ZM 35/2 pics

T

Todd.Hanz

Guest
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Nachkebia said:
Personaly I would not recommend 35mm biogon, don`t ask me why....
Click to expand...


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
 
what about it didn't you guys like, the size, build, image quality?
 
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
 
Didier said:
the three reasons why I did NOT buy the Biogon are speed, size and weight. My final choice was the 35 'Lux asph.
Click to expand...

I thought that lens was larger than the ZM....
 
I can appreciate the need for speed Didier and also your concise comments, did you handle a ZM?
 
jano said:
I thought that lens was larger than the ZM....
Click to expand...

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
 
Todd.Hanz said:
I can appreciate the need for speed Didier and also your concise comments, did you handle a ZM?
Click to expand...

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
 
back alley said:
for purely selfish reasons, i hope you buy the zm todd.

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

joe
Click to expand...

sounds like an idea, let's go halvsies on one :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom