ZM Biogon f2 35mm perfect 35mm RF lens? Show your examples

travel is slightly more than 90 degrees for infinity to 0.7m.

The focus tab is small enough not to disturb if you don't like it. I do not know the Leica lens. The one on my summicron 50 (v4, or v5, depends on how you count; the most recent with focus tab) is much more prominent.

hope that helps.
 
I forgot to mention, I like the lens but there is much competent praise here, so I don't think I can add much.......
 
ZM Biogon f2 35mm perfect 35mm RF lens? Show your examples

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.


20398776956_e5371cf3c1_o.jpg
 
I completely agree. If I could only own one 35 it would be the Biogon 35 f2. Not only is it everything you mentioned it's smooth in tone and much more classic looking unlike the Summicron asph. I've owned many Leica 35's and I wouldn't trade my Biogon for any of them. I've used the term before, for a lack of a better term I'd say it's organic in look. I even sold my Summux FLE and bought my second Biogon. I foolishly sold my first.

I feel the same about my Planar and the 25 f2.5 that I sold (foolishly). I sold my Zeiss trio , 25 2.8, 35 F2 and 50 f2 for an Elmar 24, 35 fle summilux and 50 asph summilux. I've sold all but my Elmar and returned to the Biogon and Planar. I'll probably sell the Elmar too and buy another 25 Biogon. The Leica glass was sharp but was just too over the top and artificial looking to me. They lacked that organic smooth but sharp character. Leica glass is sharp but is harsh looking.

I'll try to post a couple of images this week.
 
Here's another example of this fine optic. Stretching the limits here a little at ISO 5000 with the 240 but still a very gentle rendering and smooth OOF areas.

20425023445_4be4dd8d4f_o.jpg
 
Both examples make an excellent case for the Biogon, Keith.

As an aside, imagine 20 years ago, someone stating they
"stretched the limits" at ISO 5000. That would be some kind of a stretch, even with TMax 3200 (and it wouldn't look nearly as good as your pic)

Imagine 10 years ago had they termed 5000 "a little." !

.
 
I'll play along. Love this lens. It had some bad press because of its bokeh but wide open or near wide open I don't find that to be an issue.







16639750700_62c2a5a255_c.jpg




 
mcfingon said:
I was originally going to buy the 35/2.8 Biogon, but they only had the 35/2 in stock and were keen to sell it to me, so who was I to complain?
Click to expand...

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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom