Should I go for C Biogon 35/2.8

[maajka]

I'm in europe right now and have only M6 and a Jupiter 8. It's a nice lens, but just not sharp enough for me. I could go today to leicashop to get the C Biogon for 660€ but I'm thinking that 2.8 might not be fast enough, although I mostly use 400 film. New 2.0 Biogon is more I can afford at the moment.
Should I get the C Biogon or wait 'till I'm in the US and get a 2.0, what do you guys think? Anybody thinking about trading 2.0 for 2.8 (in case I get the C and change my mind)?

 

[ZeissFan]

It's just one stop, and in return the f/2.8 lens is less weight and is more compact. But if you shoot wide open all of the time, then the faster lens might be a better choice for you.

I'd try both lenses on the camera and see which you think will be better for how you shoot.

 

[Tom A]

The C Biogon 35f2.8 is a good lens. Compact and sharp - even at f2.8. I have both the f2 Biogon and the f2.8 and find myself using the f2.8 more. It has a slightly different contrast compared to the f2. More "snap" in the mid-tones.
With 400 film you should do fine with a 2.8. In really low light it is limiting - but I find that with a 35 and a M6 you can handhold it at 1/15 (if you limit your espresso intake beforehand). Better to get a good lens now while you are in Europe than coming back and swearing when you go through the pictures!!!!

 

[back alley]

feel free to look at some of my flickr photos in the 35/2.8 set.

it's one of my favourite lenses.

 

[maajka]

OK, you got me 🙂 I'll go tomorrow to check it out. Thanks for your posts. By the way, anybody knows why there is such a small difference in price of 2.8 and 2.0 in the US? Here, the 2.8 Biogon C is the cheapest ZM lens.

 

[Turtle]

the 50 planar is cheaper still and it does everything the summicron does.

 

[Turtle]

Get the 2.8 and tell us all about it! There are not enough comments/reviews of the 2.8 and I am interested.

 

[nzeeman]

have you considered planar? it is 50mm and f2 as j8 (so you will not have to adapt during the trip on other focal length) and it is sharpest lens in offer today...

 

[Tom A]

Get the 2.8 and tell us all about it! There are not enough comments/reviews of the 2.8 and I am interested.

Just checked - here are close to 500 images done with the Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8 on Flickr at the moment.

 

[ferider]

Keep in mind that there are 35/2.8 Summaron and 35/2.5 Color Skopar as well. All three great lenses. The Color Skopar is amazing in size and half stop faster.

 

[ferider]

Well, he mentioned M6 and limited budget .... For example, for the price of a new 2.8 Biogon, the OP might consider both a used Color Skopar and 50/2 Planar ....

I mentioned Summaron and Color Skopar only, because they are optically close, IMO.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[David_Manning]

Reverting back to film, I like the extra stop the f2 affords. I bought the Biogon 35/2 and like it a lot. And it's not really that big at all, which I was concerned about at first. It ended up being a non-issue for me. At B&H here in the states, the 2.8 and 2.0 are almost the same price.

Zeiss T* 35/2, wide open...

 

[Tom A]

The Color Skopar 35f2.5 II is a good alternative to the C Biogon 35f2.8 - but to me it sounds like the OP is set on a Zeiss lens.
The Summaron 35f2.8 is great - but they are all getting to be close to 50 years old and finding a clean one is not cheap. In many ways a better lens that the Version I Summicron 35 anyway.

 

[maajka]

Thanks everybody for your responses, it's been a great help.
I decided to go with the f2.0 Biogon, I take a lot of pictures wide open and take the camera to bars where the light is not so good. If I already had the planar, I would probably get the C Biogon. But with the jupiter, I think this is a better choice.
And yes, I pretty much decided to go with Zeiss. Nothing against other makers though.

 

[rover]

That bacon looks awesome.

Half way around the planet, but not that different than what I have memories of.

I love the J8, I have to take mine out for some work.

 

[Turtle]

Just checked - here are close to 500 images done with the Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8 on Flickr at the moment.

The prob with Flikr is you cant tell what people have done with the images and unless you have side by side shots with a known reference lens, its all pretty meaningless. I find comments from people who have owned and extensively used various lenses much more useful. Few it seems have shot with the F2 and 2.8 biogons for extended periods and have written up their thoughts comparing the two.

I agree with the CV 35 2.5 pancake - a tiny cracker of a lens.