Thoughts on Zeiss Biogon 35mm

Maxapple88 · Mar 1, 2008

Hi,

I'm gaining more and more interest in a wide angle and am coming back to the Biogon more and more. Can anyone tell me why it doesn't show up more on eBay and what price range I'd be expecting, new or used?

While we're at it, similarly priced, good alternatives? The new 35mm Nokton looks interesting but I'm looking for a substantial 35mm lens that will last. I'm not looking to collect or swap around. I want substantial glass that I can stick to.

__hh · Mar 1, 2008

I recently bought a store demo for $650 and am very happy with it. You can pick one up brand new for about $799 from digifan(?).

rich815 · Mar 1, 2008

They are not often on eBay but come up here from time to time. Got mine in MINT condition from a fellow member here for $695 USD.

They go fast so stay ready to pounce.

Aswesome lens.

kshapero · Mar 1, 2008

Leica, Cv, Zeiss, all great lenses here. More price more longevity, I guess. Lots of threads here preising the ZM 35mm. Look around.

back alley · Mar 1, 2008

i would highly recommend the zm 35 if you only want one 35mm lens.
it's comfortable to handle, is sharp and usually fast enough for most situations.
i have rarely seen it criticized and most think it excellent.
joe

mfogiel · Mar 1, 2008

Maxapple88

The Biogon 35 is a dream lens, and it will last long enough. The Nokton 35/1.2 is obviously faster, and sharper at f2.0, but at the expense of bulk and weight. Other than being somewhat prone to brassing, the Nokton is actually even more "substantial" than the Biogon.

Avotius · Mar 1, 2008

The 35 biogon is a great lens, it has a nice characteristic that the zeiss lenses are all known for. I personally preferred the leica 35 asph cron because I think its easier to work with but that aside and of the current 35's from leica, zeiss and voigltander will all do you well. The new nokton seems quite interesting but I didnt care for the 40mm version and the 35mm one seems to share a lot of the same image qualities. Just be aware that the 35 biogon will intrude more into your frame lines if you stick the massive hood on it.

BNF · Mar 2, 2008

I am in the exact same position, Max.

I tried to get a 35mm thread going here a few days ago: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55292

I see the Biogon new at $835 in the online US places I shop.

Monz · Mar 2, 2008

Nachkebia · Mar 2, 2008

I am still insisting that biogon 35 is the least impressive of whole zeiss line-up 🙂

Turtle · Mar 2, 2008

Nachkebia said:
I am still insisting that biogon 35 is the least impressive of whole zeiss line-up 🙂

It says a lot about the other lenses then! The 35 IMO is superb, but perhaps not as stellar as the 50 planar and the 25 I do not own. Still, I love the smooth rendering and wonderful OOF, even if the 35 asph is sharper on centre wide open.

My opinion would be to buy the ZM35 new. There does not seem to be enough of a saving to warrant the loss of a warranty and 'latest mods and tweaks' incorporated status you get with new. Some of the oldest ones had barrel play issues etc. I would go new and go to Mr Tony Rose of Popflash.

Rgds

hofrench@mac.co · Mar 2, 2008

It's a fantastic lens. That's all I can tell you, having extensively tried Leica, CV and Konica alternatives before buying. No regrets since, either.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/2302167554/

mfunnell · Mar 2, 2008

I looked at the Zeiss 35 biogon, and I'm still looking. As it happens, at around the same time as I first looked, I had the opportunity to pick up an M-Hexanon 35/2 which is an excellent lens and has a "Konica look" rather than a "Zeiss look" (Konica produces warmer and more neutral colours, to my way of seeing). But if the Konica wasn't there, I would have bought the Zeiss. I've since picked up a Konica UC-Hexanon 35/2, which is a very different lens again. I like the differences between that and the M-Hex.

But if you like the Zeiss look (which I do, sometimes) the Biogon is a great-looking lens. I keep thinking about it (especially when I get good results from my G2 kit with 45mm Planar, which is often). But I'm trying to be GAS-resistant just now.

I suspect, though, that all modern 35s are good - the rest is down to taste.

Go with the one that produces the "look" you like best.

