Thanks so much guys. I'm excited! I should have the camera and lens next week. I was just metering some scenes around the house, one of my girlfriend in the living room with one lamp on, not very bright. Reading with simply the reflected light from the lamp onto her I got 1/30 at f/2 at ISO 1600. Perfect! Hopefully that extra stop will be worth it!
Congrats Brian!
I'm pretty sure you'll like the lens. My only quibble with it is the size, but it's worth it for the speed I think.
I couldn't decide between the 2.8 and 2.0 Biogons so I purchased both and shot with them for a while. I decided to keep the 2.0, but that 2.8C is a fine and small lens. The 2.0 does intrude into the 35mm framelines on the Ikon, but I actually had to go and check to be sure; it's quite minor.
Anyway I wanted to share a few comparison shots for you, but you already went and bought one.Perhaps someone else will find them of interest. These images are bigger than I remember so sorry for the size. I shot these last year as I was deciding between lenses. Both lenses performed well for casual photography but I wanted to see if a noticeable difference would emerge if I (for once) used a tripod and took identical photos. The first two are at f2.8 and the last two are with the Biogon 2.0 exposed at f5.6.
Thanks for the examples! so in your findings of using both lenses did you see a difference?
Brian, I know your original question involved the Summicron and I did a test with both the Summicron and the Biogon of a granite rock which was very telling. If I can find the scans I will post them just so you know what you are not missing..
Thomas, do you have any examples shot this way? You think maybe I should go for the f/2 Biogon rather than the f/2.8 if I intend it to be my only lens?
I just purchased a used Carl Zeiss 35/2 Biogon ZM T*. I figure the extra stop of speed could be beneficial if it's my only lens. I've heard reports of the f/2 being slightly soft wide open, but to me getting the shot and it being a little soft is better than not being able to get the shot at all.
Shooting it is nice. I'm still getting used to the arrows for metering in the VF. I'm used to aperture priority mode in my other RF's. But the build quality is amazing, and the shutter is nice and smooth. I still have yet to develop any film yet.
Well the OP has already purchased his Biogon so that is done. However your post did remind me that I used to have the 35 Summilux ASPH and then got a 35 Summicron ASPH. Nine months later I sold the Summilux and bought a v.1 Summicron (8 element) which I like just as much as the ASPH but for different reasons. We are all different.I have the 35 Cron Asph which I fully intended to sell when I bought the new 35 Lux, but I just have not been able to do it yet...
I prefer a Leitz lens which is a result of hand calculation optimization not computer. An Genius sits on a table and works 10 hours a day for 2 or more years and when working with mathematics , he develops new mathematical view angles , formulas.
An computer can generate a lens but it cant generate itselves rules. Why Leica expensive , because they developed all better chemistry, mathematics , physics by themselves , they did not buy a 40 dollar research article , carry in to software and than generate the lenses as much as good as article.
Dont forget , older 60 years old Leitz lenses have two times more resolution at the corner than latest Summicron. Bokeh is not important , texture , degrades and colors are important. You cant get same color with canada leicas. I really hate everything about latest Leica images.
Dont waste your hard earned money to tourist traps , buy a IIF with Summar , no other lens can beat it.
Umut
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?