Zeiss ZM lens

ColColt · Feb 13, 2016

I'm considering getting a 35 f2 or f2.8 Zeiss Biogon *T ZM lens for my M2. Anyone have either and if so, what are your feeling about it? I'm not going to fork over $2 grand or more for a Summicron and this seems a viable alternative.

Patrick Robert James · Feb 14, 2016

I use the f/2 version. It is so good that I sometimes think it is too good. The f/2.8 version is smaller if that is something you want. I went through a lot of 35s. After buying the Biogon I stopped looking.

craigclu · Feb 14, 2016

I went with the ƒ2.8 as I was leaning toward compactness for its duties. It's on my M6 more than any other lens and I couldn't ask for better optical performance. I've not compared directly with the faster option, though. As I use this hand-held, I made the decision that my results would be influenced more by stability than any hair-splitting optics difference. I then ran into a new, in-the-box example, priced much below what I had been seeing and let that decide for me. I'm very pleased with it.

ColColt · Feb 14, 2016

I doubt I'd need the extra stop as most of my shooting is outside and that's mostly at F5.6-f11. I've read good things about both of those lens but lean more toward the 2.8 version, not because of the price but the way I shoot. I have the Zeiss 50 f2 and it's absolutely superb.

Pioneer · Feb 14, 2016

I waited until I could afford the 35/2. I did try the f2.8 35mm early on but it wasn't enough better than my Color Skopar to justify buying it. BTW, if you do not need the wide open aperture the Color Skopar is an awesome choice. Small, doesn't interfere with the viewfinder, but provides very, very nice photos. I wouldn't use it if I did a lot of architecture work because it does have some distortion; but for everyday carry it is a great option for a very good price.

HiHoSilver · Feb 14, 2016

Honorable Colonel. We will see images soon? They're missed. Leica, Nikon - don't care. 'Hope you've been very well.

Xmas · Feb 15, 2016

Pioneer said:
I waited until I could afford the 35/2. I did try the f2.8 35mm early on but it wasn't enough better than my Color Skopar to justify buying it. BTW, if you do not need the wide open aperture the Color Skopar is an awesome choice. Small, doesn't interfere with the viewfinder, but provides very, very nice photos. I wouldn't use it if I did a lot of architecture work because it does have some distortion; but for everyday carry it is a great option for a very good price.

Ditto but I've not noticed distortions.
You have the option of two LTM or one M lens each with a different fit to those with large hands.
If you shoot fast that makes a big difference.

ColColt · Feb 16, 2016

HiHoSilver said:
Honorable Colonel. We will see images soon? They're missed. Leica, Nikon - don't care. 'Hope you've been very well.

I don't shoot much in the Winter as I freeze to easily being on two blood thinners and having just turned 70. You get a mite colder than you use to. Moreover, I've managed to fracture my spinal column lifting my dog to bring down the stairs as he can't walk anymore and I didn't want him falling down the stairs. So, we're both in a fix for a while.

I'm chomping at the bits to get out and shoot but 45 degrees to me feels like 30 being on that stupid Plavix, aspirin and Warfarin.

TheFlyingCamera · Feb 16, 2016

I have the 35 f2 for the Contax G. If it is anything at all like the ZM, you'll be pleased as punch with it.

ColColt · Feb 16, 2016

It is the ZM lens. I'm just one the fence as to which one...the f2 or 2.8

HiHoSilver · Feb 16, 2016

Holy Shiznitz, Col.! Spinal fracture. wow. Every wish for full & speedy healing. I hate doing stuff w/ more care & some fear as the yrs go by. I think we were seriously oversold on this whole mortality thing.
C'mon healing & c'mon weather that lets you have fun.
All best to you & yours, Col.

ColColt · Feb 16, 2016

First time I've ever had any back injury and it's a bad one. Supposedly, it's going to heal in 3-4 months(knock on wood). I'm not going to wait that long to go back downtown and do some street shooting, however. Soon as it warms up more I'm going down there but may have to sit as much as stand. I've went as long without taking pictures as I can stand.

HiHoSilver · Feb 16, 2016

I'm smiling, 'cause I'm grumpy having been unable to go out shooting this last wkend. 'Want ya back shooting as soon as possible - and no sooner - for selfish reasons. I get pretty surly - or so the wife says - when injured or sick. 'Feel for you there.

