Zeiss 35mm ZM vs. 35mm Hexanon M

[felix5616]

I would like to hear from anyone, especially anyone that has used both of these lenses what their thoughts are regarding the 2 lenses. Not necessarily which is better, but the qualities that each has that sets them apart.

 

[back alley]

which zm 35?

 

[felix5616]

ZM 35mmf/2

ZM 35mmf/2

i am interested in any info about the zeiss 35mm f/2 lens

 

[elude]

The Konica M-Hexanon has a softer image, creamy and smooth. However it doesn't have a "liney" bokeh nor the 1/3 aperture ring like on the ZM. Oh I hate double lines.
They both are very well built, and are pretty long for the focal lenght.

Two stellar lenses, but I prefer the Konica for its softness and bokeh.

 

[troym]

I would urge you to search Flickr for pictures tagged with each lens. Apart from some limited objective aspects (weight, length, etc.), so much of the evaluation of lenses is pretty subjective.

For instance, I have the 35/2 Biogon and think the out of focus rendition of the lens is quite appealing (nothing "liney" to my eyes), with a nice transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas. But, again, that's just my subjective take on the matter. Don't have the M-Hex, so I can't compare.

 

[wintoid]

I've owned both. The M-Hex struck me as quite a gentle lens, with a transparent character (I might even say characterless, but that's not what I mean exactly). The Biogon had a strong character in my opinion... a relative bull in a china shop.

 

[morback]

How come the 35/2.8 is so ignored? I'm vaguely looking for a 35mm to accompany my Sonnar 50/1.5 (with similar signature) and I can't find any review of the 35/2.8. Is there really nothing to it? It seems everyone gravitates to the Nokton / Summicron / ZM 35/2...

 

[Krosya]

The Konica M-Hexanon has a softer image, creamy and smooth. However it doesn't have a "liney" bokeh nor the 1/3 aperture ring like on the ZM. Oh I hate double lines.
They both are very well built, and are pretty long for the focal lenght.

Two stellar lenses, but I prefer the Konica for its softness and bokeh.

I think this is a very accurate assesment. To me M-Hex has a lot of Summilux signature in it. I really like it. Never used ZM one, but from the pics I have seen from it - it is also a very good lens. Comparing M-Hex to my (other) ZM lenses, Hexs feels a bit more sold, so maybe it's better built, but this is just a guess. Can't go wrong with either. Like others said - look at some pics and see which signature suits you better.

 

[Turtle]

no double lines from my Biogon f2. In fact I have never seen images showing such things either, but as we know every lens can generate awful bokeh if small variables conspire in such a way - even legendary lenses.

Many will tell you that the bigon is known for its smooth, creamy bokeh - rightly so. All my shots have a smooth fall off and soft shapes in the background. I cannot comment on the Hex.

 

[elude]

An example of that double-lines thing on my Planar. Happens with Old Leitz too.
: - (

 

[Turtle]

the problem here is that it is so hard to find side by side images from another lens shot from the same spot at the same f stop. In the shot posted above the background is full of vertical lines so it is not too surprising that the image is, well, liney. I suspect many lenses would have done similarly and a fair few a lot worse. In my experience, the ZMs are comparatively gentle in the OOF areas and that includes the planar. The vast majority of images I have seen from both (incl my own) have very subtle OOF indeed and the same cannot be said for some other lenses. In fact, the lenses have such a creamy rendition that I was amazed to find some portraits shot in parkland (with trees, twigs etc behind the subject) left the background positively melting away. That said, a lens with lower corrections, lower resolution and contrast will tend to produce softer bokeh. some of my cheap canon AF zooms have lovely bokeh wide open at f4 (and soft subjects) 😉 Also, on the example posted, try tilting your head so the railings are not diagonal but vertical and you will see a very large proportion of the craziness vanishes. Guess the brain makes diagonal fuzzy lines seem a lot worse. The road lines are a bit odd though, granted.

The thing to remember here is that someone can own a lens, shoot unforgiving subjects, decide that they hate it and sell it without ever realising that the Bokeh God would have done just as badly! The test done by Guy Manusco and the Summarit 35, summicron V4 etc is a case in point. The V4 looks horrid compared to the summarit when the subject has pointy plants behind her. The summarit turns them to cream. does not mean the V4 has crappy bokeh though...

 

[elude]

I think you're right. 🙂

 

[Tom A]

How come the 35/2.8 is so ignored? I'm vaguely looking for a 35mm to accompany my Sonnar 50/1.5 (with similar signature) and I can't find any review of the 35/2.8. Is there really nothing to it? It seems everyone gravitates to the Nokton / Summicron / ZM 35/2...

Go to Flickr and tag in the lenses you are interested in. Lots of samples of all the lenses. "screen" images are not ideal for things like relative sharpness etc, but they will give you a good idea about out-of-focus, color, etc. You can assume that most, if not all the lenses you are interested in are more than sharp enough - and your choice is more your preferences when it comes to price, size and optical signature.
I do have the ZM 35f2.8 and really like it. It is compact, very sharp and i like how it handles bl/w. At the moment it is relegated to the back burner as Vancouver has really grey and dismal weather - but the lens is sitting on a M2, waiting for more palatable weather.