Biogon 28 F2.8 opinions please

[Jelico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am interested in buying Zeiss Biogon 28/2.8 as a sheaper option to Elmarit asph. 28/2.8. I am not interested in previous versions of Elmarit 28 due to their size and the fact that price of second hand copies in good conditions is higher than Biogon 28.

 

Please tell me your experience with this lens and if somebody has Elmarit 28/2.8 as well, how this two compare, sharpness, bokeh, etc. Thanks in advance

[thrice]

Aside from size it is overshadowed by the amazing 25mm f/2.8 Biogon. I have the 25 and it is stunning.

 

Steve Huff took a close look at the 25 here.

 

I believe he's shot with a 28 Biogon but I haven't seen a review yet.

 

Sean Reid has included the 28 Biogon in his 28mm lens roundup, I suggest becoming a subscriber to his site. Bear in mind that at time of writing he has only compared 28's on the M8. What surprised me is that it is less contrasty than the 28 Elmarit, holding more detail in the shadows. It's a little softer than the competition (Voigtlander ultron, Leica Elmarit, Leica Summicron, Voigtlander Color-Skopar) in the corners but does have very soft out of focus rendering (for what is out of focus on a 28 at f/2.8). If you don't need speed I would get the Color-Skopar but I recommend subscribing and reading the review to be sure for yourself.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jelico]

Thanks Daniel, I have excluded Ultron (due to its size), Leica Summicron (too expensive for me) and Color-Scopar (too slow). I have found some reviews and comments on Biogon and they were quite contradictory. Some users said that its brilliant lens better than Elmarit asph 28, others said that its one of the weakest lenses amongst ZM lenses. Maybe there are variation between the copies ?

 

I would really like to hear opinions from people who are using Biogon with Leica M9.

[tgray]

Some users said that its brilliant lens better than Elmarit asph 28, others said that its one of the weakest lenses amongst ZM lenses.

 

Couldn't both of those be true at the same time?

 

I've not shot with it, but from when I intensely researched 28's, it sounds like a great lens. It is just a bit overshadowed on either side by the 25mm and 35mm. I ended up with at 28 Summicron because I wanted the speed, but also have a CV 28/3.5, which is fantastic as well.

[docrjay]

Ken Rockwell did a review, you could look it up on his website.

 

I was disappointed that Steve Huff wasn't able to review the 28, and so is the 85. He was swamped with cameras and other stuff to review that he let the time slip on the 2.

 

He said basically said that the 28 is a fine lens, but underexposes a bit. Which as he said can be corrected in camera. But being a leica owner you expect perfection so it didn't wow him. But I think if he had time to review it, on the cost effectiveness level it would be a fine lens.

 

Ken Rockwell on the other hand, loved both the 28 and the 18 after his test's.

[Jelico]

The only people who used and reviewed Biogon 28 on the net are Ken and Steve and to my surprise Ken is saying that its better than Elmarit asph. And Steve complains that the lens is nothing ‘special’.

 

I don’t have possibility to check the lens before I buy it, here where I live.

That’s why I would appreciate comments from people who us it on M9.

[tgray]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

He said basically said that the 28 is a fine lens, but underexposes a bit.

 

I don't understand this. Doesn't the meter make it's reading based on the light coming through the lens? How could a lens underexpose? Not saying anyone is wrong, I just don't understand what is meant by that statement.

 

Maybe the f-stop labels are inaccurate, but I don't think that's what is meant here...

[photolandscape]

I have both the 28mm Elmarit ASPH and the ZM Biogon 25mm. I have had the 28 for three years, and just added the Biogon. I bought both of them used, but in minty condition.

 

I have found the 28 Elmarit ASPH to be my best overall lens, and on my old M8, the one I generally keep mounted on the camera as it is the equivalent of a 37mm lens. And it is absolutely the sharpest. It renders amazing detail. My 25mm Biogon comes pretty close, but doesn't quite get to the level of the Elmarit.

 

Now that I have an M9, I will probably get a 35mm Summmicron ASPH, and keep the Biogon. I hope I'll like the Summicron as much as I have the Elmarit.

[batmobile]

I own the 28 Biogon along with the 35 f2, 50 planar, 21 2.8, Summarit 35, last model 90 Elmarit M, used to have a 50 lux asph and...

 

The 28 is not inferior to any of them in a meaningful sense.

 

The 28 ZM is not soft in the corners in my experience. Some say this is due to curvature of field that is not noticeable in field use. In some shots I can perhaps just detect that it is less perfect in the corners than the 35 Biogon but which lenses are? That lens is a corner performance legend.

 

It is somewhat more flare prone than the other ZMs I own but still tonnes better than most CV lenses and still very good, its only that most ZMs are astoundingly good - so much so that they rewite what is possible and what is not in terms of shooting into the sun. The 28 can bite you when the sun is just outside the frame once in a while and when it does bite it tends to be severe, but I have about 4 frames in four years use where this has been the case. As I say, those affected have severe issues but when everything else is clean as a whistle. Thats not bad considering I shoot in Afghanistan and often into or nearly into the sun.

 

Those who say it is not up to the performance of the other lenses are often referring to Zeiss MTFs, which may also be a reflection of curvature of field. I dont know that though, but can only comment on field performance which is stellar. I rarely print smaller than 16x12, usually 20x16 and often 20x24 and find the images very, very sharp indeed from corner to corner and certainly as sharp as a person needs. Maybe at some focal distances the others lenses are a touch better, but even when print sniffing I can see little if anything in it in any shot that makes me think it is lacking.

