loneranger
Well-known
Hi, I am thinking about getting one of the above lenses for color work, I have read very positive comments about both, just wondering if anyone can find any reason to recommend one or the other, thanks in advance for your help
Zeiss 35/2.8 vs. VC 35/2.5
- Thread starter loneranger
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 14
- Views 6K
back alley
IMAGES
the cv 35 is a great lens but the zm is in a class of it's own.
can't go wrong with either, really.
can't go wrong with either, really.
ferider
Veteran
For me, the CV lens is definitely good enough - its IQ is certainly as good as my Summicron's. It's also smaller, half stop faster and much cheaper. The Biogon is over-hyped, as large as a 35/1.4 (Nokton or pre-asph Summilux), and over-priced.
On the other hand, I would prefer your konica 35 uc hex to both 🙂
Roland.
On the other hand, I would prefer your konica 35 uc hex to both 🙂
Roland.
Bavaricus
Established
Would say it's right the other way round! For me the CV isn't good enough, maybe because i'm using a evil digital RF. On film i never had any doubts about the CV, with M8 its only mediocre. AND with the ZM you always get the same quality, something you can dream of with the CVs. Never had a better 35 than the C-Biogon!
Yes, the Biogon is the same size than the old Lux, but it has NO field curvature, NO back focus and is tack sharp from full open on. On top it's cheaper than a pre-ASPH Lux. Even on film the old LUX wasn't really amazing fully opened.
The UC-Hex may be a good one too, but in Europe it's pretty expensive. Actually there is one in classifieds at LUF for 950€!! Normally the C-Biogon is ~625€ a really fair price!
On the other side, who cares when a lens is good enough for you? Go on, have fun!
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Reiner, I only shoot film, so maybe that's why I like my CV lenses ....
The OP seems to already have the UC Hex, this is why I mentioned it.
Frohes Neues !
Roland.
The OP seems to already have the UC Hex, this is why I mentioned it.
Frohes Neues !
Roland.
kermaier
Well-known
If you already have a UC-Hex, are you saying you don't use it for color? Why?
::Ari
MCTuomey
Veteran
The Zeiss is a fine lens for color work, strong yet attractive saturation and contrast to my eye and my taste. The C-Biogon is very sharp, blurs nicely, and vignettes wide open. Actually I like the 35/2 biogon a bit more for color - it may have just a little more sparkle but I may be imagining things (pining for the copy sold last year).
I can't speak to the CV 35, never used it.
I have owned the UC-Hexanon 35 and am surprised that you'd look elsewhere for film-based color shooting in the 35 FL. Although I sold the lens in favor of the consistent image and handling of zeiss lenses, I think it's superb, pleasing sharpness, rich and balanced colors, delightful size and handling to boot. It's the imaging equivalent of Aretha Franklin's voice.
I can't speak to the CV 35, never used it.
I have owned the UC-Hexanon 35 and am surprised that you'd look elsewhere for film-based color shooting in the 35 FL. Although I sold the lens in favor of the consistent image and handling of zeiss lenses, I think it's superb, pleasing sharpness, rich and balanced colors, delightful size and handling to boot. It's the imaging equivalent of Aretha Franklin's voice.
Turtle
Veteran
I've got the 35 f2 ZM and the 35 2.5 pancake. past f4 they are about the same, btu the CV is tiny and cheap. I think the Zeiss will be more 'perfect' wide open with better outer field resolution, but if you tend to shoot at F4 and beyond, save your money. The Cv 35 2.5 I have is as sharp as the ZM and Summarit 35 on centre, easily. Darned close around the edges even wide open too...
ChrisC
Established
That is my experience exactly.
But this is not my experience.
I prefer to shoot at f8.0 when possible, and my C-Biogon clearly outperforms my copy of the C.V. Colour Skopar Classic. On-centre performance is only one parameter I'm interested in, performance across the image field, and close focus , and infinity focus resolution are extremely important to me. The C.V. is being sold. My C-Biogon is a lens-for-life.
Yes; the C-Biogon is in a class of it's own.
.............. Chris
shambla
Member
I have owned 2 of the CV 35 f2.5 Color Skopars at various points (the current generation pancake version and the original version too) and whilst there is no doubt in my mind that the color skopar is a superb lens for the money, it just cannot compete with the C-Biogon if you are able to spend the extra cash.
As others have said, the Color Skopar has great centre sharpness, from f4 or f5.6, but simply cannot match the C-Biogon in other respects. It has poorer sharpness at wider apertures and towards the frame edge, exhibits higher distortion (which is a particularly big problem for my style of shooting) and just doesn't produce images which have the same feel that the C-Biogon gives me, on either negative or slide film (a subjective thing I appreciate).
A few people also said that the C-Biogon is a big lens, which is just not something I can agree with. Sure it's bigger than the pancake version of the Skopar, but then so is pretty much everything. The flipside of the small size of the Skopar is that the ergonomics really suffer relative to the C-Biogon, particularly when you use the hood, which I found to be much more important than with the C-Biogon. In fact, with the C-Biogon, the only time I really use the hood is to help keep drizzle/snow off the front element, which it does admirably.
