Zeiss Biogon T* 2/35 ZM vs Zeiss Distagon T*2/35 ZF.2

<p>Hi</p>

<p>I have a Zeiss Distagon T*2/35 with an FM2. I'm considering, moving over to Leica (M6). I can't afford a Lecia lens so I'm considering the Zeiss Biogon T* 2/35 ZM.</p>

<p>I know there are lots of general advantages of a range finder over an SLR. But I just wondered if one lens had an edge over the other or different characteristics.</p>

<p>Any information/advice would be much appreciated.</p>

<p>Hi Lewis<br>

It's too big a subject for easy answer. Best to get cheap but optically clean 2 or 3 coated lenses, maybe even with old screw mount adaptors; Leitz/Leica, Canon, or Cosina/Voigtlander; maybe just to start shooting, then buy something better to replace them when you get used to the deal & know what focal length you gravitate to. You want 35mm now, but who knows.</p>

<p>Since it is a Zeiss Biogon 2/35 you are looking for, here is Erwin Puts's take: "Compared to the Summicron-M 2/35 ASPH the ZM has better curvature of field, but less contrast and crisp definition wide open. Performance on axis is equal between both lenses. This Biogon [2/35] is a bit overstretched as a high-speed design. The design itself does not support high-speed lenses and it would have been better if the marketing people of Zeiss had restricted themselves to an aperture of 2.8."</p>

<p>In practical terms it is a very good lens, as its many users will tell you. The only thing you need consider is whether you like the ergonomics or not. I find its focus a bit stiff and the Zeiss bump difficult to deal with. I have a Summicron 2/35 Asph. which has been a very good friend over the last decade. </p>

<p>The Zeiss Distagon T*2/35 is a different sort of lens and comparing them is pointless.</p>

<p>James, you make a good point about buy a cheaper version and then finding out what focal length I want. Other people have this to me too. But I thought if I could find a Zeiss lens a good price it might worth it.</p>

<p>Alex, thank you for you response. Sounds like it's best to use the Biogon 2/35 at f2.8 then? Could always consider the C Biogon T* 2,8/35 ZM. How does that compare?</p>

<p>I think you have touched on an interested point when you say:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"The Zeiss Distagon T*2/35 is a different sort of lens and comparing them is pointless."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is something I'd really like to know... I can see that the Distagon T*2/35 is a bigger lens (In my mind that should make a better image, although I'm sure this isn't the case.) But what are the differences in the lenses? What would you expect to see different?</p>

<p>Many thanks</p>

<p>The ZM 35/2 is a great lens. Had one for a while and used it as my only lens (on film). It often gets made out as 'big', but it's really not that big. The same size, or a bit smaller, as many M mount 50/2 lenses. It's a bit lower contrast and softer wide open, but not by very much. Nothing like a 75 Summilux wide open. My take on this aspect of the lens: I've seen it in test results by others, but I never noticed it in actual use. I DID notice the reduced contrast and sharpness wide open using 75 Summilux and Nikkor 50/1.4 LTM lenses. The 35/2 has pretty much zero distortion and handles ghosting type flare very well.</p>

<p>I've not used the 35/2.8, but it gets rave reviews. Supposed to be excellent at all apertures. It is smaller. It is not *that* much cheaper either. ~$800 vs. ~$1000. Personally, I wouldn't want to be limited to f/2.8 for my only/main lens, so I'd take the ZM 35/2, but plenty of others choose the 35/2.8. If you want to try out a 'cheaper' 35 lens first, maybe look into the Voigtlander line. There are several options there that are cheaper: a 35/2.5 for $400ish and a 35/1.4 for $600ish.</p>

<p>Frankly, as far as the ZF vs. ZM comparison goes... One's for a rangefinder and the other is for an SLR. I'm sure there are differences in performance but they are both perfectly competent lenses. Pick the system you like more. I've heard very good things about the ZF lens, but the real question in my mind is if you want through the lens viewing with the SLR (along with all the other SLR advantages), or if you want to shoot with a rangefinder and possibly benefit from a more compact system.</p>

<p>I'd suggest looking at the design of the lens, i.e. Distagon vs Biogon. And also consider that these are two lenses designed for different systems (SLR vs RF). What matters is the final image, and since you're concerned about the image quality/characteristics, I'd say you compare images made by the two.</p>

<p>SLR vs RF is separate question. I was debating the same thing a few years ago, when I wanted to get ZF glass for my Nikons (film and digital) - or switch entirely to an M system. Didn't have the funds for an M back then, and decided to go Leica R, so I never got to try out the ZF glass.</p>

<p>Bottom line: compare images produced by the two lenses, find some info explaining the design philosophy/characteristics of the lenses, and then decide if you want to go SLR or RF. </p>

