E. Puts on the new 35/2.8 ZM Biogon

[john_gleason1]

Here's the link:

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/zeiss/page116/page116.html

[harvey_edelstein1]

I'd rather have a Cron or other f2.0 or faster 35mm lens, the difference in size between a Cron and the Biogon is not worth carrying a slower lens.

[aplumpton]

It would have been interesting to have compare the Summicron aspheric with the new Zeiss lens. The extra stop may be

shown to be well worth the higher price. The 35mm f2.5 classic V-C lens should perhaps have also been compared, as it is

the apparent low weight, small size, champion.

[john_gleason1]

"It would have been interesting to have compare the Summicron aspheric with the new Zeiss lens."

 

But Mr. Puts said this (in his earlier review of the Summarit series):

 

"I would even claim that the Summarit 35mm is better than the Summicron asph version."

 

So, if the 35/2.8 Biogon is competitive with the 35/2.5 Summarit (in his view), maybe there was no reason to compare against the Asph 35 Summicron.

 

Comparisons with the CV 35/2.5 would, however, be quite interesting.

[aplumpton]

"I would even claim that the Summarit 35mm is better than the Summicron asph version."

 

John, I expect Erwin is splitting hairs on this one; nevertheless if the Summarit at f2.5 equals the Summ ASPH, it must

be extremely good. The small-production V-C 50mm f3,5 Heliar also received rave reviews from the test reviewers

(better than the higher speed lenses), but it is no doubt a lot easier to design an f2,5, f2,8 or f3,5 lens than an f2,0 or f1,4

one.

 

Amazing, though how lens design is an evolutionary thing. A 10 year old lens has a fairly hard time to compete with a

newer one. Like the Summ 35 (Type IV, or earlier) and the Summ ASPH. In all but Bokeh, the ASPH trods under the

non_aspherical lens of circa 1980.

[john_gleason1]

"I expect Erwin is splitting hairs on this one"

 

Yeah, quite possibly. I've read that review several times, and his claim that the Summarit is better seems to be

based on better control of flare --- which is the main focus of this more recent comparison involving the

C-Biogon 35.

 

From what I've seen, I've got to agree with your final paragraph, but I think I'll hang on to my 35 Summicron for

a while longer.

[frank]

"Comparisons with the CV 35/2.5 would, however, be quite interesting."

 

John,

 

that is exactly what I wil do during my oncoming vacation. Comparing the Zeiss 35/2.8 with the CV 35/2.5 II and the Zeiss 21/4.5 with the CV 21/4 II.

 

:-)

[frank]

"I'd rather have a Cron or other f2.0 or faster 35mm lens, the difference in size between a Cron and the Biogon is not worth carrying a slower lens."

 

Harvey

 

I think a statement like this is a bit unfair. Look at the difference in price. IMO the principal reason for buying the C-Biogon is not to save weight or keep the camera equipment compact but to save money without loosing image quality. However, compared with the huge Biogon 35/2 the C-Biogon 35/2.8 is virtually tiny in size. Furthermore I am convinced that there are thousands of rangefinder cameras that are only used under daylight conditions for family and landscape shots. Why paying (partly a lot) more for speed that is not needed?

[aplumpton]

"....but I think I'll hang on to my 35 Summicron for a while longer."

 

I agree entirely with your statement, John, and regret having sold mine in the late 1990s for the aspheric. Maybe the

latter is better in very big enlargements, or at f2, but the 35 Summicron is a really fine lens with smooth transition from in

focus to out of focus images, and of course, it's small size.

 

Frank's mention of the quality of the Biogon and particularly the quality/price ratio is a major point. If you don't need the

extra stop, the Biogon seems a real winner, while the Summarit is still a bit on the pricey side. Zeiss's design and

upgraded quality control at the Cosina factory (making the Biogon) is possibly what leads to the high quality/price ratio.

 

May not get around to it in the next few weeks, but I will try to compare the ASPH to the CV 35/2,5 at some point and

post the results.

[35mmdelux]

35mm/2.8 Bio ZM? In this case I would go for the 28mm/2.0 VC.

 

I use slower lenses for backup to my 35mm 'lux ASPH.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Its funny that a 30 year old lens has still a lot going for it, who says you need to buy new. I see a lot of recent introductions in this market of slower lenses, 35mm F2.5, 35mm f2.8, 21mm f4.5. One would think they were in the main being bought by digital camera users who have the advantage of asa 1600 low noise cameras. For me the sweet spot is still f2.0 for its size and adequate speed. I would get an Cosina 35 f1.2 for night and available light its a great lens in every respect and worth its weight for its qualities. Compared to some of my Nikon primes its not so heavy.

[aplumpton]

Harvey, if you can get a back issue (a few years ago) of "Black and White Photography" (British mag, you might google it),

they compared the VC 35 f1.2 to the older Summilux f1.4 and other slower VC lenses. I don't think it was regarded as

highly as you might believe. It is a monster size, though.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Authur on the RFF there are so many testimonial from lens junkies touting the lens. I looked at the samples posted by these owners and I must say at night the lens seems to make the images pop. If you tag the lens on Flickr you will see plenty great samples. The lens has a great rendition.

 

On the monster size its big for a RF lens but so is the Biogon 35mm. Comparred to Canon 35mm and Nikon 35mm ais lenses about the speed its not that big at all. I go to the gym and pump iron so an extra bit of weight

never bothered me when I use my Pentax 67 or Nikon F100 with 70-200mm plus TC-1.7x VR AFS setup.

 

I have a tiny Cron but the Cosina 35mm f1.2 is on the acquistion list because owners seem to love its construction and results enough to bear the extra weight. I will be looking for one that is too heavy for someone who doesn't work out and wants to sell it used.

[Robin Smith]

Harvey and Arthur,

 

Puts seemed not to rate the VC 1.2 35mm so highly either, putting it below most of the new 35mm offerings in terms of resolution and wide aperture performance, but I do agree with Harvey that the web testimonials are uniformly great.

[aplumpton]

Maybe the size of the enlargement you want should be considered. Web images (72 dpi?) or 8 x 10s will not likely show

the advantages or disadvantages. If I was in the market for a fast reasonably WA lens I think I would want to also check

out the VC 40 mm f1.4. For 0.2 less of a stop, you get compactness and perhaps half the price (If you shoot streetwise, a

small discrete lens may save you a few "Sorry (Mr. Hulk), I ought to have asked you before clicking....").

 

Just my personal take ($0.02 worth).

[harvey_edelstein1]

Arthur that's true I would be relying on viewing on screen, although Flickr has a large mode that sometimes is quite large. However as Robin and I state the volume of testimonials by owners in love with the lens answers your point on the DPI viewing. I would suppose that owner like myself have printers capable of true color at 300dpi resolution final print. Go to RFF and search strands on the lens rather than depending on only one source for your opinion.

[aplumpton]

OK, Harvey, thanks, I will do that, but E. Puts and the B&W Photography are quite good sources.

[dstate1]

Just to butt in, I held off purchasing the Nokton 35 based on Puts' assesment. Once I took the leap I realized he was either testing a

defective lens or just did not get it right this time. I can say that mine is stunningly sharp, flare free and fully usable at f 1.2

 

In comparison to my ASPH Summicron at same apertures the VC is lower in contrast, but more flare resistant. It has a bit of barrel

distortion but not enough to bother.

 

In comparison with my Noctilux the Nokton is much easier to use as a general purpose lens because of the much shorter focus throw

and total freedom from focus shift as it's stopped down. Both lenses are a bit flatter overall than the slower conterparts. The vignetting

is about the same at their respective maximum apertures. Color reproduction is more neutral with the Nokton.