As with ChrisC, for me the C-Biogon is a lens for life. Since buying it in June I have taken around a thousand shots with the C-Biogon, it stays on my camera 95% of the time and I couldn't be happier with it. That said, at around 1/2 the price I don't think you can complain about the performance of the little CV, but in my experience the extra money was not wasted
As others have said, the Color Skopar has great centre sharpness, from f4 or f5.6, but simply cannot match the C-Biogon in other respects. It has poorer sharpness at wider apertures and towards the frame edge, exhibits higher distortion (which is a particularly big problem for my style of shooting) and just doesn't produce images which have the same feel that the C-Biogon gives me, on either negative or slide film (a subjective thing I appreciate).
A few people also said that the C-Biogon is a big lens, which is just not something I can agree with. Sure it's bigger than the pancake version of the Skopar, but then so is pretty much everything. The flipside of the small size of the Skopar is that the ergonomics really suffer relative to the C-Biogon, particularly when you use the hood, which I found to be much more important than with the C-Biogon. In fact, with the C-Biogon, the only time I really use the hood is to help keep drizzle/snow off the front element, which it does admirably.
As with ChrisC, for me the C-Biogon is a lens for life. Since buying it in June I have taken around a thousand shots with the C-Biogon, it stays on my camera 95% of the time and I couldn't be happier with it. That said, at around 1/2 the price I don't think you can complain about the performance of the little CV, but in my experience the extra money was not wasted
Guaranteed
Well-known
Thanks for the post as I've been trying to decide which 35 to get also.
Not to thread jack, but I'm curious as to thoughts about using either for B&W as well.
Thanks.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I have not shot the C-V 2.5, but the C-Biogon is one of the two best lenses I've ever shot. The only weakness I've detected is vignetting wide open, and for me that's a tolerable fault (apparently it's more of a problem on FF digital/M9).
The Biogon's greatest strengths are its performance across the field, its flatness of field, its beautiful bokeh, and its negligible geometric distortion.
I use the lens mostly for B&W. For this purpose, its rendering characteristics are very well-matched to the gen. 3 and gen. 4 50mm Summicrons — but the C-Biogon has nicer bokeh.
The Biogon's greatest strengths are its performance across the field, its flatness of field, its beautiful bokeh, and its negligible geometric distortion.
I use the lens mostly for B&W. For this purpose, its rendering characteristics are very well-matched to the gen. 3 and gen. 4 50mm Summicrons — but the C-Biogon has nicer bokeh.
Turtle
Veteran
I'm not knocking the verdict some have come to that the ZM 35 2.8 is much better in their eyes than the skopar, but I suspect sample variation has some role here, as well as the impact of colour and contrast. I tested three lenses in a controlled way (pancake II, summarit-M, Biogon f2) and was astonished at how well the pancake did and on B&W film, so FF. Only at F4 and wider would you be able to see any kind of difference at the edge of the frame compared to the other two which were basically neck and neck.
That people have had less than stellar results with their 35 CVs does not surprise me. I had a terrible sample of the 21 P until I had it replaced. I am glad to have gotten lucky with my CV pancake, but can certainly say that I have never had a duff ZM lens, optically, which is more than I can say for Leica... (cough, 75 Summarit, cough).
The ZM C biogon 2.8 is almost certain to be perfect and razor sharp right out of the box. There is a not so small chance that the CV wont be. but it might!
That people have had less than stellar results with their 35 CVs does not surprise me. I had a terrible sample of the 21 P until I had it replaced. I am glad to have gotten lucky with my CV pancake, but can certainly say that I have never had a duff ZM lens, optically, which is more than I can say for Leica... (cough, 75 Summarit, cough).
The ZM C biogon 2.8 is almost certain to be perfect and razor sharp right out of the box. There is a not so small chance that the CV wont be. but it might!
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
^--- to be clear, Turtle, I'm not saying that the Biogon-C is better than the Skopar, which I have not shot. The only place I've ever actually seen a 35 Skopar is at Yodobashi in Osaka.
I'm saying only that the Biogon-C is a remarkable lens, perhaps the best I've ever used (that includes the 35 Summilux ASPH).
I'm saying only that the Biogon-C is a remarkable lens, perhaps the best I've ever used (that includes the 35 Summilux ASPH).
Last edited:
Turtle
Veteran
semilog, I have no doubt that the C-biogon is better and that this would be measurable! I think we are in perfect agreement. Its normal for opinions to vary widely but CVs erratic QC ensures that opinions differ dramatically. I think the CVs can be remarkably good and certainly mine gives my Summarit-M and Biogon a run for their money, but no, it is not quite as polished a performer. By f5.6 (slight increase in vignetting aside) they absolutely cannot be told apart. Were I to be shooting wide open a lot, it would not be my choice,however. It's vignetting is too high and there are few examples out there with absolutely no decentering either.
Similar threads
- Article
