Zeiss Biogon T* 35/2 Experiences/thoughts wanted please

[cebes_johnson]

Hello

 

 

I have researched all I can find online regarding this lens. (searches, forums,

etc). I use an Mp and Leica lenses only for what I do and have schooled myself

only recently on Zeiss optics and therefore have no direct experience.

 

From all I have been able to gather online and what I have read:

 

This lens compares rather well to the pre ASPH 35/2 Summicron.

 

It is not as contrasty as teh Summicron and not as sharp at center as the

Summicron but retains a flat field better than all other compared lenses (that

is Leica, Voigt, Canon).

 

Also what is interesting (apparently) is how it renders out of focus objects

with very nice transitions and corner to corner sharp focus.

 

 

 

As a note, I do not prescribe to the ideas and/or logic of "pixel counting,"

mtf graphs and the like.

 

And i realize these things are so subjective and one really needs to try for

themselves. It is a very personal choice how a lens "draws" and the qualites

one is searching for.

 

 

That all said, and information being rather difficult to come by on these

lenses from users that is, are there any who would be willing to describe their

experiences with this lens? Confirm what has been said above? Its performance

wide open *in the real world*?

 

 

I would also be very interested how the results appeal *above all* emotionally

to you. Do you feel there are some subtlties that make it simply not cut it

with you personally? (those personal qualities which feign description...)

 

Also, I recall reading *somewhere* that Zeiss black lenses had a reputation for

wearing fast. That is, the finish was not very strong and was prone to wearing

prematurely. True / false?

 

Can anyone substantiate this. I read it somewhere online (a review or

something) but after a while as you know it all becomes mush in the brain where

you viewed this and that...

 

 

 

 

Thanks in advance all who reply. I do genuinely appreciate it.

 

Best regards and happy holidays.

C

[cebes_johnson]

PS: I realize this may be asking a lot, however, I am unfortunately unable to get my hands on one.

 

thx again.

[graham_line]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/search.php?searchid=444130

[billc1]

I do not have the lens but I do know it is wider and longer than the 35 summicron. There are pictures on flickr taken with the lens with film cameras. I am little surpised that the Zeiss Ikon fans haven't develpoed their own website toward using Zeiss Ikon equipment.

[dan_kreithen]

I have owned both, and currently own (my 2nd) v4 Summicron. That should tell you what my preference is. Here are my impressions, solely formed by observing B&W film. I think you'd see fewer differences with color, but that's something I'm not that interested in. The Summicron is not sharp and lacks character wide open. If you're interested in wide open performance, just get the latest Summicron ASPH and be done with it. The Zeiss is also mediocre wide open, but not as bad as the Summicron v4. At f2.8 the v4 Summicron starts coming into its own, and by f4 it surely sings. At those apertures, all these lenses are sharp enough not to care much one way or another. The differences lie more in how they render. I have no experience with the ASPH, but the v4, well, it has this something - how it handles 3D subjects for example, that is distinctive (better or worse is a personal decision). You'll either see it and love it or the lens will just not hold any special cachet for you. The Zeiss is also very nice, but strikes me as sharp with nice out-of-focus areas, but that's about where it ends. The best thing to do is to try both if you can - best to buy used lenses in this case since you can sell them for little or no loss. For build quality, the Zeiss seems to be better built, as the v4 Summicron is a cut below the best Leica built products. Handling is a different story - unless you have very large hands, the v4 handles better than the Zeiss if you prefer a focus tab, worse if you don't. It is considerably smaller than the Zeiss.

