Zeiss 2/35: Inexpensive or Impressive

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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?

 

Great recommendation, MarkP.

 

Probably the finest of the Summarit line. Needlessly maligned as some lower end (i hate the font they use) but the 35 is fantastic, probably the best of the lot. More classic rendering, a little lower contrast, tack-sharp and no focus shift. If you can live without 5/8ths of a stop, a sleeper of a lens.

[Advertisement]

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

[wlaidlaw]

Have Leica improved the purple fringing on later examples of the FLE? I was thinking of replacing my excellent but heavy chrome ASPH 35 Summilux with an FLE mainly for weight reasons. The two early examples I tried had quite noticeable purple fringing on high contrast edges e.g. small branches against a bright sky. This was at least as bad if not worse than the 50 ASPH Lux. I know that this is a very stern test of any lens on a digital camera without or minimal AA filter but my current 35 Lux does not seem to suffer it to any great extent.

 

Wilson

[lct]

Have Leica improved the purple fringing on later examples of the FLE?...

Bit of fringing in case of overexposition but could be worse.

- f/1.4 overexposed: http://tinyurl.com/of879qf

- f/2 normal: http://tinyurl.com/o7gmqzn

(1.5MB files, 100% crops)

[wlaidlaw]

Bit of fringing in case of overexposition but could be worse.

- f/1.4 overexposed:

- f/2 normal:

 

That looks better than either of the two FLE examples I tried which were about as bad as your f1.4 shot when they were at F4 or above. To show how good my ASPH 35 is, here is a crop at full size at f1.4 which given how bright it is here today in the south of France is like yours, quite overexposed. This was on the M240 at pull 100 ISO. Still some fringing but for the circumstances, very acceptable. No alterations at all in PS other than crop after using ACR 8.1.0.43.

 

Wilson

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!

[krooj]

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?

 

Yes, the C-Biogon has very high contrast, at least on my M9... Part of the reason I wanted to buy it over the regular version, despite being a stop slower.

 

Also, I recently got a 50mm Planar and I hate to say it, but the C-Biogon renders significantly better.

[Shade]

The 35/2 Zeiss is both inexpensive AND impressive. However as many have stated they really have a very different characteristic than the Leica. Even Leica's own asph and pre-asph lenses have different characteristics. So it comes down to choice. However if your question is "best 35/2 for price/quality ratio", then I think the Zeiss would be a solid winner.

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 35/2 Zeiss is both inexpensive AND impressive. However as many have stated they really have a very different characteristic than the Leica. Even Leica's own asph and pre-asph lenses have different characteristics. So it comes down to choice. However if your question is "best 35/2 for price/quality ratio", then I think the Zeiss would be a solid winner.

 

If you can put aside the annoyance of 43mm filters, Zeiss really excels at 35mm with both versions. Leica rules 50s and that hasn't changed a bit.

[Shade]

Yes a filter size may have been a problem, but I never use any filters on my lenses (except wide angles), only UV filters at best for protection.

[wlaidlaw]

43mm filters for the Zeiss lenses are not an issue except for the UV/IR, where I think the Leica works better than the B+W and you can't get the Leica filter in that size. I have just ordered a 43mm Hoya multicoated HMC-UV filter for my 50 ZM Planar as I am going on a classic car rally next week and only going to take my M4 classic Leica. As we are going over a lot of very high passes between Switzerland and Italy during the week, a UV filter for colour film, which I will be using, is an essential.

 

Wilson

[james.liam]

My perspective is that of an M B&W film shooter so filters are more of an issue. Sticking to 39mm is a breeze as I pack an orange, red in addition to the yellow permanently affixed to the lenses. I'm leaning toward the CV 35/2.5 as the "other" for my 'cron ASPH but the Zeiss 35 C seems really tempting. The former in new condition and the latter in used condition are roughly within $75/€60/£50/¥7,000.

[wlaidlaw]

James,

 

I have a CV 35/2.5. It is so soft as to be a paperweight and has a focus error. I bought it S/H on eBay for not a lot of money, so felt it was not worth making a big fuss over. I took it to my usual lens man in the UK to see if he could improve it. He came to the conclusion that the RF cam was inaccurately ground. From looking at various forums over the years, it would seem that this is far from a unique occurrence on CV lenses. I would go with the Zeiss one or alternatively consider the 35/2.5 Summarit. I am not a big fan of the Summarit lenses but I think the 35 is the best of them.

 

Wilson

[james.liam]

James,

 

I have a CV 35/2.5. It is so soft as to be a paperweight and has a focus error.

 

Wilson

 

Thanks for your experience with it. Most disconcerting. I wonder which CV 35s are even worth the expense. There's an older f/1.7 too but that's harder to find. Maybe the ZM 35/2.8 is the way to go.

[wlaidlaw]

Thanks for your experience with it. Most disconcerting. I wonder which CV 35s are even worth the expense. There's an older f/1.7 too but that's harder to find. Maybe the ZM 35/2.8 is the way to go.

 

I understand that the Zeiss inspectors are very fussy. It was one of the final nails in the coffin of the relationship with Kyocera. The Zeiss inspectors were rejecting a very high percentage of the N range auto-focus lenses (rumoured to be as much as 70% at one point). I have never had a bad Zeiss lens either Contax or the later ZM series, although the 25mm Contax Distagon was not a great design, unlike the 25mm ZM Biogon which is. That, I regret to advise, is more than I can say about my new Leica lens purchases in the mid 2000's. My 75mm Summarit had to be replaced, my MATE went back three times (no replacements available), the Frankenfinder's level never worked, my f1 Noctilux had two visits, etc.

 

Wilson

[james.liam]

Looks like a ZM 35/2.8 C seems the best candidate. Popflashphoto in the US has a refurbished one for $627/€475/€403. Only one left after the one I bought.

 

Zeiss C Biogon 35mm F2 8 T Black ZM USA Refurbished Lens 4047865200240 | eBay

[Peebles]

The 2/35 Biogon is a nice lens for the money. A little long but not bad. The biggest "downside" is the 43mm filter size (if you're an M8 or B&W shooter anyway).

[wlaidlaw]

This thread got me to thinking I wanted a smaller, lighter alternative to my chrome 35 ASPH Summilux, which is big and heavy. I narrowed my two alternatives down to the 35 C Biogon or the 40 C Summicron. In the end, I have decided to go for the 40 Summicron because of its extra stop of speed (mostly for shallow Dof purposes). I doubt if there is much to choose between them in image making abilities.

 

Wilson

[gjames9142]

For the posters who were wondering about the 2.8 35 Biogon, my experience is that it is bitingly sharp and distortion-free and according to S. Reid, probably the best technical performer in its class. That said, I found it gave me artifacts on the M9 -- a pain in the neck. Prefer the V4 Cron at f8. One of the advantages of the earlier Crons is that diffraction sets in later. I like a little depth of field -- bokeh is not in my vocabulary.

[james.liam]

This thread got me to thinking I wanted a smaller, lighter alternative to my chrome 35 ASPH Summilux, which is big and heavy. I narrowed my two alternatives down to the 35 C Biogon or the 40 C Summicron. In the end, I have decided to go for the 40 Summicron because of its extra stop of speed (mostly for shallow Dof purposes). I doubt if there is much to choose between them in image making abilities.

 

Looked into the 40C but the framing issues add a needless complication in its use. Or so I reckoned.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wlaidlaw]

Looked into the 40C but the framing issues add a needless complication in its use. Or so I reckoned.

 

I hope that this will turn out to be an unmodified lens, as I prefer to estimate the extra amount outside the 50 frame, rather than the amount inside the 35. Also if I ever add a CL to my collection of film Leicas you need to have an unmodified 40C to activate the 40mm framelines. If the framing is an issue, I can always use the EVF.

 

Wilson

[james.liam]

I hope that this will turn out to be an unmodified lens, as I prefer to estimate the extra amount outside the 50 frame, rather than the amount inside the 35. Also if I ever add a CL to my collection of film Leicas you need to have an unmodified 40C to activate the 40mm framelines. If the framing is an issue, I can always use the EVF.

 

Wilson

 

I also recall that the filter thread is atypical (? series 5.5) and the hood that holds it in place is often hard to come by on its own. For a (? single coated) 40 year-old lens, a 35 of the same vintage (maybe v.4) seems more practicable. Admittedly the novelty of such a tiny lens, ~130 gms, (?smallest Leica M ever) is irresistible.