What about Zeiss ZM 2/35?

[the_jim]

Here is a pretty good review.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/03/28/1240.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/03/28/1240.html%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

I say that it is good, because the translation is difficult to understand, so I just skip opinion and study the sample images.

Some interweb reviews are geared towards Leica users who want to hear that their lenses are made of German fairy magic.

Germany makes great products. Japan makes great products. So does Thailand, the UK, US, and so on.

A few people on this board (like every other BB I have ever been a part of), speak in hearsay and conjecture and offer little proof.

Bottom line is: use your eyes and only believe half of what you hear (sometimes less).

Sorry if this got a little off topic.

 

[x-ray]

There's not an extreme difference in the Biogon and the asph but it is there. Both are great and I shoot with both but favor the tonality of the Biogon. In my view the Biogon is just has a slightly smoother tonality and much better in flare resistance. I'm actually a little disappointed in the asph in terms of flare. The asph I have is the retro version with the round hood. With the round hood flare was killing me under tough lighting. I purchased the standars rectangular hood and have had no big problems since. As to the Biogon I have shot with the sun hitting the front element and have been unable to get any appreciable degree of flare. Under real world shooting I don't think many of us will know much difference in the two lenses. Lenses including CV are so darn good now there isn't really that much difference. If you're not getting the results from any of the modern glass you can generally gigure it's you and not the lens. As to the contrast of the Biogon I agree it's a clean looking image with great contrast. I only shoot B&W and have no problems at all. My standard film / developer combo and times are the same with all my lenses. I see no reason to adjust for any particular lens.

 

[sgy1962]

There's not an extreme difference in the Biogon and the asph but it is there. Both are great and I shoot with both but favor the tonality of the Biogon. In my view the Biogon is just has a slightly smoother tonality and much better in flare resistance. I'm actually a little disappointed in the asph in terms of flare. The asph I have is the retro version with the round hood. With the round hood flare was killing me under tough lighting. I purchased the standars rectangular hood and have had no big problems since. As to the Biogon I have shot with the sun hitting the front element and have been unable to get any appreciable degree of flare. Under real world shooting I don't think many of us will know much difference in the two lenses. Lenses including CV are so darn good now there isn't really that much difference. If you're not getting the results from any of the modern glass you can generally gigure it's you and not the lens. As to the contrast of the Biogon I agree it's a clean looking image with great contrast. I only shoot B&W and have no problems at all. My standard film / developer combo and times are the same with all my lenses. I see no reason to adjust for any particular lens.

Now I have heard that before about the Biogon having smoother tonality and great for B&W, and the Leica lenses being a little more crisp. I must admit I've always enjoyed the B&W images taken by this Zeiss lens.

 

[JJW]

Can't go wrong with the 35mm Zeiss Biogon

Can't go wrong with the 35mm Zeiss Biogon

It's an excellent piece of glass!