[Leica] Zeiss Wide Angle 35mm f/2 Biogon T* ZM

[grduprey at mchsi.com (grduprey at mchsi.com)]

I won't comment on optical performance, but mechanical build is well below 
that of Leica in all 5 of the ZM copies I checked out.  I was particularly 
appalled by the build of the 15/2.8 ZM, especially since this one is built 
by Zeiss in Germany.  While I am not as hard on my gear as Tina and Ted, I 
do not baby any of my gear, and I don't think the ZM lenses would take much 
hard use from my perspective.  I will wait and buy Leica lenses, as I know 
they will hold up and give excellent performance.

Gene

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Forrest" <photo.forrest at earthlink.net>
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 1:11:55 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [Leica] Zeiss Wide Angle 35mm f/2 Biogon T* ZM

Price-driven sycophancy? If that Zeiss lens were $3k would it be a
better shooter? No.

I say buy the Biogon and a lot of film + processing. Get the real
money's worth that way. 
Yeah, a Leica lens is nice, but unless one is looking at images of
evenly lit newspaper pages, brick walls and even white surfaces, most
people aren't going to notice. Even most Leica shooters aren't going to
notice & I know that statement will make a few a bit perturbed. In
fact, the 35mm Biogon performs better than the Summicrons in a few
respects. 
The Biogon is a very nice lens. I don't have the 35mm but I do
have the 21mm f/2.8 and it's a top-shelf lens. 
The best part about it is that for 99% of the image and images made,
the Biogon is more than adequate. It's a fantastic performer. It's the
lens that I can afford, then afford to own a few other very nice lenses
and a few nice bodies.
If I were to use strictly Leica lenses in the focal lengths and
apertures that I have, then I'd only have one body and one lens instead
of three bodies and nine lenses. Yes, I only use one at a time, but I
have a great range of focal lengths from 15mm to 135mm.
It doesn't make a difference where the lens is made or within earshot
of whatever cheap lenses are on the production line. The quality
control of ZM lenses is very good and the image quality is superb.
Up to Leica standards? Maybe. 
Dollar bills don't make photos no matter how much they are rolled up
into lens shapes. 

Phil Forrest



> Welcome to the LUG Kevin, the ZM Biogon 35 a very nice lens made by
> the very nice largest lens company in the world located in Japan.
> Its a ZM lens we refer to on the LUG.
> It cost a thousand dollars.
> A Summicron cost three thousand dollars.
> You want to compare them straight across you think that's wise?
> The ZM lenses are made in the same faculty that twenty other major
> brand named lenes are made. Within viewing distance of each other.
> Your post is full of Zeiss lenses are this and  Zeiss lenses  are
> that. A Zeiss lens cost three thousand or more dollars and are made
> in Germany with high tolerances amazingly high quality control and
> expensive choice glass types. For a hundred years.
> I own a half dozen for my Hasselblad system.
> The feel, look and quality has no resemblance at all to the nifty
> cheep stuff Cosina makes for them in Japan - with the Zeiss name on
> it. You want to call them a Zeiss lens you're fooling nobody but
> yourself. In another time warp dimension can you compare something
> straight across which cost a three times difference. Is made to way
> less tolerances. Well less quality glasses. Designed for an entirely
> different market. You want to save money?
> Get a CV or ZM lens for your Leica.
> You want a "world glass optic" you have to pay some real Leica money
> for it.
> 
> 
> 
> [Rabs]
> Mark William Rabiner



_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information