Zeiss 2/35: Inexpensive or Impressive

[Guest odeon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After my Leica M, i bought a Leica M8. I looked around for a 35mm lens. I know, 35'lux FLE is the best solution for 35mm. But, it's a bit expensive for me. Because i use Leica M8 as careless.

I can chose 35'cron or Zeiss 2/35. I used my opinion on Zeiss 2/35. And now, i can say it's better than 35'cron. If you can't take 35'lux FLE, you should buy Zeiss 2/35. Excellent center sharpness, good corner sharpness, 3D-pop effect, minimal distorsion, and a bit more chromatic aberration.

 

What do you think about Zeiss 2/35?

 

 

PS: Nein, i didn't sell my Leica M.

 

Bergen Aquarium by Hulusi, on Flickr

 

No Entry by Hulusi, on Flickr

[jaapv]

I like the rendering of the Summicron better. But both are excellent lenses. I would not say that the 35 FLE is the "best" lens. Fast does not equal good. It depends on use.

[lct]

Matter of tastes. Zeiss lenses have a different rendering than their Leica counterparts. Also the Biogon 35/2 is rather soft on edges and corners compared to the Summicron asph, at wide aperture at least. The Biogon 35/2.8 is better from this viewpoint.

[TomB_tx]

I'm very pleased with my Zeiss 35 f2 - except for the size. I've used a 1969 Summicron 35 for decades, which makes the Zeiss seem huge. I like the Zeiss images at f2.0 better than the old Summicron though.

[RobertJRB]

I don't really like the 35 biogons rendering when used at minimal distance. At the far end it is indeed a very good lens.

Still I like the 35 cron ASPH better. Nicer rendering/ colors and smaller.

I also liked the 35 c- biogon better. Great optics in a really small body.

[jaapv]

I like the C-Biogon very much as well. Unfortunately it produces red edge on the M, but on my Monochrom it is the preferred 35.

[LucisPictor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"Inexpensive or Impressive"? Why not both?

 

I do not know the ZM 35, but I do know the ZM50 and the ZE35 (another lens, yes) and both lenses are pretty impressive.

 

As my personal 35mm lens, I decided for a Voigtländer Ultron 1.7/35 which I have never regretted.

[Guest odeon]

I must ask you: Which 35'cron? The chrome ASPH is better than the black.

I doubt about the corner sharpness. I know Zeiss 2/35 is soft at f/2. But, 35'cron too.

 

 

@jaapv

I don't think. 35'lux FLE is the best 35mm lens. It doesn't offer only higher aperture value. It offers great sharpness, amazing bokeh and good rendering.

I agree, Zeiss 2.8/35 is a bit more sharp. But, the smaller lens is 1-stop slow at the same time. The 1-stop means too poor DoF when i use it on Leica M8. Because Leica M8 has a cropped sensor.

 

 

@LucisPictor

I used the "inexpensive", because it has euphony. I use it as "cheap".

[jaapv]

I have had a chrome and I have a black and there is not one whit of difference between the two.....

[Guest odeon]

I have had a chrome and I have a black and there is not one whit of difference between the two.....

 

From Steve Huff:

 

"I compared two seemingly identical Leica Summicron-ASPH lenses, one black and the other chrome. They were not optically identical. The chrome lens was marginally superior at both the center and corner. This could be due to some slight variation in infinity focus between the two lenses."

 

I'm surprised, too. It's unreasonable. But, i can see the difference in side-by-side comparison.

[jaapv]

It is nonsense.... He probably had one out-of-spec lens, which he should have returned.

[Guest odeon]

It is nonsense.... He probably had one out-of-spec lens, which he should have returned.

Maybe.

Why does Leica spent more time and money on same lens? I think, that difference caused by weight. Or, wrong calibration.

[algrove]

Save for the 35FLE. It is one very good lens on any Leica M I have tried it on to date.

[friedeye]

I think it's an impressive lens, regardless of price. A little large, but it handles beautifully, is well made, and renders wonderfully. My personal favorite. It does exhibit comma wide open in the corners - but I don't use it to shoot night cityscapes. If that's your thing, this is not the lens for you.

 

Would I rather have an FLE? Or the earlier Lux asph? Sure. But choosing between the Cron and the Biogon is a different matter.

 

The Biogon 35/2 is a seriously impressive lens.

[viramati]

Had one for a day last week but had to take it back as it was front focussing, Shame really as it seemed pretty good though a little on the large side. I used to have the chrome cron asph but it was so heavy I sold it and got the even heavier CV 35 F1.2 v2. Now this is one monster of a lens but OMG the bokeh wide open is to die for and when stopped down at F2 and beyond is really sharp

[tobey bilek]

Sample variation which is not supposed to exist now to the extent the consumer could detect it.

 

I was an issue before

[Dikaiosune01]

Just to make your life a little more complicated and difficult....

 

I've heard very very good things about the voigtlander 35mm f/2.5

 

it might be a more inexpensive and impressive alternative to the zeiss and leica alternatives. One of main attractions of the FLE is the speed of the lens. But if you are willing to go with the zeiss, it seems speed isn't a priority.

 

Good luck

[horosu]

I like the C-Biogon very much as well. Unfortunately it produces red edge on the M, but on my Monochrom it is the preferred 35.

 

I didn't know this was the case. I have the Leica M and would like to get a Zeiss 35 for it. Would the 35/2 be a better match? Maybe the OP could tell us his experience of pairing the Biogon with the M.

 

I would surely appreciate it.

[james.liam]

They are a bit different and if I were to guess, the 'cron ASPH tends to be a better reportage lens (I own the 'cron ASPH and shoot film but never used the f/2 Biogon). Lloyd Chambers knocks the Leica a lot, a bit excessively and Sean Reid also expresses some reservations regarding its utility for near and infinity subjects. Chambers extols the Biogon for its superior sharpness across the frame and at infinity but has great reservations in its use on digital Ms. There's apparently far less focus shift too with the Zeiss but the 35/2.8 is even better at that too.

 

As far as the CV 35/2.5, it performs best with even lighting and little back lighting, which it apparently doesn't handle well. It is damned small, though, and has a more classic look. I'm debating whether to pick up a Zeiss 35/2.8 or a CV 35/2.5 for a different look. Haven't decided on that yet.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MarkP]

My understanding is that the 2.8/35 Biogon has quite high contrast. Is this true?

 

To the OP, what about the 2.5/35 Summarit?