Zeiss Biogon 35mm 2.0 ZM

[Rokkor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 36 Minuten schrieb 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.

That is exactly what I did find doing some research. Even though there are more Zeiss reviews, the ratings for the Ultron 2.0 are excellent. Especially having more vintage vibe and warmth to it compared to high contrast neutral colors. But there are also fans of the Zeiss. Thank you for your recommendation. 

[astrostl]

2 hours ago, Rokkor said:

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.

Have you located a review which specifically compares the VM 35/1.7 and VM 35/2? I haven't yet, but would love to see one. I saw the favorable take from Steve Huff on the VM 35/2. The VM 35/1.7 has been technically agonized six ways from Sunday and held to be superlative, so it's a high bar.

Edited October 5, 2020 by astrostl
comp

[pedaes]

24 minutes ago, astrostl said:

Have you located a review

If you want solid in depth objective reviews you need to subscribe to Sean Reids site https://www.reidreviews.com/index.html

Both the lenses mentioned are covered.

[astrostl]

I'm a subscriber and have seen his review of the VM 35/1.7. The VM 35/2 was used in the "3 Window Finder Cameras" article from March 2020 with a stated intent to review, but as far as I can tell that has not been published. Comparatively I only run into the occasional comments such as those at https://www.nickbedford.com/blog/2019/10/the-voigtlander-35mm-f2-ultron#comment-4768663069 ("the F1.7 has better optical rendering but the F2 is much smaller"). Do you have any reference links for what caused you to conclude that the 35/2 is better?

[Rokkor]

vor 53 Minuten schrieb astrostl:

I'm a subscriber and have seen his review of the VM 35/1.7. The VM 35/2 was used in the "3 Window Finder Cameras" article from March 2020 with a stated intent to review, but as far as I can tell that has not been published. Comparatively I only run into the occasional comments such as those at https://www.nickbedford.com/blog/2019/10/the-voigtlander-35mm-f2-ultron#comment-4768663069 ("the F1.7 has better optical rendering but the F2 is much smaller"). Do you have any reference links for what caused you to conclude that the 35/2 is better?

That was just my felt summary reading different forums etc.

I could not find direct comparisons „even more so“ was my take away as I could not find anything really negative about the VM 2.0.

I also saw the nick Bedford review and in the comments he acknowledges the 1.7 to have better rendering while the 2.0 is smaller. 

Steve Huff finds the 1.7 more contrasty and the 2.0 having more vintage vibes.

there is also a review with some sample pictures here.

So it seems it would be great to have a comparison review and the size is mainly the advantage of the 2.0 and the 1.7 could indeed be optically more contrasty.

[Rokkor]

vor einer Stunde schrieb astrostl:

I'm a subscriber and have seen his review of the VM 35/1.7. The VM 35/2 was used in the "3 Window Finder Cameras" article from March 2020 with a stated intent to review, but as far as I can tell that has not been published. Comparatively I only run into the occasional comments such as those at https://www.nickbedford.com/blog/2019/10/the-voigtlander-35mm-f2-ultron#comment-4768663069 ("the F1.7 has better optical rendering but the F2 is much smaller"). Do you have any reference links for what caused you to conclude that the 35/2 is better?

A comparison seems really lacking besides the article on beersandcameras.com.

[Rokkor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor einer Stunde schrieb pedaes:

If you want solid in depth objective reviews you need to subscribe to Sean Reids site https://www.reidreviews.com/index.html

Both the lenses mentioned are covered.

Thank you. Are they also compared side by side?

[pedaes]

9 hours ago, Rokkor said:

Thank you. Are they also compared side by side?

I don't think so. Sean has one of the best Firewalls known to man so I cannot reproduce any info (not that I would want to).

[Rokkor]

vor 12 Minuten schrieb pedaes:

I don't think so. Sean has one of the best Firewalls known to man so I cannot reproduce any info (not that I would want to).

Thank you, also again for sharing this site. That helps and maybe someone will compare them side by side. I guess this could be an interesting comparison indeed.

on YouTube there are also some videos. In the comments people find the 1.7 very good and some prefer the ergonomics of the 2.0. The Artisan lens also pops up here and there.

[astrostl]

I have a growing pile of M 35s and would consider doing more than crude stuff like https://flic.kr/s/aHsmQsybA1 if I knew there was more of an audience and some way to waste less money in the process  I'm increasingly-tempted, for at least 35s, to have a copy of every non-Leica lens that is trying to be high-quality. I think I'd arguably only be missing the ZM 35/2 and VM 35/2?

[Rokkor]

I have found another VM 35mm 2.0 review. Considering it’s size it does seem a very good lens. https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2019/05/04/the-voigtlander-35-f-2-ultron-review-vintage-perfection/