ZM 35/2 pics

[Todd.Hanz]

No, I don't have one

I'm looking at picking up another 35, would love to see some sample images wide open or close too it, say f4. All the posts I've read say it's a great lens, good build, solid etc.

thanks,
Todd

 

[willie_901]

Todd,

Many ZM 32/2 photos can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/willie_901/tags/biogon/

I do not record exposure information and most of my f 2.0 - 4.0 photos were shot with ISO 800 film. So I am not sure these will be useful. However, many of these were taken in the aperature range you mention.

willie

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Hey thanks Willie, funny thing, your Flickr gallery is where I spent alot of time looking when I was trying to decide on this lens, small world. SOme good examples there, thanks.

Todd

 

[Nachkebia]

Personaly I would not recommend 35mm biogon, don`t ask me why....

 

[mervynyan]

have to ask why-🙂 I am thinking about either a 35 or a 28, by the end of the year...

 

[Todd.Hanz]

me to, don't bait us man, why why why?

 

[jano]

It was my first m-mount lens, I like it 🙂 My only niggle with it is that it's a bit large, I could do with it being a tad smaller.

Todd, I recall you asked this before, earlier in the year? These here were all done with the 35/2, variety of apertures. It was my second or third time developing film myself, so they aren't too great.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

good stuff Jano, thanks.

Todd

 

[back alley]

i don't keep track of which lens took what pic, but the 35 is a solid well built and very sharp lens. all the zm lenses seem a bit bigger than others in their fl but i kind of prefer the bigger size.

 

[Avotius]

Personaly I would not recommend 35mm biogon, don`t ask me why....

its strange that you say that, I was having the same thought, even though the lens is cheaper then the leica's and others, I wouldnt recomend it to anyone, the one I played with before just seems so...unnessesarily...I dont know what it is about that lens, but it and I didnt get along

 

[Todd.Hanz]

what about it didn't you guys like, the size, build, image quality?

 

[Didier]

Optically seen, this lens is a gem. It has it's own, pleasant and somehow oldfashioned signature, but is sharp as a contemporary lens can be, with a creamy bokeh. It's predestinated as well for film as for digital. For film, because it's sharpness is very homogeneous over the entire field of view out to the corners (and thus allowing large prints); for digital, because it's retrofocal design lets the light reach a sensor in a almost right angle, avoiding vignetting.

I was looking for another M-mount 35 recently, too, and the three reasons why I did NOT buy the Biogon are speed, size and weight. My final choice was the 35 'Lux asph.

But that 50/1.5 Sonnar is tempting me...
🙂
Didier

 

[jano]

the three reasons why I did NOT buy the Biogon are speed, size and weight. My final choice was the 35 'Lux asph.

I thought that lens was larger than the ZM....

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I can appreciate the need for speed Didier and also your concise comments, did you handle a ZM?

 

[Didier]

I thought that lens was larger than the ZM....

No. It's 10g heavier, 10mm shorter, 1 stop faster.

Summilux 35mm 1.4 asph
46mm long, 250g

Biogon 35mm/2.0
56mm long, 240g

The stop and the length made the difference for me.
Didier

 

[back alley]

for purely selfish reasons, i hope you buy the zm todd.

i'd love to see what you can do with it.

joe

 

[Didier]

I can appreciate the need for speed Didier and also your concise comments, did you handle a ZM?

Yes I handled the ZI RF and all ZM's in a local shop except the Sonnar 50, the 15 and the 85. Handling is smooth, liked the third stop aperture clicks, focusing feeled a tad "lighter" than with the Summilux.

Didier

 

[Todd.Hanz]

for purely selfish reasons, i hope you buy the zm todd.

i'd love to see what you can do with it.

joe

sounds like an idea, let's go halvsies on one 🙂

 

[Todd.Hanz]

thanks Didier!

 

[back alley]

sounds like an idea, let's go halvsies on one 🙂

already got one...