What about Biogon 35mm F2.0?

Shab

Shab

Veteran
Local time
11:42 PM
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
2,167
This is the lens I have most used in my Zeiss Ikon and M9. It's a very consistent lens. Can you post photos that were made with this lens?

My first photo:


Zeiss Ikon + Biogon T* 2.0/35 + Kodak EKTAR.

Post more photos! ;)
 
Here's mine!

6062489422_3c86d82dfc_z.jpg
 
tom.w.bn said:
Some weeks ago I thought about exchanging the Biogon with the smaller C-Biogon because of the size. But I'm too content with the picture quality of the Biogon. Really love this lens.
Click to expand...

I've used both and it really comes down to your preference... do you value size over speed or speed over size? They are both just that good.
 
jsrockit said:
I've used both and it really comes down to your preference... do you value size over speed or speed over size? They are both just that good.
Click to expand...

Not to be argumentative, but I think that intended use matters, at least a little. Going to shoot relatively more wide open, close-up subjects expecting great bokeh? C-Biogon f/2.8. Going to shoot relatively more stopped down, mid to longer distance subjects? Biogon f/2.

Not that either lens doesn't do both well. They do. But they are different. Like the 28 Cron ASPH and 28 Elmarit ASPH are similar but different.
 
Tom, great photo! Handheld at this speed... wow! And great details in lights and shadows... I didn't think Tri-X would be so fine with the Rodinal... I will try it!
 
MCTuomey said:
Not to be argumentative, but I think that intended use matters, at least a little. Going to shoot relatively more wide open, close-up subjects expecting great bokeh? C-Biogon f/2.8. Going to shoot relatively more stopped down, mid to longer distance subjects? Biogon f/2.

Not that either lens doesn't do both well. They do. But they are different.
Click to expand...

See, I didn't find them that different to be honest. I thought the f/2 Biogon's bokeh was fine and they are both super sharp stopped down.
 
I can't contribute as I don't have this lens, despite hearing v v good things but Shab - I love that caravan shot as well as Tom's socks shot
 
jsrockit said:
See, I didn't find them that different to be honest. I thought the f/2 Biogon's bokeh was fine and they are both super sharp stopped down.
Click to expand...

It is. They are. I had both for awhile and kept the f2.

Hair-splitting, ok, but here's my thinking. The 35 f/2.8 is slightly sharper on center and slightly less sharp mid-frame than the 35 f2. The 35 f/2.8's very sharp center dissolves slightly by mid-frame, lux-like, at wider apertures. The 35 f2 is a monster by f4, zero distortion, superb flat field performance (very slightly sharper at mid-frame actually), great sparkle everywhere. It is likely one of the best 35's for land/cityscapes.

Great 35s, both. That said, my last couple rolls of Delta 100 were taken with the C-Biogon in Hart Plaza in Detroit ( a few at flickr - will post later). I could shoot 'scapes with that lens all day and be happy as a clam.

Back on topic: Nice pics on this thread!
 
090820-msne-600px.jpg

The headline could be translated to something like "we die only once". It an advertisment from a window of a well known theatre in berlin called "Schaubühne".
[Zeiss ZM, Biogon T* 35mm f/2, Kodak Professional TMAX 400]
 
4 exceptional shots there David and each demonstrating the flexibility of the 35mm FL.

Thanks for sharing those
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom