The "looks" of the C-Biogon lenses

[Wiyum]

I've been considering the various options in the ZM lineup, and I'm curious about the C-series lenses. The "C" is said to refer to "compact," but I've also heard "classic." This certainly seems to be true with the 50mm C-Sonnar, a lens I feel I've come to understand reasonably well, and one that I know has a look very similar to the 50mm/1.5 Sonnars of old.

What about the C-Biogons? I know the 21mm/4.5 (and I presume the 35mm/2.8) resembles, in specification at least, older Zeiss designs. But do these lenses also have a distinct look and feel like the Sonnar does? Anyone care to elaborate on what that might be? Do they have a selling point beyond being smaller (but slower) than the 21mm/2.8 and 35mm/2.0?

 

[notturtle]

as far as I am aware there is nothing classic about the C biogons (21/35). hey are modern, very sharp, high contrast lenses. The 50 1.5 sonnar is a different beat altogether.

 

[Roger Hicks]

'C' is stated to stand impartially for 'Classic' and 'Compact'.

Yes, f/4.5 Biogons do have a distinct look, and the current lenses are very close to the classic 1950s design. I have a 36 on my Alpa and have used 3x 21 on my Leicas (one stolen, one sold on because I use a 21/2.8 much more, one on loan from Zeiss). They're gorgeous lenses, contrasty, almost zero distortion, and very, very sharp. But technical excellence isn't everything, or I wouldn't be using a C-Sonnar as my standard 50mm.

Cheers,

R.

 

[notturtle]

does the 21 4.5 biogon have a look distinct from the 21 2.8 or 25? I was under the impression that imaging is basically identical. The 35 2.8 seems reported as somewhat higher contrast than the f2 version which would put it in line with the 21 2.8 and 25, which I find a touch more contrasty than my 35 f2 and 28.

The 21 C biogon may use a classic design, but with modern coatings I would be amazed if it deviates much, if at all, from the look of the other ZMs (ignoring the 50 sonnar).

The 38 biogon which Roger is talking about is a different beast, albeit similar design as the 21 4.5, for 120.

 

[akiralx]

does the 21 4.5 biogon have a look distinct from the 21 2.8 or 25? I was under the impression that imaging is basically identical. The 35 2.8 seems reported as somewhat higher contrast than the f2 version which would put it in line with the 21 2.8 and 25, which I find a touch more contrasty than my 35 f2 and 28.

I have all 3 C Biogons, and I think the 21 does have a nostalgic look.

 

[sebastel]

I have all 3 C Biogons, and I think the 21 does have a nostalgic look.

may i ask what the third c biogon is? i know only of two, the 35mm and the 21mm.

cheers,
sebastian

 

[toyfel]

21/f4.5, 35/f2.8, 50/f1.5

 

[mfogiel]

I use the 21/4.5 and it really is a very modern lens with biting sharpness and flare resistance which is hard to match. You can get a more classic rendering, if you use it with a fast old school film like Tri X, but this means that you give up a lot of minuscule detail.

 

[lawrence]

21/f4.5, 35/f2.8, 50/f1.5

I think the 50/f1.5 is a Sonnar, unless it's traveling incognito...

 

[akiralx]

I think the 50/f1.5 is a Sonnar, unless it's traveling incognito...

Ah, but a C sonnar... 🙄

Apologies, I was rather imprecise in my earlier post.