Zeiss Biogon ZM 35mm f2 vs f2.8

[jmr237]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am trying to decide between the Zeiss Biogon ZM 35mm f2 or f2.8. A few considerations:

 

• I shoot black and white film on an MP. Either TMAX 100 or 400, depending on the lighting conditions.
  
• I do not currently have access to a darkroom, so I have the negatives developed and scanned. I use Richard Photo Lab here in Los Angeles.
  
• I want a new lens. I realize this rules out a used Leica lens that might be similarly priced.
  
• The price difference between the f2 and f2.8 lenses is not large enough to be a concern ($1,090 vs $860).
  
• I already have the Zeiss 50mm f2.
  

The compact size of the f2.8 is appealing. I like to travel light. I also get the impression that the f2.8 lens performs exceptionally at all apertures.

 

On the other hand, the extra stop of the f2 lens could be useful. However, it comes with a size penalty. Also, I wonder if the f2.8 lens performs better if you compare both when shot at f2.8 and onward?

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

[mmradman]

For film B&W shooter pairing Planar 50mm f2 with other Zeiss lens with same filter size could be worthwhile consideration, that apart Biogon 35mm f2.8 has splendid reputation and loss of one F stop is not all that great.

[TomB_tx]

I chose the 35 f2.0 Zeiss and have been very pleased. At f2.0 it is much better than my 1969 Summicron 35. However, the Zeiss is as large as a normal 50mm lens, and I like tiny lenses. As a result I also picked up a used 35 Summarit f2.5, which has the great performance and small size.

[jmr237]

For film B&W shooter pairing Planar 50mm f2 with other Zeiss lens with same filter size could be worthwhile consideration, that apart Biogon 35mm f2.8 has splendid reputation and loss of one F stop is not all that great.

 

Thanks Mladen. I have the Planar 50mm f2. I leave a B+W #8 yellow filter on it pretty much all the time. It provides a touch of contrast to TMAX and takes the place of a UV or clear filter for protection. I will get another yellow filter for the 35mm (both the f2.8 and f2 take 43mm filters).

[Guest odeon]

I used 2.0/35. It has one more extra f-stop. But, the lens is not sharp at f/2.8. I can suggest you the 2.0/35 honestly.

[horosu]

I've had both, twice.

 

I can only say that as a film shooter you'll miss the extra stop of the 2.0 version more than the small size of the 2.8. Filterwise, they are all the same (E43).

 

With regards to performance, I found the 2.0 version just as good as the 2.8 version at every comparable f stop, on digital cameras (M9). Another point in favour of the 2.0 version is the contrast, which is medium with this lens, while the 2.8 is too contrasty, especially on digital sensors, IMHO. Lastly, the 2.8 version exhibits marked vignetting wide open, which further restricts its applications, particularly in low light.

 

I adored the 2.0 version. I kept it for a full year in spite of the fact that I also had the Summilux FLE. Finally, reason prevailed and I had to sell one of the two 35 mm lenses. I chose the Biogon but I don't know if I was right.

 

Just my opinion

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another point in favour of the 2.0 version is the contrast, which is medium with this lens, while the 2.8 is too contrasty, especially on digital sensors, IMHO.

 

This is my understanding and it put me off the 2.8/35.

[gberger]

I had a Summilux 35 (pre FLE) for the M7, and discarded it for the Zeiss 2.0 35mm. Was happy with the change.