ZM Lenses - different models of the same FL

[notturtle]

All,

I have some random questions, which I am wondering if anyone can comment on:

Contrast. we generally regard the contrast of ZMs as being relatively consistent across the range; however, the 35 2.8 C is considered to have more contrast than the F2 version. How pronounced is this? I own the f2 and have not been able to compare the 2.8 C.

Build. Some lenses (including some of mine) have developed the ZM wobble, which seems to require the tightening of a flange (I have no access to a repair tech at present). How are people getting on with the newer ones - are they developing the issue too? My 35 developed it in no time at all.

C- series lenses: Does the 21 4.5 have more vignetting on film than the 2.8? Is contrast the same (my 21 2.8 is probably the highest contrast ZM I have, by a small margin). What about the 35 C? Is vignetting greater than the f2 when both at 2.8 - I assume any differences would be trivial?

I continue to find my ZMs tremendous peformers but will be happier when the wobble is fixed as there is a touch of movement in the focus action due to some slackness somewhere. Optically, they are simply astounding and the only one that has given me some rare flare issues is the 28 under nasty conditions (I now have the hood and will report back).

I have not heard of many using the 35 2.8C and so comments seem to be relatively few and far between. I am possibly looking for a slower smaller lens than my F2 and am considering this, but am not sure that I should rule out the CV pancake 2, which is a lot cheaper.

 

[Tom A]

As usual, my advice is to go to Flickr, type in the lens you are interested in on the tag box. It doesn't show resolution, but it does give you an idea about general "look" of a specific lens.
As for the ZM 35f2 versus the C version 35f2.8. I have both and tend to favor the f2.8 when the light allows it. Very good lens, compact and with a touch more snap to the contrast than the rest of the japanese made ZM lenses. Not enough to cause trouble as some of the Asph lenses do, where the contrast gets so high that printing bl/w have you chasing 0 and 00 filters.
The ZM line is remarkable in its consistency across the board. They are all good and it is more of a choice between size and speed than anything else (and cost).
As for the wobble, I think a polite e-mail to Zeiss USA would be a good idea. If enough people do it, they will take a look at the assembly and try to remedy the problem. Zeiss USA seems to be very good at service and solving any problem that occurs.

 

[TJV]

I would really like the C Biogon 35mm to use as a general, small walkaround lens when I can't be bothered with the size of my 35mm Summilux ASPH (great lens, a bit to big for me.) I used to have a beautiful Version 2 Summicron and, even today, it is perhaps my favourite lens and I regret selling it. It was so small and I loved the pictures I took with it. I bought the Summilux because I got an offer on a new one I couldn't refuse and sold the V2 to help fund it. I'll probably always regret it. I think the C Biogon would be a good choice of small lens to compliment my Leica line up of modern designs. It has high contrast, so won't look out of place when used with the others (mainly new 28mm Elmar ASPH and current 50 Summicron,) and the size, while not as small as the V2 is very compact. I looked at getting a 35mm Summarit but I found it really awkward to use - too small a focusing tab and the aperture ring too fidly, not to mention the stupid ring you need to take off to mount the hood. The Zeiss is also cheaper, which is a tick in the right box, but I'd have to order from overseas as they're not avaliable here.