kossi008
Photon Counter
Juan,
I also own them both, but I haven't done any tests beyond some casual side-by-sides for sharpness.
All I can tell you right now is:
1. the CV 28/3.5 gets to stay after being compared with the ZM 35/2.8 sharpness-wise.
2. the 28 Skopar is NOT 1/3 the length of the C-Biogon. At least not the part that protudes from the camera body.
3. I never use them side-by-side in real life, as I either carry a 35 only, the 28/50, or the 21/35/75 combo.
Maybe I'll give it a run when I can walk again after my ankle OP.
Regards,
Kossi
I also own them both, but I haven't done any tests beyond some casual side-by-sides for sharpness.
All I can tell you right now is:
1. the CV 28/3.5 gets to stay after being compared with the ZM 35/2.8 sharpness-wise.
2. the 28 Skopar is NOT 1/3 the length of the C-Biogon. At least not the part that protudes from the camera body.
3. I never use them side-by-side in real life, as I either carry a 35 only, the 28/50, or the 21/35/75 combo.
Maybe I'll give it a run when I can walk again after my ankle OP.
Regards,
Kossi
Mister E
-
This lens is nice, but man oh man am I sick of seeing 100% crops.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
tokyoshooter
Established
Mister E
-
No, I try not to read any reviews that show 100% crops because they don't matter.
leicashot
Well-known
They don't matter? May I ask why you think that?
Mister E
-
A horrible image with great 100% crops is meaningless. How many 100% crops did Henri Cartier-Bresson, Steve McCurry, Robert Capa or Larry Burrows use to make good images?
feenej
Well-known
It's nice to have the resolution to crop sometimes, even by 1/3 or so.
kermaier
Well-known
I'd have to say that that particular distinction goes to the CV Skopar 35/2.5 PII -- not quite as fabulous a lens, I'm sure, but more than good enough for even fairly demanding users, and 1/3 the price.
::Ari
kermaier
Well-known
I've been getting that impression from folks glowing remarks!
I love my Summaron 35/2.8, and I'd be very interested in seeing comparisons between the two....
::Ari
leicashot
Well-known
Sorry if you find my images with 100% crops horrible, but we're not evaluating good images here. It's about the 'lens' and not about the pictures. 100% crops are the best way to evaluate the performance of a lens, and to some extent the technique of the photographer.
I find it disturbing that you seem offended by looking at 100% crops. Please provide some great images yourself (with or without crops) so your contribution to this thread is meaningful. I'm also guessing that Henri Cartier-Bresson, Steve McCurry, Robert Capa or Larry Burrows didn't post on forums either.
Gotta ask, if you aren't into the equipment why are you here posting on this forum, or even in this thread which is clearly focusing on the 'particular' lens?
Last edited:
Ok, I've been offered a version 2 summicron for about the same cash as this Biogon. I like the size and the lens speed of the summicron, but love the way the photos, even online, look from this biogon. Anybody have a pic of the biogon on an M8, so I can see the true size? This is a rough decision.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Kossi, you're right: just checked it again, and Biogon's length I read yesterday was for the whole lens, and not for the protruding part as I thought... Thanks for clearing that point... Not bad: a real small lens... Well, almost twice the Skopar, but that's small enough too...
Cheers,
Juan
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
Juan,
Here is a comparison shot.
With 28/3.5's hood attached (built-in, pretty much part of the lens), the difference is about 1mm or so.
Now without hood on 28/3.5, you can clearly see the difference.
Here is a comparison shot.
With 28/3.5's hood attached (built-in, pretty much part of the lens), the difference is about 1mm or so.
Now without hood on 28/3.5, you can clearly see the difference.
Damn, I didn't realize the Biogon was relatively small too. Have a shot of it front on?
dfoo
Well-known
It isn't very small when compared with a Summicron, which is a faster lens! The biogon is a true monster...
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
Oops. I was in the hurry and lenses aren at infinity focus in the pics. C-Biogon has 43mm filter size so that makes the lens look bigger than 39mm lenses, but in real use, if you think 39mm lenses are small, this lens is small enough.
Jsrockit,
I'm at airport and can post pics, but you can find my iPhone shot of the front in Chris's "just got C-Biogon.." thread. Mind you, iphone's wide angle lens makes the lens larger.
And yes, my Cron v3 was a bit smaller due to 43mm vs 39mm filter size, but the total length was pretty much the same. Downside of v3 Cron was that it was quite prone to flare so hood was a must. I think v4 Cron is noticeably shorter than CB, but at this point, I just don't see any difference in practical use. They all are quite small lenses.
Jsrockit,
I'm at airport and can post pics, but you can find my iPhone shot of the front in Chris's "just got C-Biogon.." thread. Mind you, iphone's wide angle lens makes the lens larger.
And yes, my Cron v3 was a bit smaller due to 43mm vs 39mm filter size, but the total length was pretty much the same. Downside of v3 Cron was that it was quite prone to flare so hood was a must. I think v4 Cron is noticeably shorter than CB, but at this point, I just don't see any difference in practical use. They all are quite small lenses.
Thanks guys, that helps a lot. Just bought the 28mm Zeiss... I'm thinking the 35mm might be a nice pair. I've always wanted the summicron back after getting rid of one in the 90s though.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
It's plenty small. If it was any smaller, handling would suffer. Also, it's nice to have that wide filter ring because you can stack filters without vignetting.
Mister E
-
I'd be happy to post some of my mediocre shots in this thread, but I don't have this lens. I'd like it, but I already have 1 to many 35mm lenses in m-mount.Sorry if you find my images with 100% crops horrible, but we're not evaluating good images here. It's about the 'lens' and not about the pictures. 100% crops are the best way to evaluate the performance of a lens, and to some extent the technique of the photographer.
I find it disturbing that you seem offended by looking at 100% crops. Please provide some great images yourself (with or without crops) so your contribution to this thread is meaningful. I'm also guessing that Henri Cartier-Bresson, Steve McCurry, Robert Capa or Larry Burrows didn't post on forums either.
Gotta ask, if you aren't into the equipment why are you here posting on this forum, or even in this thread which is clearly focusing on the 'particular' lens?
I like gear, don't get me wrong, but I greatly prefer taking pictures. I especially like the first image you posted. Namaste