Why I bought the Zeiss Biogon 28mm ZM

[MCTuomey]

Roland, here are some Zeiss 28/2.8 images on Fuji 400 with M6. It's not a bad lens, it's just not in the league as the M-Hexanon. CV lenses are always fun, but you need to try about 5-10 to find a decent one...

one man's view is another's provocation ... or bald-faced cr*p.

hyperbole like this is plain silly, condescending, and unnecessary. one can always find gear from any mfgr that'll need warranty work. so what? you send it in, it gets fixed or replaced. leica, zeiss, CV - none are immune. no consumer has reliable data on warranty performance (companies rarely share such info), so why play fast and loose with derogatory comments? those of us with limited funds appreciate CV. why denigrate the option?

sean reid has documented decentering in some CV lenses, but has done so in a way that's helpful to buyers/users. of course, one pays to access his site. won't find rash statements there.

re the zeiss v hex 28s. they're in the same league, but hit differently imho. zeiss "not bad"? sheesh, is it me or are you just trying to sound patronizing?

mod, pls delete if i'm over the top here. apologies in advance, but i just have to say something in response ...

 

[kdemas]

One interesting thing from my experience centers around the same Zeiss lenses in the Contax G system. Whereas the 35mm ZM is stated to be a better performer than the 28mm, in the G system it was by far the other way around. The 35 was viewed as the red headed step child of the line, thought of as being too "soft".

Interesting. I have used the 28 on the M8 and have been quite pleased. My personal favorite ZM so far is the 25mm, my "walk around" lens while traveling. Super lens (watch out for loosening of the lens barrel, easily fixed).

Kent

 

[MCTuomey]

My personal favorite ZM so far is the 25mm, my "walk around" lens while traveling. Super lens (watch out for loosening of the lens barrel, easily fixed).

Kent

Kent, this is helpful. Is the loosening readily apparent when it occurs? And when you say "easily fixed," how is the fix performed?

Thanks in advance.

 

[MCTuomey]

Sorry that you don't appreciate my opinions and experiences with these lenses. As I've mentioned I've only owned 1 or 2 copies of these lenses (all 28 CVs, 1 new Zeiss 28/2.8, and 1 M-Hex 28/2.8, plus other brands of 28s.)

So if your experiences are different, that's great, lets see your photos.

i post photos to the gallery from time to time taken with some of these lenses. i do not believe in the value of web-resized images viewed on monitors as the basis for judging lenses, especially when the processing of the images is undocumented and often based on workflow that I would not practice in any case. yours are an especially good example since you profess not to process from RAW files and rely on jpg engines in-camera, as i understand it. in any event, why would anyone use your photos (or my photos) to select their own lenses anyway?

my response to your views is negative only because of your provocative, supercilious, and dismissive tone, rather than lack of appreciation of your opinions. i appreciate civility and respect, not deprecation and sarcasm. or maybe it's that i just don't appreciate your sense of superiority of lens ownership, taste, or whatever it is that causes you to express yourself the way you do. my apologies. it could be that i'm overreacting.

 

[back alley]

one man's view is another's provocation ... or bald-faced cr*p.

hyperbole like this is plain silly, condescending, and unnecessary. one can always find gear from any mfgr that'll need warranty work. so what? you send it in, it gets fixed or replaced. leica, zeiss, CV - none are immune. no consumer has reliable data on warranty performance (companies rarely share such info), so why play fast and loose with derogatory comments? those of us with limited funds appreciate CV. why denigrate the option?

sean reid has documented decentering in some CV lenses, but has done so in a way that's helpful to buyers/users. of course, one pays to access his site. won't find rash statements there.

re the zeiss v hex 28s. they're in the same league, but hit differently imho. zeiss "not bad"? sheesh, is it me or are you just trying to sound patronizing?

mod, pls delete if i'm over the top here. apologies in advance, but i just have to say something in response ...

i am in complete agreement with you.
i sometimes think ted has a few of us in his sites and just likes to get our goat going.

 

[ronnie_retro]

Biogon MTF

Biogon MTF

I think this lens is more properly compared to the Leica 28mm/f2.8 Elmarit.

Here is a link to the measured MTF for the Elmarit; it is very similar to that for the Biogon. The point being that the MTF for the Zeiss lens is fully comparable to the the corresponding Leica offering.

http://www.photodo.com/product_984_p4.html

 

[Turtle]

Some people go through multiple copies of many lenses so fast I doubt they could tell you anything useful about them. While there are some great opinions on this forum, there are an awful lot from people who are waaaaay off base.

I keep on saying it, but apart from some information regarding bokeh, flikr and low res online images are a total waste of time when it comes to comparing lenses for the reasons MCTuomey stated above.

The ZM 28 biogon may not be quite as strong as the 25/21, but it is still a very high performance lens which has deficits you are not likely to see apart from on very large prints with a high resolving film or on digital. This is from my experience owning the 35 f2, 21 2.8 and 50 planar - all these three are well known to be incredibly strong performers. The 28's images sit just fine alongside them and you could not pick them out without some other clues (like angle of view).

Re the 28 being 'not bad', I think that the the lens is a far better than a good photographer needs. Its only issue is that it is somewhat more prone to flare than the other biogons in the same line and is not F2. I cannot imagine why a person would need higher performance for snapping cats.

 

[italy74]

why i bought the zm 28...

Definitely some of the most remarkable pictures I've ever seen here as overall iq and sharpness. Great.

 

[Alberti]

The 28 is a good portrait lens . .

The 28 is a good portrait lens . .

I took this nice happy picture at a party, just in a breeze, the whole file can be looked at here: Paul.

I like the soft and gradual plane of focus of this Biogon. Surprisingly, it makes good portraits, what I hadn't expected from a (mild) wide angle lens.

Tech info: M8. The file was developed with C1, Panchromatic Film type. 160A, 'soft sharpening'.
alberti
see http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3445/3990829486_9182c6a0e5_b.jpg

 

[Alberti]

Hi,

I just picked up mine from Adorama. I just noticed when focusing the lens from .7 meters to its closest focus range of .5 meters, the "split image" gets stuck then gradually slides in to focus. IS this normal for this lens? Do the ZM lenses with a focus range down to .5 meters surpass the rangefinder focus limit of (.7 meters) for Leica M lenses?

Thanks for any input.....Frank

Hi Frank,
many Zeiss lenses can focus closer (50 cm) than the Leica bodies support (70cm). This is really a non-issue for me and just requires a bit of attention.
The Zeiss-Ikon lenses can focus closer because the Zeiss body has a rangefinder that can go closer, till 50 cm about.
So we have a mismatch.

What I do is I turn the distance ring untill I don't see the split image coupling move any more and then just turn it back a degree or two (about a mm on the scale). So then I know that I have solid focus confirmation.
From that I revert to my normal procedure: the fine-tuning of the distance I do by moving my head/camera forward a little bit (a mm of a little bit of nodding about). For the finest tuning I almost never use the distance scale (except of course beyond some 5 meters). I use this on the 35 and 50 mm Summicrons I have too.

The Zeiss lenses work very well this way, and remain a very reliable focussing (as my pictures show), also on the closest range that can be measured on the M8 (or the other leica bodies). I
alberti

 

[jonmanjiro]

The Zeiss-Ikon lenses can focus closer because the Zeiss body has a rangefinder that can go closer, till 50 cm about.

Ummmm, nope. The Zeiss Ikon rangefinder is only coupled down to about 0.65 - 0.70m, which is about the same as a Leica.

 

[Ronald M]

Just love all the concept of VC lenses, but I just can`t figure how to make the the
variable contrast feature work.

Keep up the good work Cosina Voitlander !

 

[helen.HH]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/helenartemishill/11847024574/][/url]

[/url]
focusing in by helenhill_HH, on Flickr

 

[Bob Michaels]

Roland, here are some Zeiss 28/2.8 images on Fuji 400 with M6. It's not a bad lens, it's just not in the league as the M-Hexanon. CV lenses are always fun, but you need to try about 5-10 to find a decent one...

Apologies in advance to old hands for repeating the same thing in threads that keep coming up on this subject.

I have a series ongoing since 2009 that is almost exclusively shot with 28mm lenses, some with a Zeiss Biogon 28mm 2.8, some with a Hexanon 28mm f2.8, and some with a CV 28mm f3.5. No one has ever recognized they were shot with different lenses. Even when told they were shot with different lenses, no one can tell which is which. No one has ever done better than even what you would expect from random guesses. Not from the number of times these prints have been exhibited. Not from the JPGs on my website. And now not in my high quality printed book.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Apologies in advance to old hands for repeating the same thing in threads that keep coming up on this subject.

I have a series ongoing since 2009 that is almost exclusively shot with 28mm lenses, some with a Zeiss Biogon 28mm 2.8, some with a Hexanon 28mm f2.8, and some with a CV 28mm f3.5. No one has ever recognized they were shot with different lenses. Even when told they were shot with different lenses, no one can tell which is which. No one has ever done better than even what you would expect from random guesses. Not from the number of times these prints have been exhibited. Not from the JPGs on my website. And now not in my high quality printed book.

Thank you, Bob! 🙂

 

[benji77]

Helen!
This is the kind of developing that I am referring to with the 'rounded edges' and 3D feel to subjects! See how the edges of the bench and jacket feel so real. People may say its 'not sharp' blah blah, but this is precisely the thing I want to get out of my developments, but which I dont :bang:

Did you swirl or shake this roll? 🙂

http://www.flickr.com/photos/helenartemishill/11847024574/][/url]

[/url]
focusing in by helenhill_HH, on Flickr

 

[helen.HH]

checking numbers by helenhill_HH, on Flickr

 

[helen.HH]

hi Benji

My inversions tend to be minimal...ever so GENTLE...i want just a touch of Grain now in my processing
processed that roll at 6 mins / 2 inversions every 3 mins

Thanks for your Liking ...😉
though I may go try DDX next after I finish this bottle

Best to You - H

 

[benji77]

Hi Helen, thank you for sharing. Will try to see if I can achieve the look I want with that method 🙂.
Once i finish my current bottle of DDX, I intend to get my hands wet with Ilfotec HC.

 

[Matmcr]

Can anyone compare the Zeiss Biogon 28mm ZM against the Contax G 28mm Biogon? Do they both have a similar signature?