Zeiss Biogon 35mm?

[minhhich]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have one on my M3 and it is really sharp. I havent have chance to play with the leica summicron but many friends suggested this lens is almost as sharp as the summicron 3rd version from cheaper price. The only thing I dont like is that the bokeh produced by this lens is a bit harsh. Im saving up for a leica, just because when I use leica, I want to use everything leica. Hope this help:D

[Finnkare]

I've never understood why the Zeiss lenses are so large... The Biogon 35/2 seems like the mother of the child Summicron 35/2. I don't think they are retrofocus or anything, but still.

 

Nevertheless, I was very pleased with my 28/2,8 Biogon until I sold it to get money. Well built (at least for the year or so that I had it) and probably the sharpest lens I will ever own. It even focused as close as 50 cm, which of course goes about 20 cm past the Leica rangefinder capability.

[Advertisement]

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

[tgray]

I really liked my ZM 35/2 while I had it. Never let me down. Only sold it to move to 28mm.

 

As to why it's larger than the Leica Summicron... I'm pretty sure it's easier to make a well corrected lens with good performance if you make it larger in size. Zeiss probably did this to get the performance they wanted without resorting to special glasses and aspherical elements, which drives the price up (e.g. Leica).

[Finnkare]

You're right, it could make sense that it's more expensive to build a smaller version of the same focal length and aperture.

[Jiukuic5609]

I really liked this lens when I had it. I did sell it because I ended up getting a summicron 35mm but the zeiss did have a nice feel to it, and worked well with the M8. - It is almost a bit easier to focus than the summicron, because there is more lens barrel to grab onto while focusing...

 

I posted a quick review and some pics on my blog:

Zeiss Biogon T* 2/35 ZM Leica M Lens Review - Daniel Valente Photography

 

[cheewai_m6]

i'm personally a little bit brand conscious, but that's the only reason i haven't bought zeiss lenses. reading steve huff's reviews, and from looking at those images, they're 90% of the quality of leica glass for a lot cheaper. i'm not a fan of voigtlander however. i think zeiss is more of an option than a compromise.

[batmobile]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i'm personally a little bit brand conscious, but that's the only reason i haven't bought zeiss lenses. reading steve huff's reviews, and from looking at those images, they're 90% of the quality of leica glass for a lot cheaper. i'm not a fan of voigtlander however. i think zeiss is more of an option than a compromise.

 

I prefer Leica build but in optical terms many of the ZMs are more like 100% of the Leicas (in some cases the asphs and others the pre-asphs). Slightly different looks, but I would say the following are certainly not optically inferior:

 

25 Biogon (definitely an option instead of 24 asph)

21 Biogon ( as above)

35 2.8 Biogon (compared to Summarit)

35 2 Biogon (cron asph is sharper on centre at wider apertures, biogon sharper in outer field)

50 planar (stunning performance...)

28 Biogon is comparable to the pre-asph V4 elmarit perhaps.

 

I like the compactness of a number of Leica lenses too, but the performance of the lenses I have (and I have Leicas as well as Zeiss) is not something I can criticise. 'look' is another subject in itself.

[Xmas]

Hi

 

In 35mm I use every thing from a

 

J12

Canon f/2 type I and type II

CV f/2.5

CV f/1.7

preasph lux

 

The J12 iris images contra jour...

The preasph Lux needs the cron (35mm) hood and even then will bleed out of high lights and flare, so you don't need cartons of dry ice for high key.

 

If you like silver get one of the LTM CV 35mm f2.5 2nd hand, try one on a M8 in the shop.

 

Noel

Edited February 3, 2010 by Xmas
added preposition (word)

[Double Negative]

I've never understood why the Zeiss lenses are so large...

 

Because of the different design philosophies between Leica and Zeiss. Whereas Leica designs lenses to use the least amount of glass/elements, Zeiss opts for higher correction (more glass/elements).

[wizard]

Whereas Leica designs lenses to use the least amount of glass/elements, Zeiss opts for higher correction (more glass/elements).

 

Zeiss lenses, while first class no doubt, are by no means generally constructed for higher correction than Leica lenses. Rather, what tgray has pointed out above is the reason for the different sizes of Zeiss and Leica lenses of the same optical specification, e.g. 2/35.

 

Andy

[Xmas]

The more modern lenses are designed in an alliance between ray tracing software, repeat and optimize software, and a lens designer where only the lens designer is a human being, the rest is computer software.

 

The Zeiss designer is told that size is not a sales point, the Leica designer is told that the customers want smaller lenses, - the latter is probably our fault. The size constrain will make the design more complex, e.g. it might need an aspheric element or two, an aside the Zeiss designs tend to be quite complex anyway.

 

The Zeiss lenses for the Contarex circa '58-60 were big, so it is not something new...

 

If you need to carry the lenses all day weight is also a constraint, unless you employ a 'person' Friday.

 

Noel

[cheewai_m6]

The more modern lenses are designed in an alliance between ray tracing software, repeat and optimize software, and a lens designer where only the lens designer is a human being, the rest is computer software.

 

The Zeiss designer is told that size is not a sales point, the Leica designer is told that the customers want smaller lenses, - the latter is probably our fault. The size constrain will make the design more complex, e.g. it might need an aspheric element or two, an aside the Zeiss designs tend to be quite complex anyway.

 

The Zeiss lenses for the Contarex circa '58-60 were big, so it is not something new...

 

If you need to carry the lenses all day weight is also a constraint, unless you employ a 'person' Friday.

 

Noel

 

so basically leica design their lenses to be smaller intentionally, and zeiss doesn't?

[Xmas]

so basically leica design their lenses to be smaller intentionally, and zeiss doesn't?

 

Much more concise than my spiel, & correct. The Zeiss designer is allowed or encouraged to make the lens larger if it helps the optimization process. This will normally make it heavier as well, as the glass may need to be larger, the barrel longer

 

The same effect is seem in the OM1 series lenses where they have been made dinky deliberately, for size and weight.

 

The ZM 35mm f/2 is 1mm larger then the ZM 5cm f/2 (the Planar) which is just larger then the Cron (type IV).

 

The problem we face is while Leica is listening their wider aperture lenses may vignette more deliberately e.g. the 5cm pre asph lux accepts a 43mm filter, the Canon LTM equivalent (from '60s) a 48mm filter. The Canon Dream 0.95 a 72mm.

 

Introducing vignetting deliberately makes the lens smaller but also reduces off axis aberration, as they are caused (partly) by the larger diameter lens elements, unless the element is aspheric, and the design optimised for this....

 

Lots of people don't mind the compromise unless they are weight lifters and need exercise.

 

But we also have in LTM (and some M) the CV lenses which are multi coated and use modern high refractive glass, they are smaller then Leica lenses manily because they are smaller maxium aperture. If you need even less size, weight and dont need the cats whisker resolution, cause you are using Delta 400, only for depth of field, you Gbag is suddemtly bigger internally and lighter when loaded.

 

I use them in LTM cause I use LTM cameras, but I do occasionally, stick them on M adapters, e.g. if I'm carrying a Gbag from 06:00 until 22:00. The 25mm ZM will shoot holes in the 25mm CV in a ;'drawing' competition, but the CV is a lot smaller, lighter, and cheaper, not tried the Leica lens.

 

Noel

P.S. the optical glasses do have a range of prices, but the special high refractive glasses allow the optmised design to be cheaper to make and sell, the designers skill allows the production people an easier life, the differential cost of the glass is dwarfed, it is the designer who controls everything, even if he is just controlling the optimization software, he needs to be a production engineer...

Edited February 24, 2010 by Xmas