Carl Zeiss

[Willy Fog]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello!

 

After few films with a 50mm, I know that I prefer a 35mm. I've been looking and reading about lenses this week. I've found the Carl Zeiss - C Biogon T*2.8/35 ZM is one of the best 35mm out there for the price.

 

What do you think? Any of you have this lens and can tell me something about it?

 

Here you have a nice review

 

The Zeiss ZM 35 C-Biogon 2.8 Lens Review | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

Best regards

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Yes, many have that lens. If I put "zeiss 35" in the search function I get exactly 500 results.

But there are so many good 35 lenses by Leica, Voigtlander, Perar, Zeiss and several more that it is not so simple as to point at one lens.

[LotharZhou]

I do prefer the speed of Biogon 35 F2, 2.8 is too slow for me sometimes.

[andybarton]

Yes, many have that lens. If I put "zeiss 35" in the search function I get exactly 500 results.

 

The Forum software will return a maximum of 500 results, so there will most likely be many more than 500.

[01af]

I do prefer the speed of Biogon 35/2; 1:2.8 is too slow for me sometimes.

Never used any of the two Biogon 35 mm ZM lenses myself ... but several users who tried both said they prefer the C-Biogon 35/2.8 ZM over its faster sibling due to better performance.

[TomB_tx]

I also prefer 35mm, and recently got the Zeiss 35 f2.0 Biogon as a companion to my 50 Planar. I use the 35 a lot indoors, and wanted more speed than 2.8. The f2.0 version is very nice, and handles just like the 50 Planar, so they make a good pair. However, I can tell it is a bit soft at 2.0 if you look critically. I like the very low distortion, and stopped down it is very sharp.

My one complaint is the size. I've had a 1969 Summicron since '69, and love tiny lenses. However, this Summicron model has only a small tab on the aperture ring to set it, and with the hood in place it can be fiddly to find the tab by feel. But the results with the lens are as nice as the Zeiss. (I typically carry the Zeiss on my M9 and the Summicron on my M6.) You should be able to find it used for about what the Zeiss sells for new, as the 1979 and later Summicrons are more popular.

With cost as a concern, don't overlook the Voigtlander 35s. I use the 35 1.4 Nokton a lot for low light, and have also had nice results from it stopped down outdoors. I usually can't tell which lens (of these three) took which picture; except when architectural straight lines show the distortion of the Nokton. The Nokton is also almost as small as my 69 Summicron, but with better aperture controls. It does shift focus as you stop down, but you learn to compensate for that.

I also hear good things about the Voigtlander 35 f2.5 Skopar, which would be the least expensive choice, and is very small.

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When I entered the world of Leica in late 2010 (just had to check the date - seems much longer ago!) with the purchase of an M9, my first two lenses were the 35mm Biogon f2 and 50mm Planar f2. Compared with my 5DMkII and 'L' lenses, the results from both were/are highly pleasing and impressive. As already pointed out, the Biogon is not the most petite 35mm, so your potential choice of the C-Biogon may be wise if speed is not an issue. If this is so, you might like to consider an older Leica lens - I have a 35mm Summaron f2.8 (1967!) and find it a delight to use. A comparison size-wise is below.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[microview]

I recently found a 35 2.8 Summaron in excellent condition and apart from the infinity lock (!) was really delighted. In comparative tests with my 35 2.8 Biogon I found resolution to be almost indistinguishable. And as I didn't much like the focusing ring on the Zeiss and discovered that with a tiny sliver from a match you could disable (wedge) the infinity lock on the Leica lens I decided to sell the Biogon. The Summaron is very comfortable in size on the M9 and, as everyone says, sharper than the earlier 35 3.5 Summaron. It also seems immune to fringing and flare with the still current short cylindrical hood (12550).

[LotharZhou]

I doult about that, I have owned the cron 35 2A for over a year, and the biogon35 F2 is on par with the latest cron, zhe Biogon35/2.8 without doult a great lens, but better performance than the 35/2 I am not convinced, if I stop down to f2.8 for the 35/2 I get extreme sharp and superb rendition as well.

 

Never used any of the two Biogon 35 mm ZM lenses myself ... but several users who tried both said they prefer the C-Biogon 35/2.8 ZM over its faster sibling due to better performance.

[LotharZhou]

The CV color skopar is good, small and cheap, but I would hesitate to buy one of those again, I bought two in 2009, both had quality issues, very blurred on one side.

And the color ckopar is prone to flare also.

 

The good thing about this lens is crazy sharpness, shaper in the center wide open than any of my other lenses, including the famous ZM biongon 25/2.8 and all leica lenses. Strange.

