Zeiss ZM 35mm Biogon

[Tim Gray]

Finally bit the bullet and ordered a 35mm for my M6 after shooting with only a 50mm for a year. I certainly enjoyed being forced to use the 35mm perspective, but I'm a slightly wider kind of guy.

Haven't had a chance to get any photos with it, but the build is fantastic. Pretty much the same size as my last version summicron. I think I'm going to be quite happy...

No real point to this post other than to say I'm excited. If you're on the fence about a ZM lens or a much more expensive Leica lens, get the ZM and spend the rest on film...

 

[Alexz]

Question of taste and personal choice. After torning between these I ended up as a happy 35mm 'Cron ASPH shooter...
Putting aside optics (I believe probably very little can be compromised choosing one over another in this regard), I really like that rectangular hood and that rapid OOF transition of 'Cron ASPH...however have yet gto acquinted with tab focusing...

 

[Sportera]

I have this lens and I love it too!

 

[Uncle Bill]

I tried out a friend's CZ 35 f2 biogon on my Leica M3 and the test shots sold me. Now I just have to come up with the cash.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

it is a great lens and one I have zero regrets about.

 

[Tim Gray]

While I'd love to have an ASPH cron, I decided (or it was decided for me) that I couldn't afford it. The ZM was enough of a stretch for me And heck, either one is a better lens than I can use.

Actually, this is not something I've personally tested, but I've read that the ZM is extremely flare resistant, more so than the cron w/ hood, so using it with out a hood is doable.

Going to try to take it for a spin today.

 

[Alexz]

Yes, I haven't had the chance to try out Biogon, my believe is there is probaly no optical compromize going with either of discussed lenses. What I do wonder is that people keep talking about Biogon usability with no hood vs. 'Cron ASPH also without hood. Why not to use hood ? No harm by one, just a helpful device. I myself would never consider the lens to get used without hood if there is one matched one readily available. If not for flare, the for mechanical protection.
I did not put the question of "Biogon without hood vs. Cron ASPH without hood" but rather both with hoods properly attached and it appears in this case I'd certainly prefer the rectagular hood of 'Cron ASPH, both for size, compactness, efefctiveness and even, dare I say, so sleeky look...
It is unlikely I'm going to remove one even in storage - it is just so compact and convenient and there is a good hood cover.
I have yet gained any extensive experience with my 'Cron ASPH, but somehow I tend to believe in its flare resistance to be adequate enough in real performance.

 

[dxphoto]

I am looking for a 35mm too. what do you think compare this Zeiss Ikon Biogon T* 35mm f/2 ZM to Leica 35mm f/2.0 Summicron M?? I know the price is about 1/3 of the leica. are all these Zeiss lense made in Japan or Germany?

btw, I have been shooting with CV 35mm/f2.5 Color Skopar C.

Thanks.

 

[Fotohuis]

All (ZM) Zeiss lenses are made by Cosina, except the 15mm and 85mm are made in Germany (Oberkochen).

The new Summarit line (2,5) from Leica can be also an interesting alternative. All made in Germany (Solms).

 

[Tim Gray]

For a fraction of the cost, I couldn't be happier with the ZM. It seems very well made - as nicely made as my used Leica 50/2.0, which is the most recent version.

I can't justify or afford a Leica 35mm. Just too expensive. The ZM is reportedly more resistant to flare, and while maybe not as sharp, is very even across its whole imaging area. Several people on RFF seem to like the ZM more than the summicron (have no idea about the lux).

 

[Fotohuis]

Sure, but the new introduced Leica Summarit lenses will be in the same price range (Eur. 1000,-) than most ZM lenses, which is of course a logical development in the RF lens market.
When looking at the new Leica M-mount C.V. 21mm/25mm lenses they are also looking good (and are optical also good) for again a fraction of the price of a Zeiss equivalent. But a lot of inside details are different. It's just what you want and can afford for the last few percent more quality

I would like to have a Zeiss 2,8/15mm but can afford a C.V. 4,5/15mm which is 20x cheaper but fortunately not 20x less quality.

 

[dxphoto]

so if it is made by cosina in Japan, what about Voigtlander 35/1.2 Nokton Aspherical and 35/1.7 ASPH Ultron. According to cameraquest.com, "users report performance comparable with the legendary pre-aspheric Leica 35/2 Summicron! One of the sharpest fast 35mm lenses ever made in Leica Screw Mount". And it is only half the price of ZM.

 

[Fotohuis]

C.V. 1,2/35mm is also M-mount.
Here a review about this special lens:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/voigtlander/voigtlander_nokton_11235mm.html

Conclusion

The lens is a complex design with ten elements and three aspherical surfaces and from these specifications we may infer that the image quality might be at least as good as the performance we expect from more normal designs. The additional half stop to 1:1.2 and the wide angle of view seem to impose such limits to the designers that the compromise they searched for is a bit elusive. While very good 1.2 designs were made in the seventies in the 50mm focal length (see my Canon report), the step to a 35mm focal length is, even today, a bridge too far. The Nokton 1.2/35mm Aspherical is a good performer at smaller apertures, but at the wider apertures, it is just acceptable.

 

[dxphoto]

I have both CV 35/2.5 and Nokton 50/1.5. The latter flares a lot. and both of them have the issue that when I take photos at night, the light in distance doesn't show up as one blur spot, rather, a spot in the middle and a separated ring around it. my G1+45mm planar doesn't have me this problem.

maybe I did something wrong?

 

[Tim Gray]

Agreed, the CV lenses look like a fantastic value. I will definitely be picking up a 40/1.4 and the 15mm lens in the future. For what will be my bread and butter lens, the 35mm, I figured since the ZM seems to be very well received, I'd sprint the extra couple hundred dollars.

The real question is what to I go for in 28. I'd love to get my hands on a Konica lens, but they seem hard to come by. The CV 28/3.5 looks fun, but a bit slow.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

There's so many great choices now.
I've used the 35mm a couple of times and thought it was great. I don't think you can go wrong with any of their lenses.
I just ordered a zm 28mm for myself. I hope to get it in time for a trip to Yosemite later this month.
-rob

 

[Ian Tindale]

Has anyone compared a 35mm Biogon (or Jupiter 12?) with the 35mm f2.8 lens of a µ[mju:]-II?

 

[kivis]

Agreed, the CV lenses look like a fantastic value. I will definitely be picking up a 40/1.4 and the 15mm lens in the future. For what will be my bread and butter lens, the 35mm, I figured since the ZM seems to be very well received, I'd sprint the extra couple hundred dollars.

The real question is what to I go for in 28. I'd love to get my hands on a Konica lens, but they seem hard to come by. The CV 28/3.5 looks fun, but a bit slow.

I just got the CV 28/3.5 with the idea that I would probably sell it. Now I think not. It really is growing me. Damn its cute. It is so small that I feel invisible. Shoot away!

 

[Delft]

Agreed, the CV lenses look like a fantastic value. ... The real question is what to I go for in 28. I'd love to get my hands on a Konica lens, but they seem hard to come by. The CV 28/3.5 looks fun, but a bit slow.

I am very pleased with my CV 28/1.9 It could be smaller, but it feels good and delivers quality.

Happy shooting,

Dirk