Zeiss Biogon 35mm 2.0 ZM

[Rokkor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi

I am considering getting into analogue M with this 35mm ZM lens. I read a lot of positives about it.

 

Who has experiences mounting that on a digital (ideally full frame) body that does not necessarily need to be Leica. I ams asking as I am curious if the results would be not optimal on let’s say e.g. on a Sony a7 after my Research.

 

i am sure this could be adapted to Fuji X but then 35mm become a 50mm angle.

Is there a disadvantage in terms of the Zeiss ZM adaptability at all? I suppose not, is there?

 

Thanks for your comments and tips.

 

[pedaes]

 

9 minutes ago, Rokkor said:

35mm ZM lens

The Zeiss 35mm 2.8 is sharper etc. than the 2.0 if you don't need the stop.

What is the relevance of what you are asking to a ''analogue m'?

[Rokkor]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb pedaes:

 

The Zeiss 35mm 2.8 is sharper etc. than the 2.0 if you don't need the stop.

What is the relevance of what you are asking to a ''analogue m'?

thanks for mentioning the 2.8. Have not looked into this one yet.

Just to explain my thoughts behind my question. So I am thinking about an M2 actually and if I find a good offer I would buy one. Also the ZM lenses seem good options for this camera. Then m thought was if it would not be nice to use the Zeiss even digitally as well.

[pedaes]

4 minutes ago, Rokkor said:

Zeiss even digitally as well.

OK. The Zeiss  ZM lens work fine on Leica digital cameras. They are more 'contrasty' than Leica lenses - which can be good or bad depending on how you like your prints. They are of course manual focus if used on auto-focus cameras.

[Rokkor]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb pedaes:

OK. The Zeiss  ZM lens work fine on Leica digital cameras. (...)They are of course manual focus if used on auto-focus cameras.

Yes the manual focus aspect is clear. So in the Leica Range I guess M would be straightforward of course and SL and CL and TL possible with an adapter to L mount.

what about the alternatives like Nikon Z6,Z7, LUMIX S or S5? Maybe someone has experiences.

[TomB_tx]

I have the ZM 35 f2.0, and it is a fine lens, clearly sharper than my older 35 Summicron, including at f2.0. I did have mine focus calibrated by DAG after noticing slightly missed focus when new. It has been great since then. Although the 2.8 version may be sharper, I have no complaint about the 2.0 except its larger size. As a result I got the 2.5 Summarit 35, which is perhaps better image quality, with nice small size and great handling. It is now my main lens.

All these lenses are so good the image differences are minor unless you really zoom in and pixel peep. I was happy with my old Summicron for decades until I read comparisons on the Internet. I’d still be happy with it on my M10 if I’d stayed off these forums!

I have used these on an A7 with some good results except for edge smearing, which you will probably find with them on any non-Leica digital.

Edited October 4, 2020 by TomB_tx

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Have used mine for over ten years on Leica digital and film - can't think of anything negative to say about its performance or results. 

[Rokkor]

vor 8 Minuten schrieb Keith (M):

Have used mine for over ten years on Leica digital and film - can't think of anything negative to say about its performance or results. 

Thanks. Within the Leica eco system or on other digital cameras as well?

[Keith (M)]

1 hour ago, Rokkor said:

Thanks. Within the Leica eco system or on other digital cameras as well?

I did do a few quick test shots with it on my A7III (using a Novoflex adaptor).  Results were fine.

[Rokkor]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb TomB_tx:

 

I have used these on an A7 with some good results except for edge smearing, which you will probably find with them on any non-Leica digital.

Forum reading can be inspiring sometimes.😅 Good you found even another lens.

interesting you even use it with the A7 with good results. That sounds great. 

 

[Rokkor]

vor 1 Minute schrieb Keith (M):

I did do a few quick test shots with it on my A7III (using a Novoflex adaptor).  Results were fine.

Thanks. Also - sounds encouraging. Need to see where I can find some sample images 

[Keith (M)]

6 minutes ago, Rokkor said:

Thanks. Also - sounds encouraging. Need to see where I can find some sample images 

For what it is worth here is one from my brief testing on A7III. Taken at f2, 1/40sec, hand held, ISO 100.  .ARW file imported into LR and exported as a 2480px .jpg.  No additional sharpening applied.

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!

[Rokkor]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb Keith (M):

For what it is worth here is one from my brief testing on A7III. Taken at f2, 1/40sec, hand held, ISO 100.  .ARW file imported into LR and exported as a 2480px .jpg.  No additional sharpening applied.

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!

Thanks for sharing this test shot. Zooming in you can see that the sharpness decreases at the borders but not as tremendously as sometimes described and this is at 2.0. 

[Runkel]

A disadvantage for adapting to non-Leica digital cameras is that those cameras’ sensor toppings are not designed for the shallow ray angles of wide-angle rangefinder lenses, and those cameras do not compensate for how their sensor toppings refract image-forming light from such lenses.  I’m sure the ZM 35/2 is somewhat retrofocus, which may moderate the ray-angle issue.

