C Biogon 35/f2.8

[krooj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does anyone out there have feedback on this lens? There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of information on it, I presume because it's overshadowed by it's faster brother. After checking out Reid's site, I noticed the 35/f2.8 has much higher contrast than the Biogon 32/f2. Anyone else out there notice this?

[Advertisement]

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

[don daniel]

Reid is right. C-Biogon 35/2.8 is a wonderful lens. Not only it is very small and light, but it is also very sharp and has no distortion.

 

On my former M9 I always chose a 28mm-profile, so don't be confused about the EXIFS. On Flickr you can see full resolution!

 

Grossbasel von Blende 1.4 auf Flickr

[01af]

I don't have this lens ... but I hear those who have compared it to the faster brother—i. e. the Biogon 35 mm 1:2 ZM—usually prefer the 35/2.8, due to better performance at f/2.8.

[krooj]

Thanks. It's good to know. Definitely not a nighttime lens, but seemingly higher IQ than the 35/f2. I might get the /f2.8 when my M arrives.

[chalkdust]

I cannot compare the f/2.8 with the f/2.0 because I own only the f/2.8. I consider it a great, reliable, workhorse lens. It never fails me. I recall an article by Erwin Puts in which he was particularly impressed with its resistance to flare. I highly recommend this lens.

[humba]

I use it all the time and am totally happy with it.

 

Ken Rockwell quote:"This Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 C Biogon ZM is optically superb, but its unique filter size makes it a bear to deploy as part of a larger system."

 

I fully agree to that. Using stepdown adapter rings reduces the amount of filters you have to carry if any.

 

Last week i had the chance to compare a Summicron V2 and the faster "brother" Zeiss ZM2/35 with my 2.8/35 and i must say i cant see any difference in image quality between the Zeiss Lenses that would really matter in real world pictures.

 

The only thing that bothers me from time to time is the 2.8, a stop more would make it ideal for me. It is larger than the summicron but still comparably small. Compared to a Summilux or the 2/35 which is almost as big as a 50 Summilux.

 

Guess i will keep it even if i find me a decent summicron or 2/35 :-)

 

One nice advantage is the flange, you can mark the Zeiss lenses very easy with a pen and due to the small groove the mark wont wear off.

[microview]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Agree this is an outstanding but affordable lens. I found a 35 2.8 Summaron which out-resolved it by a hair's breadth and so did not keep mine – however the closest focus with the old Leica is only 1m (versus 0.7m). Fabulous build quality with the Leica. Only thing I didn't like about the Zeiss was the curved bump on the focusing ring. The black also has a distractingly bright chromed outer ring so silver looks more discreet in styling. It's easy to find filters in the size which Rockwell makes such a song and dance about: I used one by B&W in lieu of the fiddly plastic lens cap.

[Nick De Marco]

I love this lens, especially on M9. I sometimes think it better than my far more expensive, and heavier, summucron asph, except a stop slower of course. Ideal for a outdoor walkabout and wonderfully small and compact for an M lens

As you can see in a recent photo I took here:

Welcome to Flickr!