 

I also prefer 35mm, and recently got the Zeiss 35 f2.0 Biogon as a companion to my 50 Planar. I use the 35 a lot indoors, and wanted more speed than 2.8. The f2.0 version is very nice, and handles just like the 50 Planar, so they make a good pair. However, I can tell it is a bit soft at 2.0 if you look critically. I like the very low distortion, and stopped down it is very sharp.

My one complaint is the size. I've had a 1969 Summicron since '69, and love tiny lenses. However, this Summicron model has only a small tab on the aperture ring to set it, and with the hood in place it can be fiddly to find the tab by feel. But the results with the lens are as nice as the Zeiss. (I typically carry the Zeiss on my M9 and the Summicron on my M6.) You should be able to find it used for about what the Zeiss sells for new, as the 1979 and later Summicrons are more popular.

With cost as a concern, don't overlook the Voigtlander 35s. I use the 35 1.4 Nokton a lot for low light, and have also had nice results from it stopped down outdoors. I usually can't tell which lens (of these three) took which picture; except when architectural straight lines show the distortion of the Nokton. The Nokton is also almost as small as my 69 Summicron, but with better aperture controls. It does shift focus as you stop down, but you learn to compensate for that.

I also hear good things about the Voigtlander 35 f2.5 Skopar, which would be the least expensive choice, and is very small.

[jerryharwood]

Hi, I have the 35mm F2.8c Zeiss on my CLE; it is superb, and easily the equivalent of the leica 35 F2. When you look at the current pricing of leica lenses, there is no contest; have a Zeiss on your camera, and I doubt very much if even the most ardent leica photographer could tell the difference in the resultant trannies or prints.

[bill]

In 35mm terms I had a V4 Summicron for years but replaced it with the CV 35mm 2.5 pancake (LTM version) because I preferred the rendition. This is a seriously underpriced lens for the performance. I also have the Zeiss f2. I agree it is a tad on the bulky side particularly with the hood but again the performance is "very Zeiss". Lastly I have the 35mm Summaron 3.5 which I use on my M2 and GXR with M Module and a dinky 3.5cm 3.5 Elmar that I use with my II. The Summaron is of its era and one should not expect miracles but it gives surprisingly pleasant results on the GXR.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[SJP]

<snip>I have a 35mm Summaron f2.8 (1967!) and find it a delight to use. A comparison size-wise is below.

that is one of the best lenses I have, still easily comparable to 28/2 ASPH or 50/1.4 ASPH and it is built like a tank despite it's diminutive size. This is the lens that immediately convinced me that all this Leica stuff was not really a hype.

 

EDIT: OK,OK maybe MTF curves may show otherwise but it is a seriously good lens by any reasonable standard.

[normclarke]

My first 35mm for Leica was a summaron f2,8. An extremely good lens though lacking in the contrast department, I just had to have a summicron so I sold it and bought a V4 which I could not fault, but when the prices rose to alarming heights last year I sold and made a modest profit. I almost abandoned Leica at this time but a less than pristeen M4-2 appeared on the evilbay and I bit again. Since then I have had the Voigtlander Skopar f2,5 which was very good if a little harsh in its rendition and so have settled on the Zeiss f2,8 which I can't fault, maybe not as good as the V4 summicron but at about 25% of the price a bargain.

 

Best,

 

normclarke.

[gjames9142]

The 35 biogon 2.8 is a remarkably sharp lens -- probably a better technical performer than the 28 cron. The dreaded Ken Rockwell pointed out that is so sharp that it creates artefacts with the M9, which happens with me. i happen to prefer the look of the version 4 cron, but the biogon might be great with the MM. Generally people fuss too much about these small differences.

[rramesh]

Hello!

 

After few films with a 50mm, I know that I prefer a 35mm. I've been looking and reading about lenses this week. I've found the Carl Zeiss - C Biogon T*2.8/35 ZM is one of the best 35mm out there for the price.

 

What do you think? Any of you have this lens and can tell me something about it?

 

Here you have a nice review

 

The Zeiss ZM 35 C-Biogon 2.8 Lens Review | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

Best regards

There are a lot of good reviews for most lenses. Don't buy based on what you read as it will be the surest way to get GAS.

Suggest you buy what you need after using your existing lenses for a while and being really sure of limitations in your current choice of focal lengths.

[brianv]

The 35 biogon 2.8 is a remarkably sharp lens -- probably a better technical performer than the 28 cron. The dreaded Ken Rockwell pointed out that is so sharp that it creates artefacts with the M9, which happens with me. i happen to prefer the look of the version 4 cron, but the biogon might be great with the MM. Generally people fuss too much about these small differences.

 

My 1943 3.5cm F2.8 Biogon (completed as a Jupiter-12 LTM mount) is sharp enough to cause artifacts on the M9 and M8.

[hillavoider]

I highly recommend the 35 Biogon F2. Easily as good as Leica for 1/5 the price. I never take mine off.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M