zeiss optical designs in many way were far more sophisticated (and more expensive) than the Leica designs of the same era. Better contrast, higher resolution and vastly better build quality. But, they were designed by optical engineers, not by photographers so Leica tended to have better ergonomics.
The modern ZM line (and ZF for Nikon) is following in the steps with extremely good optical designs and better handling.
The ZM 21mm 4.5 C Biogon is the best 21 I have ever used (and I must admit to having used every 21 that can be stuck on a M camera in the last 40+ years). The Biogon 35f2 ZM, though big, is a Summicron 35 "killer" and the new 35mm f2.8 C Biogon has become my favourite "fair" weather lens.
All we can wish for now is the SC mount version of the new 21f4,5 - however I will not hold my breath.

 

[raid]

I have been fortunate to have a Biogon on loan from a RF member here. He mailed it to me and asked me to use the lens for several months. The construction of the old version Biogon is second to none.

 

[wjlapier]

David, I agree wholeheartedly with you. My only beef with the Zeiss Biogon's of that era is the aperture controls! On the 35f2.8 it is not too bad, but on the Biogon 21f4.5 the numbers are miniscule and on a chrome ring! Try to see that in bright light. The Tessar 28f8 is another great lens - uncoupled, but I usually put it on my SW Zeiss ZM with an adapter, stop it down 1 or two stop and go hyperfocal with it!
The Zeiss optical designs in many way were far more sophisticated (and more expensive) than the Leica designs of the same era. Better contrast, higher resolution and vastly better build quality. But, they were designed by optical engineers, not by photographers so Leica tended to have better ergonomics.
The modern ZM line (and ZF for Nikon) is following in the steps with extremely good optical designs and better handling.
The ZM 21mm 4.5 C Biogon is the best 21 I have ever used (and I must admit to having used every 21 that can be stuck on a M camera in the last 40+ years). The Biogon 35f2 ZM, though big, is a Summicron 35 "killer" and the new 35mm f2.8 C Biogon has become my favourite "fair" weather lens.
All we can wish for now is the SC mount version of the new 21f4,5 - however I will not hold my breath.

So, Tom, how is the construction of the newer 21 4.5 ZM compared to the 50's version? Weight-wise--how do they compare? And finally, how about the usual sharpness and contrast?

I'm considering the ZI and maybe a couple of the ZM lens, in particular the 21 4.5 and maybe the 35, but I would have to put my S2 kit up for sale to make the purchase--something I'll probably regret. But it comes down to the 21 4.5 ZM and how it performs against the 50's version that will help me make that choice🙁

Bill

 

[Tom A]

Bill, the original 21f4.5 Biogon was the best 21 you could find in the 50's and 60's. The Super Angulon 21f3.4 came close - but the Biogon was still the champ. Many a photographer would carry M kits for most everything, but an old Contax II/III with a 21 Biogon
The new C Biogon is better, better flare control, even less distorsion (something to the order of 0,010% versus the older version's 0,014%!!!!).
It is also better handling than the old one - and you can get a hood on it that works!.
The ZM is a great camera, the best viewfinder ever in a RF camera, good metering system and mine has not given me any problem over the last year and a half - two years I have had it. I dont particularly like the bottom rewind, but that is not enough to reject the camera by any means.
The combination 21/4.5 C Biogon and a 35 (either the 35f2 Biogon or the new 35f2.8 C Biogon will serve you well). I would also try to hold on to the S2 - there is something about old Nikon's that is addictive and you would regret it later. Just keep it with a 50 on it.
Start with the ZM and the 21 C Biogon and keep the S2 as your 50mm camera. Later you can decided if you want to add a 35 to the ZM kit or the S2 kit. Lenses like the older Biogon in Contax mount are still resonably priced (if we stop extolling their virtues here!) and though you will have two different mounts - your lens choice is also much bigger.
As an alternative - try a Bessa R4M or A, no finder needed as you have the 21 finder built in and considerably less than the Zeiss ZM.

 

[Orio]

Hello Tom,
I love the tones of your girl with dog picture. May I ask you what film/developer combination have you used for it? I am trying to learn how to develop my B&W. I know what I like, but I don't know how to get there, so when I see a picture that looks like what I want, I dare to ask 😱

 

[Tom A]

The Girl/Puppy shot was done with a Nikon S2 and Tri-X, rated at 400 asa or thereabouts. I do a lot of "sunny f16" shooting (guessing exposures - sometimes you get it right - sometimes not!).
The developer is Sandy King's formulation of Pyrocat HD. This is a pyrocatchol based developer, gives slightly extended sharpness (or appearance of it as it enhances the edges slightly). It is not a pre-packaged developer. I make it up from scratch - cheap and consistent (per roll cost is in the neigborhood of $0.08/roll!
Today, if you are going to be shooting black/white in any volume - you are better off "making your own" as pre-packaged developers are getting difficult to find. I tend to use two part developers as their storage life is much better than the "ready mix" ones.
One of my "professions" back in the dark ages was as a clinical chemist and that tought me some basics about chemsitry. like "dont lick your fingers while mixing" and don't mix Ferrocyanide and acid stop bath!
The bible for this kind of thing is Steve Anchell's "The Film Developing Cook Book" and the "Darkroom Cookbook I/II".
I tend to have periods were I experiment with different developers and film. At the moment it is Kodak XX/Eastman 5222 (a 250asa bl/w movie stock from Kodak's Cine divison). There is a small, slightly warped group of us here on RFf who are playing around with it. See "Shooting with Kodaks Double X/Eastman 5222" for more information.
Also go to Flickr.com and look at the various bl/w sites. HUGE amount of information. If you go to our Flickr site (see below) there is a set called "Film and developers" that has the result of some of my experiments.

 

[Orio]

Thanks much for the very informative reply and for sharing your knowledge!