This Biogon looks interesting due to its small physical size and possibly no need to use a lens hood. I haven't seen many images from this lens though and I am wondering what to expect.
Does it have the typical Zeiss signature? Is the 35/2 much better? How does it compare to Summarit or Summicron?
The 35/2.8 is generally regarded as better than the 35/2. Smaller and sharper. I think the 35/2 has less distortion and obviously f/2. It can also have a bit busier bokeh in some situations (not that I ever noticed). I think stopped down a good bit, the 35/2 is better.
But, the 35/2.8 is very highly regarded, mores than the 35/2. Not sure how it compares to the Leica lenses, both of which are very good. I think if I had the money for a Summarit, I'd buy the C-Biogon instead and save some cash. Unless you really need a Leica lens for some reason.
Then again, I don't really like 35mm, so I sold my 35/2. Great lens by the way.
the c-biogon is excellent, it gives up a stop of speed, vignettes more at f2.8 and isnt quite as good stopped down at infinity in the lp40 (i.e. fine detail) department versus the f2 but that's about it.
every close up picture Ive ever seen shows this to be a great choice for that. I considered buying one but I shoot 50s more so I got the ZM planar 50 instead.
Agreed with the above. The 35/2 wide open has just a tiny bit of glow, which I really like. Nothing as serious as some f/1.4 lenses though. The only advantages the f/2.8 version has IMO are size and wide open sharpness.
When I got my M9 about 1.5 years ago, the ZM35 f/2.8 was the first lens I got for it along with the ZM21 f/2.8. I think it's a very good all around lens. There other better options with respect to certain features, such as speed, infinity sharpness, distortion (though the 35 f/2.8 is not at all bad for distortion)... You're right that it's very flare resistant and can be confidently used without the hood. I never bought one for it, though also don't use a filter. I think it's pretty safe to say it has Zeissy characteristics, though you'll have to judge for yourself.
If you're wondering about Tim's (kidtexas) reference to the ZM35 f/2 bokeh, on the M8/M9 thread here, one poster, denoir (Luka) was quite vocal about his dislike for its background blur quality at close distances. This is one of his examples: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/920070/119#9131484
But at farther distances the ZM35 f/2 is supposed to be extremely sharp, though I have no personal experience with it.
I joined the M8/M9 thread at about this spot, page 100, and contributed fairly regularly, so you may wish to spend some time browsing through it. From what I remember, there weren't too many, if any, other frequent contributors posting images with this lens. Hope this helps.
Mirek, the 35C is a delightful lens, but not absolutely typical Zeiss IMHO. Mine was just a bit bland SOOC, and I routinely pushed both colours and contrast a bit in post. It also offered gobs of detail at infinity, but the sharpness was not as "in-your-face" as some other Zeiss lenses, say like ZM 50 f:2.0. Same with 3D. Now I own the 35 f:2.0, and all of this is gone. Rumours of unflattering bokeh wide open abound, but I haven't seen my shots adversely affected by it yet.
If it is the modern Zeiss look you are after, I would go for the 35 f:2.0.
Good points Philippe. My ZM 35/2 and 50/2 are so similar in rendering that sometimes I forget which lens is on the camera. Of course the 50 has no glow wide open, but that's about it.
I didn't say it was bad, Thrice, much the reverse, as your shots so eloquently demonstrate. I just said that it might not be exactly what the OP would expect in terms of typical modern Zeiss look. And, while your shots are delightful, and taken by another photographer and with another camera than mine, I feel that they vindicate what I wrote.
I should clarify about the bad bokeh thing on the 35/2 - I had one for a 12-15 months and used it as my main lens. I never saw bad bokeh with it. One can't deny that Luka's shot has some funny stuff going on, but I guess I never took a shot like that - and probably never will. It's not a lens in my mind that continually turns out bokeh that one would comment on... like the the f/1 Noctilux for example.
Dan, may I ask why you sold it and what are you using now for 35mm?
Philber, I was hoping to have rendering similar to ZE lenses I have - 21, 35/1.4, 50MP and 100 (yes, I know they aren't all the same). Or similar to Planar 50 ZM. Is the 35/2 closer to that?
Ron & Tim, I remember Luka's example of bad bokeh and it was one of the reasons I started to look for alternatives. I don't know if that's typical, though. Perhaps Luka is still here and can comment on that as well.
Edward, could you compare background blur of 50/2 and 35/2?
I can't speak for Luka, but my impression was that he felt strongly about it. My advice would be to look at that shot (the only example I've ever seen put forth of 'bad' bokeh with this lens) and ask yourself if that's the kind of photos you shoot. I don't. Not only do I not shoot photos like that, I can't imagine a 35mm lens on a rangefinder would be the tool I'd use if I did. Not saying Luka is wrong, but it's just a usage case which does not apply to me at all. In fact, when I bought the lens in 2008, the word was it had good bokeh!
Then again, by and large, 'bad' bokeh isn't something that bothers me. I find funky distortion, large lens size, and ghosting flare that ruins shots to be much more problematic. The Zeiss ZF 21/2.8 seems to have all three of those and just isn't that appealing to me because of it. I'm obviously in the minority here. Who was it that went to Antelope Canyon and had their 21 flare on them so much they couldn't use it? So make sure your priorities are the same as the person recommending the lens.
These are all on film, and they probably aren't the best pictures in the world, but here's a decent sampling of what I shot when I had this lens: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tgray1/tags/35mm/
In particular, here's a shot that was probably pretty close to wide open and near minimum focal distance. Sorry for the grainy nature of TMZ: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tgray1/2669922186/
Ahh, I finally found the thread I was looking for. A short comparison at f/2.8 of the C-Biogon, the f/1.2 Nokton, the Summarit, and the Summilux pre-ASPH. Not exactly the comparison you are asking for, but I thought it was illuminating - there's a third comparison shot on page four of the thread.
Edit: I looked into my film scans of last month for some shots with background blur. I don't have many as I'm shooting more documentary style with my RF cameras. Here are a few family and friends snaps with the 35/2 that show OOF background, all taken wide open or slightly stopped down.
Thanks! Is it just me or does the foreground blur look better than the background blur?
Mirek Elsner wrote:
Thanks! Is it just me or does the foreground blur look better than the background blur?
No, I quite agree with that. That goes for both 50/2 and 35/2. I find their bokeh as well as general drawing style to be very similar. Sometimes it is difficult for me to remember which lens I was using by just looking at the photos. I think the bokeh is quite nervous at times, especially wide open, but generally "nice" for the lack of better term (nice probably means for me not too creamy with distinct details). Gets much better slightly stopped down. Also depends very much on the shooting distance and the background to subject distance.
Mirek, the 35 f:2.0 is IMHO clearly closer to what you are looking for. The 35C is, if anything closer to the 28, sharp, detailed, but slightly less contrasty and less saturated colours. Except the 35C doesn't have the CA that the 28 has. If I had to pick a comparison, I would say the 35 f:2.0 is closest, relatively speaking, to the 21 as far as colours, contrast and details are concerned. Of course, DOF, AoV and bokeh are vastly different.
Thanks, I have some experience with both the 28 and 21 ZEs, so this is very helpful.
Ahh, I finally found the thread I was looking for. A short comparison at f/2.8 of the C-Biogon, the f/1.2 Nokton, the Summarit, and the Summilux pre-ASPH. Not exactly the comparison you are asking for, but I thought it was illuminating - there's a third comparison shot on page four of the thread.
Yes, very illuminating. I liked the Biogon C in that comparison very much.