...Mike

kipkeston · Mar 2, 2008

we're just missing X-Ray's testimony 😛

I have the 35 zm. I'm very happy with it, especially in terms of flare. With anything related to making photos I try to pick something that I feel is a good choice and just learn how to make it work for me. That said, I'd probably be happy with an old v2 summicron or a new 1.4 nokton I suspect.

infrequent · Mar 2, 2008

@mfunnell - in what ways are the uc-hex and m-hex different?

wintoid · Mar 2, 2008

I've got a Biogon at the moment and am thinking about whether to keep it or not.

I seem to like 35mm lenses and have at times had Summicron IV, M-Hexanon, UC-Hexanon, 35mm f/1.2 Nokton and the Biogon. Out of those, I felt the best was the Nokton by a long way. It's a brilliant all purpose lens as well as a great low light speciality lens. It is rather big though, which is why I don't still have it. My preference is for the UC-Hexanon, which only has one issue.... it doesn't focus very close.

Nachkebia · Mar 2, 2008

Turtle said:
It says a lot about the other lenses then! The 35 IMO is superb, but perhaps not as stellar as the 50 planar and the 25 I do not own. Still, I love the smooth rendering and wonderful OOF, even if the 35 asph is sharper on centre wide open.

My opinion would be to buy the ZM35 new. There does not seem to be enough of a saving to warrant the loss of a warranty and 'latest mods and tweaks' incorporated status you get with new. Some of the oldest ones had barrel play issues etc. I would go new and go to Mr Tony Rose of Popflash.

Rgds

Thats exactly my problem with 35, it is very very smooth and I hate when lenses have very specific visual appeal which I wont be able to alter, open wide it could be smooth but even at f/5.6 it has very smooth texture, almost plasticy, I am sure canon users will love it, but for generic mm as 35mm is it should be at least slightly toned down, I wont go into a discussion about tones and textures, it is a whole new story, 35 biogon makes textures very shiny, specially on color slide, looks slightly over the top, as for black and white for me it lacks clarity and sharpness that gives black and white amazing texture!

mfunnell · Mar 2, 2008

infrequent said:
@mfunnell - in what ways are the uc-hex and m-hex different?

The M-Hex, in my view, has a rather "modern" view at all apertures and is "too corrected" in that regard, resulting in a rather harsh-looking view of OOF areas at wider apertures.

The UC-Hex isn't as sharp at f2, but has a wonderful OOF look that, IMO, lasts to almost f4, but not there or beyond. Around the f2.8+ mark up to around f5.6 I'm uncomfortable with the rendition (IMO - others might like it) so I tend to use the UC-Hex between f2 - f2.8 then not touch it again 'till f5.6+.

In contrast (as it were) I use the M-Hex 35 wide open only when I have to, and rather like it from around f4-f8+ which has an overlap with the UC-Hex, but also misses at the wide-aperture end.

But that's just me.

I like both lenses, but I also like their differences.

I suspect the Biogon 35 might be rather like the M-Hex 35 but with a bias towards cooler rather than warmer colour, which is something I like, sometimes (and especially with slower slide film).

But the last is just guesswork. I like both my Konica 35s (and like my Summaron 35/3.5 as well, for very different reasons).

...Mike

Nachkebia · Mar 2, 2008

mfunnell
No, actually I find 35 biogon to be warmest from all of the zeiss lineup unfortunately, perhaps 50 planar is warm as well 🙂 I love cold tones of zeiss in general 🙂

PaulDalex · Mar 2, 2008

Nachkebia,
your comments surprise me, even more because I know you are an expert.
Perhaps because I shoot f8 on color negative (I like best DOF and best sharpness together, whereas you guys here love wide open), but in my experience the Z. 35 is extremely sharp. To the point that it represent for me an alternative to MF.
The transfer function confirms that.
As to color it has for me the usual Zeiss signature: bold saturated colors. And I like it.
Yes it is warm. I have many Zeiss C/Y, ZF, an the 35 M. They are all warm.
The reason I always stayed clear of Canon, is that I find their signature a bit washed out.
Uhm, maybe I undervalue subjectiveness of this sort of assessments. Maybe my aging sight deceives me.
Cheers
Paul

Thoughts on Zeiss Biogon 35mm

Established

Well-known

rich815

Guest

South Florida Man

IMAGES

Veteran

Some guy

Established

Monz

Well-known

Veteran

Established

Shaken, so blurred

Well-known

Well-known

Back to film

Well-known

Shaken, so blurred

Well-known

Dilettante artist

Similar threads