If Zeiss had used the original Biogon design with part of the lens inside the camera lens throat, it could have been more compact, but I guess they thought there were too many problems with hitting bits of the camera. Sigh.I've used both in the past and both are great... I just preferred the size of the 2.8. Neither are perfect for me, but what is? The f/2 is too large for my taste and the 2.8 could be considered slow. Imagine if they were able to make a f/2 biogon/sonnar with the size of the f/2.8!
Holy Moly that's terrible.
I've used both in the past and both are great... I just preferred the size of the 2.8. Neither are perfect for me, but what is? The f/2 is too large for my taste and the 2.8 could be considered slow. Imagine if they were able to make a f/2 biogon/sonnar with the size of the f/2.8!
I have three ZM lenses but for me the Biogon is an absolute standout .... I'm no optics expert but it has no faults that I can perceive .... near zero distortion, great flare resistance and sharp at all apertures and lately I've noticed you can pick up a near mint example for around seven hundred dollars!
Every time I use it on my 240 it really impresses me .... occasionally I wouldn't mind a stop of extra speed but over all I can see no reason to ever own any other 35mm lens. I've noticed in the poll we have running here it's around neck and neck with the Summicron in the vote count and that's impressive considering the price of a new Summicron against the Zeiss.
The size is excellent and on the 240 it focuses without issues unlike it's sibling the 50mm C Sonnar which can be damned hard to master with it's focus shift. It's probably my most used lens!
If you have any images from the 35mm Biogon feel free to put them here and we can celebrate one of Zeiss's finest optics.