What about Zeiss ZM 2/35?

xavi

Member
Local time
9:07 PM
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
47
I'm a owner of a M4, and i'm looking for a 35 mm. lens.
Is the Biogon 2/35, by Zeiss, a good option?. What about the "bouque"?.
Is it a good choice?.
Thanks...
 
People are quite pleased with all the new Zeiss M lenses.

They are different than the 1970 lenses for the M4, so if you are expecting a match with other lenses you have, they will not. It will be sharper, clearer, less flare, and have more contrast.

The newest Leica glass is even more extreme.
 
Great pics Monz, I may have to pick up this lens to go with my M whatever I end up getting...
 
Just buy it. I think our sponsor Tony Rose at popflash.photo (click link on this page) has them for a good price.

If you hate the lens, list it for sale here. It will sell in minutes. Maybe seconds.
 
are you looking for a great, wide-ish street shooting lens? the biogons are all excellent in my view, the 28/2.8 is basically welded to my M2 these days. if you are looking for a street lens, and you already have a 5 cm FL lens, I would suggest you look at the 25 or 28 biogons to see whether the little extra width in the FOV might not help you to compose the "stories" better in your street shots than a 35 does. i think the ideal street lens twosome is the 50 and 28 combo, with the 28 being a great lens for capturing a whole lot of a scene's 'plot'; the 50 being more of an in depth, precise look.

the zm lenses are a great value, no matter which one you end up choosing.

have heaps of fun choosing!

thomas
 
great pics monz...
i've decide to buy that lens. I own a contax G2 and i'm pleased with that lens. So, i my M4, the Zeiss lens will "run" fine, sure.
thank's again men...
 
there are loads of threads on this lens. do a quick search and you will find hundreds of comments in this forum. And yes, it is a great lens.
 
I like my antique 35 Summicron, but the 35 Biogon-ZM is a very special lens... Here the young man in the metal-fabrication shop shows off the custom bracket he made for me to mount a flat-panel TV to the end of a bookcase.
 

Attachments

  • 070301-22big.jpg
    070301-22big.jpg
    147.7 KB · Views: 0
in todays market you cant go wrong, pretty much. That said I would highly recommend the biogon or leica 35 summicron asph. Both fine lenses but with a different taste for the masses.
 
Damaso said:
Great pics Monz, I may have to pick up this lens to go with my M whatever I end up getting...

xavi said:
great pics monz...
i've decide to buy that lens. I own a contax G2 and i'm pleased with that lens. So, i my M4, the Zeiss lens will "run" fine, sure.
thank's again men...


Thanks Damaso and xavi. You won't be disappointed with this lens.

--
Monz
 
x-ray said:
The Biogon 35 isn't just a great value it's the finest in performance in my book including the new asph summicron.

Everyone has their own opinion, and if you've used them both you would be in a position to know, but I've read more then one reviewer say that the Biogon is equivalent to the 4th version 35mm summicron, but the ASPH model is slightly better wide open. But I'm really commenting on three lenses of very high quality. If I did not already have Leica lenses, then I would opt for the Zeiss lenses given their high optical quality and value.
 
sgy1962 said:
Everyone has their own opinion, and if you've used them both you would be in a position to know, but I've read more then one reviewer say that the Biogon is equivalent to the 4th version 35mm summicron, but the ASPH model is slightly better wide open. But I'm really commenting on three lenses of very high quality. If I did not already have Leica lenses, then I would opt for the Zeiss lenses given their high optical quality and value.


I own both the asph and Zeiss and shot the v4 35 for quite a few years but sold my v4 summicron 35 after getting the Zeiss. The Zeiss is a superior lens to the v4 and also sharper wide open compared to the asph. The asph suffers from noticably more flare than the Zeiss also. I also feel the Zeiss is more pleasant compared to the asph in rendering an image. I describe the Zeiss as organic and the asph as inorganic if that means anything. All three are very good lenses as you say and each of us do have our personal preferences.

I don't know what reviews you've read but I don't find this to be true at all.
 
I've had the Biogon since Christmas and have used it quite a bit. It's a very good lens in terms of sharpness, size (the summicron is too small for my hands), flare resistance, color rendering, build quality, and price.

That being said, it's just kind of a 'meh' lens for me. It's technically good, but a little lacking in character.

This is only my opinion, though.

For B/W work it's too contrasty for the developer I use, so the success rate of my shots is affected. I do occasionally get lucky.

406368195_76d25d1178.jpg


Also, the OOF rendering is pretty hit and miss. I find its wide open performance good for some situations.

344170632_2a9aae7199.jpg


and pretty garbage for others (I hate the doubled lines).

512869104_7bda402a91.jpg


Also, lights in the background take on very oblong shape with a distracting hard ring around the edge.

To my eye, the best 35mm I've used is the Nikkor f/1.4 Ai-S for Nikon F-mount. It's super sharp, the OOF areas are smooooth, and it has this amazing 3-D effect that really makes the in-focus parts jump out of the background.

215208063_c062cd47cf.jpg


I don't think this was very helpful, but in summary, the Biogon is good, but a little dull.

That's just my opinion and I could understand if people thought otherwise.
 
the_jim said:
I've had the Biogon since Christmas and have used it quite a bit. It's a very good lens in terms of sharpness, size (the summicron is too small for my hands), flare resistance, color rendering, build quality, and price.

That being said, it's just kind of a 'meh' lens for me. It's technically good, but a little lacking in character.

This is only my opinion, though.

........

That's just my opinion and I could understand if people thought otherwise.

Wow, it just goes to show....

Those first two show the EXACT kind of character I love in B&W work. I just got the 35/1.2 Nokton used for a very nice price that was hard to pass up (plus the seller let me use it for a week or so first, and I liked what I saw). But now you've got me really thinking how wonderful that 35/2 Biogon is.....
 
rich815 said:
Wow, it just goes to show....

Those first two show the EXACT kind of character I love in B&W work. I just got the 35/1.2 Nokton used for a very nice price that was hard to pass up (plus the seller let me use it for a week or so first, and I liked what I saw). But now you've got me really thinking how wonderful that 35/2 Biogon is.....

When I bought the Biogon I was really debating between three lensesb (which luckily, the store had in-stock so I could handle them): the 35/1.2, Biogon, and 35/2.5 Color-Skopar.

The 35/2.5 was dirt cheap, but waaaayyyyy too small for my hands.

The Biogon was the perfect size, but more spendy.

The Nokton was a little too big and even more spendy.

In hind sight, I wish I would've choosen the Nokton. All the images I have seen from it on the interweb give a look that is much more like the Nikkor 35/1.4.

As soon as I get a job again and move out of my girlfriend's parents house (God, my life sucks right now), I will get a Nokton.
 
the_jim said:
The Nokton was a little too big.......

In hind sight, I wish I would've choosen the Nokton. All the images I have seen from it on the interweb give a look that is much more like the Nikkor 35/1.4.

As soon as I get a job again and move out of my girlfriend's parents house (God, my life sucks right now), I will get a Nokton.

For a RF lens, yes, it is big and bulky. Compared to my 85/1.4 Planar for my Contax SLR or pretty much any SLR fast lens it's about the same or smaller.

I find it surprisingly decently balance and weight on my MP. Would I prefer a smaller and lighter lens? Of course! Until I need the 1.2 that is....
 
x-ray said:
I own both the asph and Zeiss and shot the v4 35 for quite a few years but sold my v4 summicron 35 after getting the Zeiss. The Zeiss is a superior lens to the v4 and also sharper wide open compared to the asph. The asph suffers from noticably more flare than the Zeiss also. I also feel the Zeiss is more pleasant compared to the asph in rendering an image. I describe the Zeiss as organic and the asph as inorganic if that means anything. All three are very good lenses as you say and each of us do have our personal preferences.

I don't know what reviews you've read but I don't find this to be true at all.

That is indeed a very strong indorsement of the Zeiss. One reviewer that comes to mind is Erwin Putts, but I can understand his objectivity can be questioned. And although I may be mistaken, Sean Reid, if my memory serves me correctly, reached the same conclusion on a digital platform. And then there was just a bunch of anedotal evidence from users when these lenses came out.

But I realize all reviewers are interpreting and interpretations are colored by many things.

I've just never heard anyone claim that the Biogon was noticeably superior to the ASPH Summicron. And I thought flare suppression was a strong point of the Leica lens, at least over its predecessor.

Anyway, if you're correct, cudos to Zeiss, because that lens is half the price. I just have never heard the claim before.
 
Back
Top Bottom