<p>I'm not into all the technical stuff, so the Distagon and Biogon could be sharing the same design (but be slightly different: SLR vs RF). So just compare images made by both, and see which ones you like. </p>

<p>As I mentioned in my other posts, I'm sold on the RF experience. It's not perfect, but it's pretty close :D.</p>

<p>Looks like I need to look into range finders a bit more. Dave, you're right, I will research the design of the lenses, should be interesting. I've never really looked into it.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a Zeiss Distagon T*2/35 with an FM2. I'm considering, moving over to Leica (M6). I can't afford a Lecia lens so I'm considering the Zeiss Biogon T* 2/35 ZM.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 35mm Biogon is stunning. It gives the latest Asph Summicron a run for its money (literally). The differences in output in the real world are minimal.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The Zeiss Distagon T*2/35 is a different sort of lens and comparing them is pointless.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Generally I'm in 100% agreement with you, Alex, but not this time. Any two lenses of equal FL are comparable. And I've owned and used both, ... </p>

<p>Oops! My apologies, Alex. Scratch what I said about owning and using both. I was thinking of the Biogon. </p>

<p>i use both systems. i am glad you moved the topic. Leica folks are so fanatical. It's a box, light tight, feels nice, it should, the cost, and has great lenses. I have long ago decided against adding lenses for my Leica. Some are old and in a way give less than stellar results. Using Zeiss lenses a new fad, does not suit me! I will not use "other" lenses on any of my equipment. The more automated, the bigger the matching problems.. I know many are happy with Sigma,Cosina, Tamron etc. Good for you.<br>

Some of the Zeiss hi-speed lenses have focus change from maximum to slightly closed down. How the hell do you compensate on a RF? I love my old Leicas but I think they are old fashioned, limited to a particular viewpoint, good for 5' to 25', street photography. Looking thru my Nikon-F at a real image, the beauty of seeing the out of focus, a viable tool, and using Nikkor lenses which in my opinion are way more value for money! Over the years I added older Nikkors. The 55mm Micro(Macro) is without doubt, one of the sharpest lenses, i've ever used. My 105mm f2,5 a stunning portrait lens wide open, soft and beautiful backgrounds, not looking like shards of broken glass as on Leica's Aspherical range. Even if available at Nikon prices, i would not add!<br>

I have used Leica M since the 50's as a kid. My own Leica M since 1966. Arrive the Nikon-F in 1971. Soon a system for all my PJ work. Wonderful for fashion,advertising and graphic accounts, using the ground-glass to design my images. A friend dubbed the SLR a "toy kaleidoscope"*. Great that was fun too. Instead of becoming more sure of the M rangefinder and frames(very inaccurate on newest) i fear all the time what really is sharp! Yes there is depth of field scale, but seeing is better than believing!<br>

The Nikons have seldom needed a service. The Leica M3 a 1,1.......no, Brand new in box, had no RFDR fitted! Did i get another.No!NO! The final assembly in South Africa by their great service guy. So quality control kinda up the spout! I have learnt to rely on Nikon and Nikkors. I use other systems. The Leica most serviced.<br>

The remark about "kaleidoscope" by a fanatical North Korean Party type Leica owner, was about Ernst Hass new book! Color Correction. Well whatever Haas used, it was magic. He used both SLR and RF.<br>

You did good adding the Nikkor lens. Way to go go!</p>

 

<p>The first difference between the Distagon 35/2 and the Bigon 35/2 ZM you would notice: The extreme corners are sharper with the Biogon, otherwise both are first class lenses.<br>

The 35/2 ZM Biogon is not known for its bokeh, not so smooth. The C-Biogon 35/2.8 has a wondeful smooth bokeh, sharp and contrasty at all apertures, probably the only 35mm lens out of Zeiss drawing board with no faults. Both Biogons from 2.8 on share the same excellent sharpness down to corners exhibiting less distortion (almost none) compared to the current Leica 35s.<br>

You can't go wrong with any 35mm Zeiss lens including the two Distagons. </p>

<p>There is a difference in the geometric distortion between the two: the ZF(.2)35/2 has easily noticeable barrel distortion, which seems to increase as one focuses closer, as in the 2' or 1' range. The 35 Biogon, as has been noted, has almost no measurable distortion. As an SLR-only user, I wish my various wide angle lenses had as little distortion as the corresponding Leica-M and Zeiss ZM lenses have.</p>

<p>There is a difference in the geometric distortion between the two: the ZF(.2)35/2 has easily noticeable barrel distortion, which seems to increase as one focuses closer, as in the 2' or 1' range. The 35 Biogon, as has been noted, has almost no measurable distortion. As an SLR-only user, I wish my various wide angle lenses had as little distortion as the corresponding Leica-M and Zeiss ZM lenses have.</p>

<p>Thanks Barbaros and Keith. Your descriptions and information have been really helpful!</p>

<p>Cheers</p>