The Zeiss data sheet for the 35/2 has data for f/2 and f/4.  The data sheet for the 35/2.8 shows f/2.8 and f/5.6.  Hard to compare “sharpness” based on that, but the 35/2 at f/4 should be as sharp as anyone needs, especially if hand-holding.The 35/2 is better on distortion, with almost none.

[Rokkor]

vor 8 Minuten schrieb Runkel:

A disadvantage for adapting to non-Leica digital cameras is that those cameras’ sensor toppings are not designed for the shallow ray angles of wide-angle rangefinder lenses, and those cameras do not compensate for how their sensor toppings refract image-forming light from such lenses.  I’m sure the ZM 35/2 is somewhat retrofocus, which may moderate the ray-angle issue.

The Zeiss data sheet for the 35/2 has data for f/2 and f/4.  The data sheet for the 35/2.8 shows f/2.8 and f/5.6.  Hard to compare “sharpness” based on that, but the 35/2 at f/4 should be as sharp as anyone needs, especially if hand-holding.The 35/2 is better on distortion, with almost none.

Thanks for this explanation. This is helpful.

[astrostl]

9 minutes ago, Runkel said:

A disadvantage for adapting to non-Leica digital cameras is that those cameras’ sensor toppings are not designed for the shallow ray angles of wide-angle rangefinder lenses, and those cameras do not compensate for how their sensor toppings refract image-forming light from such lenses.  I’m sure the ZM 35/2 is somewhat retrofocus, which may moderate the ray-angle issue.

The Zeiss data sheet for the 35/2 has data for f/2 and f/4.  The data sheet for the 35/2.8 shows f/2.8 and f/5.6.  Hard to compare “sharpness” based on that, but the 35/2 at f/4 should be as sharp as anyone needs, especially if hand-holding.The 35/2 is better on distortion, with almost none.

Seconding what Runkel notes and adding that https://phillipreeve.net has extensive coverage of issues and mitigation with M ray angle issues on A7 cameras. Specific filters are recommended and mitigate but do not fully eliminate resulting issues. https://kolarivision.com sells A7 bodies with modified sensor stacks to address it more comprehensively.

I personally would be happy to use M lenses on an A7 with the right filters, but it's an issue worth noting. In situations where there are both M and FE versions of a given lens (as with many Voigtlanders) I would default to the FE version unless I expected to transition systems or have both systems at some point.

[Rokkor]

vor einer Stunde schrieb astrostl:

Seconding what Runkel notes and adding that https://phillipreeve.net has extensive coverage of issues and mitigation with M ray angle issues on A7 cameras. Specific filters are recommended and mitigate but do not fully eliminate resulting issues. https://kolarivision.com sells A7 bodies with modified sensor stacks to address it more comprehensively.

I personally would be happy to use M lenses on an A7 with the right filters, but it's an issue worth noting. In situations where there are both M and FE versions of a given lens (as with many Voigtlanders) I would default to the FE version unless I expected to transition systems or have both systems at some point.

Thanks for sharing the two links and giving hinhing at the filter possibility. Even though they have not tested the 35mm/2.0 ZM lens, I was surprised about their Voigtländer conclusion and it’s Sony adaptability:

<<If you go through the trouble of adding a 5m PCX filter this smokes many native lenses in several categories. It is one of the few true allround lenses that works well (if not very well) for almost every application you can think of for a 35mm lens. The only real disadvantage: it is not a native lens, which would make it even more enjoyable to use.>>
 

That is a good website recommendation.

 

Edited October 4, 2020 by Rokkor

[astrostl]

You'll note that they're huge fans of the Voigtlander VM 35/1.7 and I am too. I have the ZEISS ZM 35/2.8 and 35/1.4 (only missing the 2.0) and typically prefer the tradeoffs of the 35/1.7 to both of those as well on an M10. I might use the ZM 35/1.4 if I desperately cared about a half-stop (??) or wanted to extract every ounce of quality, but the size and weight of the VM 35/1.7 is radically lower and its performance is still excellent.

[CosmoM3]

I liked my ZM 35/2 when I had it, but I much prefer the Summicron ASPH I or even the Voigtlander Ultron 35/2 ASPH as I prefer their rendering moreso than the more contrasty (colder/bolder) colors from the Biogon. Also, some copies are known to have very soft edges wide open so something to think about. If I was in your position, I would go with the Ultron.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Rokkor]

vor 22 Stunden schrieb astrostl:

You'll note that they're huge fans of the Voigtlander VM 35/1.7 and I am too. I have the ZEISS ZM 35/2.8 and 35/1.4 (only missing the 2.0) and typically prefer the tradeoffs of the 35/1.7 to both of those as well on an M10. I might use the ZM 35/1.4 if I desperately cared about a half-stop (??) or wanted to extract every ounce of quality, but the size and weight of the VM 35/1.7 is radically lower and its performance is still excellent.

Thank you. I did some research and it seems the Voigtländer  Ultron 1.7 is great and even more so the Ultron VM 2.0 - also outside of this forum. The 1.4 Voigtländer seems tiny but the reputation is not the best even though it 1.4 fast.