[mark_amos]

Cebes, I know many, including Dan, love the V4 35 cron, and I know cost is always an issue, but since you've got an MP, it must not be the main issue, and I know of the bokeh talk, but my point is that the great thing about the 35 cron aspherical, for me, is that when you are shooting in a situation that you know is "too dark", you set the lens at f2 and shoot at whatever shutter speed is needed, and you get images that are still amazingly crisp in the middle AND BEYOND. I find the transition to the unfocused areas is smooth enough, even though the unfocused areas seem to have better definition than from other lenses. Granted, the images at f2 are not dreamy, but if you want to capture a setting for architectural detail, for example, you might swear you shot at a smaller aperture.<div></div>

[simonpg]

I have the 'cron ASPH, but the Zeiss was not available at the time. If it were available I might just have bought it on the basis of "bang for buck". Having seen images made by the Zeiss I think it is great value for money. I am a Zeiss fan being a Hasselblad system user - I know that MF lenses paint a different picture to 35mm, but I really like Zeiss lenses' attributes especially the OOF. I could see some of the Zeiss attributes I am used to in the 35mm Biogon.

 

If your choice comes down to budget have no fear in chosing the Zeiss - having tried one I found the build quality to be excellent and to my eyes the imaging was similar to my 'cron and maybe even a little less brutal. Any resolving power performance lower than Leica's superb V4 and ASPH may be difficult for the eye to see anyway.

 

I liked the V4 'cron I tried before I bought the ASPH, but I was not comfortable with its more compact size (my clumsy hands) - the ASPH is excellent, but sometimes very contrasty / maybe even too contrasty unlike my current 50mm 'cron. In lower light the detail and colour are superb.

[mattalofs]

I've used my Biogon 35 almost every day since I bought it about 5 months ago. Here's my 20 roll report:

 

* Build quality: The lens feels very sturdy. It mounts securely. Focussing is smooth. Aperture detents provide good feedback. I've not noticed any wear on the finish, and it's been bouncing around in coat pockets etc.

 

* Sharpness: Altough there are at least two reviews that state this lens is too soft wide open, I've not found this to be true. For handheld work, there's no practical difference in sharpness between F2 and F4. And yes, the field is nearly entirely flat and it is sharp all the way out to the corners.

 

* Contrast: At F2 the lens is slightly less contrasty than at F4, although it's nothing you can't change in printing or in Photosop.

 

* Flare: Flare is extremely well handled. I don't have a hood for mine, but I've seen some mild veiling flare only twice. On one occasion, with the setting sun pouring in through a nearby window, I did manage to get some kind of gnarly flare, but it was an interesting effect.

 

* Bokeh: I like it. This lens is smooth and sharp at the same time in an uncommon way. I've never seen anything that is exactly like it.

 

* Emotional Appeal of Results: I'm glad you asked that. This is an amazingly competent lens, and one that is hard not to like after you shoot with it for a while. It's got a quiet personality, but there's very little it can't do. That corner to corner sharpness and the soft transition between in and out of focus give it a very realistic rendition even wide open without seeming overly harsh.

 

When I get back from work, I can add a few pictures to this, but in the meantime you might take a look at the pic of the week threads from the last couple of months. I think most of mine were taken with this lens.

[cebes_johnson]

Ah hell...I forgot about flickr and did not find the posts within the rangefinderforum until afterwards. My apologies.

 

Nevertheless, the replies above were immeasurably helpful and what I am looking for.

 

Will check the images at flickr and your as well Matt.

 

Many thanks.

[mattalofs]

Cebes, I put the photos up on my website along with a bit longer review of the lens. <a href="http://www.1point4photography.com/blog/zm-biogon-35mm-f2-review">Zeiss ZM Biogon 35 F2 Review</a>

[mark_amos]

E. Putz has his 5th installment on the M8 up on his web site, and he tests various lenses on it. In comparing the 35 cron asph to the 35 biogon, he says the cron has more contrast in the center than the biogon, but the biogon is overall better in other respects. As a cron owner, this kind of made my mouth drop open. I have no trouble believing the Zeiss designs are excellent, but for the two lenses to be even "the same" would make it a good value. His comments may only apply to use on the M8, however, because I believe he commented previously on the biogon and didn't think it was up to the cron. Also, the cron is smaller, which is important to me. ...just more food for thought.