 

I generally dont shoot mine wide open and when I do there is rarely anything at the plane of focus in the corners, but wide open the centre is tack sharp and a couple of stops down the corners are tack sharp in general use. It is very possible that a couple of stops sorts out curvature in field use by virtue of DOF and that at wider apertures, focused close to infinity the issues are more obvious, but I can't say I have noticed for my use and I am pretty anal at times and have a particular fixation with the quality of the final print. I often use Delta 100, which in Xtol takes no prisoners.

 

Let me put it this way, I would be amazed if you find this lens technically lacking. If you do you probably need to shoot more interesting photos and less newsprint. As for the signature, that is a personal things and it is identical to all other ZMs as in pretty high contrast and a very clean look with tonnes of image clarity.

Edited March 18, 2010 by batmobile

[kanzlr]

grave digging alert!

 

maybe it is still relevant to the OP, so I post my experience:

I just sold my D700 + Zeiss Distagon 35/2. The Zeiss was the best lens I ever mounted onto a Nikon body, and I had a LOT of excellent glass. It was super sharp, great color, etc. You name it.

 

When I got rid of the Nikon gear, and bought a used M8 a few days ago I decided to try to the 25mm Biogon. While a stop slower than the 35/2 I had, it gives me a comparable field of view, and thats most important. Also, I loved the Distagon look, and hoped to find a similar one in the Biogon.

 

Long story short: The lens is amazing. perfectly sharp wide open, corner performance looks great, I love the colors and the contrast gives you a punch in the face! superb.

Exactly what I was searching for in an everyday reportage lens for the M8. The 24mm lines in the VF are accurate enough for me, at least.

 

So, at least from am M8 point of view, I can fully recommend this little beauty (and the M8 files with the Biogon are sharper than the D700 files with the Distagon. Must be the lack of AA filter).

[Jelico]

Well my update is overdue too. I got ZM 28/2.8 Biogon eventually and I don’t regret it. It’s a very sharp lens, wide open corners are bit less sharp than centre, but stopped down the sharpness is the same across the frame. And its very very 3D (if you catch the right light), contrast is bit higher than Leica 28/2.8 (version before 28 asph.)

I have ZM 25/2.8 as well, and I couldn’t see any difference in sharpness between them. I have tried VC Ultron 28/2, no comparison, ZM is much better (and smaller).

[Steve Ricoh]

Old thread, but rather than raise a similar...

 

With regard to the Biogon-T 2.8/28 ZM Erwin Puts states:

'This is an eight-element lens in 6 groups. There is some play in the mount, but the centring of the optical cell is good...'

No further explanation offered by the author, but what do you take from this statement?

[friedeye]

Old thread, indeed. And I can't feel any play in the mount. Hmmm. Maybe Erwin had a bad copy?

 

And I'll weigh in, as I've used the ZM 28 on my M9 for three years.  It is a razor sharp lens with 3D pop and beautiful handling.  I'll pair it on trips with the ZM 50, 1.5 -- both use the same lens cap and shade, are the same size, and can cover just about any situation.  The 50 is a very arty and fast wide open, and turns into a clean, sharp street lens by f8.  It's an excellent 1-2 combo.

[Archiver]

My copy has no play in the mount, but definite slackness in the focus ring.  Over time, the lens barrel has become looser, to the point where the focus ring catches internally when being turned.  I've taken off the mount plate to have a look inside, and there are long scratches in the brass barrel. 

 

This complaint is not uncommon, and I own the Zeiss 21, 25, 28, and 50/1.5.  The 21 is my only Zeiss without mechanical complaint.  The 28 is the worst, and is essentially unusable if I don't want to further damage the inside of the lens.  The 25 is starting to display the same wobble and catching, and the 50's focus ring has some vertical play as well.

 

Mechanical issues aside: I also have the 28mm Elmarit, and while the Elmarit is optically excellent, the 28mm Biogon is also excellent, and I prefer the way it feels and focuses due to the knurled focus ring.  I don't believe people would be disappointed with the performance of any of the wide angle Zeiss Biogon lenses, including the 28mm.  Just watch out for quality control and mechanical issues.  Sooner or later, I'll be sending my lenses away to be fixed.

[Lord Lucan]

My copy has no play in the mount, but definite slackness in the focus ring.  Over time, the lens barrel has become looser, to the point where the focus ring catches internally when being turned.  I've taken off the mount plate to have a look inside, and there are long scratches in the brass barrel. 

 

This complaint is not uncommon, and I own the Zeiss 21, 25, 28, and 50/1.5.  The 21 is my only Zeiss without mechanical complaint.  The 28 is the worst, and is essentially unusable if I don't want to further damage the inside of the lens.  The 25 is starting to display the same wobble and catching, and the 50's focus ring has some vertical play as well.

 

Mechanical issues aside: I also have the 28mm Elmarit, and while the Elmarit is optically excellent, the 28mm Biogon is also excellent, and I prefer the way it feels and focuses due to the knurled focus ring.  I don't believe people would be disappointed with the performance of any of the wide angle Zeiss Biogon lenses, including the 28mm.  Just watch out for quality control and mechanical issues.  Sooner or later, I'll be sending my lenses away to be fixed.

I have several 28mm including Zeiss ZM and Konica KM 28. I like Konica.

All lenses have to be used with some tenderness and extra care with Tri Elmar MATE.