ColColt · Feb 17, 2016

I get "cabin fever" if it's been a while. I'll fiddle with various cameras, take them outside, meter, focus shoot imaginary photos sans film and just pretend. I'm waiting ever so patiently for it to warm up. I have two cameras bought in the last six months I haven't even shot yet!! I'm getting way off topic again. But, I am leaning more toward that f2.8 lens as I'll most likely be shooting between f5.6-f11 more than at f2 or 2.8.

HiHoSilver · Feb 17, 2016

I'm making peace w/ the thought that i'll do better work on a pod w/ 35 - usually wanting to use those same aperture settings. 'Just trying to bring all the care I give MF to the smaller film. More giggles - On the wkend, housebound, I was on the back deck metering to see if I could shoot in available light. Today or tomorrow, I'll be testing exposure effects on a dark blue filter I got after reading AA on them accentuating atmospheric effects. Here in the wet, the fog strolling through the timbered hills is too compelling not to get the full effect - which has evaded me so far. Frank's shot of the Canadian lakeshore fog was terrific. I want to capture that w/ the fog in the forests. 'Crazy things we do to stay sane.

ColColt · Feb 17, 2016

I avoid a tripod at all cost but in some instances with the 6x7 I wouldn't get the desired results unless I did...at least with the monopod. Anytime I have to shoot under 125 with the 6x7 I reach for one of them. With 35mm I'm good to go down to 1/60th with lens 60mm and under but still prefer 125 or greater. Even if you can hand hold below that subject movement will be most evident below 125th second.

I've played around with filters but have stayed with the Y(K2), Orange and X0 filters for the most part. My lens sport a yellow filter like other lens do with a UV filter for color...something I seldom shoot.

Rolfe Tessem · Feb 17, 2016

The ZM Biogon F2 is an unbelievably good lens, every bit as good as its Leica counterpart. The absolute only downside is that it is relatively large, and the lens hood will slightly intrude into the viewing area. Not enough to disturb me, but it bothers some. It is the same size as the Zeiss 50mm.

Rolfe

ColColt · Feb 17, 2016

I have the Zeiss 50 f2 so I know about the size. I don't know...still leaning toward the 2.8-not because the cost difference but I know I'd seldom use f2.

ColColt · Feb 21, 2016

Maybe I'm behind the times...I'm not sure the reason but it seems the Leica 35 f2 Summicron is just totally out of sight in price. Even used ones on eBay are going for over $2K. I find it hard to believe it could possible be that much better than the Zeiss for less than half that price.

I know prices go up on everything over time but I bought an M2, 50 f2 DR Summicron and a 35 f2 Summicron lens back in 1983 for less than $1500.

Patrick Robert James · Feb 21, 2016

I think the Zeiss f/2 Biogon is better than the regular Summicrons. I replaced a Summicron with the Zeiss and haven't looked back. From everything I have seen, the Biogon is as good as the Aspherical Summicron. It is hard to justify the prices of the Summicrons these days unless you want the Leica "caché". I just want the lens to be good.

garysamson · Feb 21, 2016

Patrick Robert James said:
I think the Zeiss f/2 Biogon is better than the regular Summicrons. I replaced a Summicron with the Zeiss and haven't looked back. From everything I have seen, the Biogon is as good as the Aspherical Summicron. It is hard to justify the prices of the Summicrons these days unless you want the Leica "caché". I just want the lens to be good.

+1

ColColt · Feb 21, 2016

the 35 Summicron I had years ago was a great lens but I didn't have anything to compare it to back then. From all the reports I've read about the Zeiss ZM lens it too is a superb lens...and much cheaper than the Leitz lens.

ericdan · Feb 22, 2016

I've had the 2.8 Biogon on a Leica M body. Best lens I ever shot. I moved on to a Summicron thinking I need the extra stop. Non-sense. I never use it at f2 and have to say I actually liked the Biogon better.

ericdan · Feb 22, 2016

Is it possible that the Zeiss counterparts are bigger because they are optimized to also work well on digital bodies?
Watched something from Zeiss on YouTube a while ago where on of their engineers explained about the angle light hits the sensor is very critical on digital sensors and doesn't matter on film. New lenses are typically bigger because they're designed to get around this problem.

ColColt · Feb 22, 2016

Another aspect of the 35 f2.8 is I like the size better. The f2 version is definitely bigger and heavier for a lens destined for use on a rangefinder. I've seen wonderful pictures by Alfred Eisenstaedt and HCB from back in the 40's and 50's and you know lens back then weren't as good as today so, I think the f2.8 would work nicely.

Zeiss ZM lens

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency