The Zeiss 35mm f/2 was the first lens I got for my M6 about 7 years ago. Still one of my most used. Some people say it’s “big” and compared to a Leica Summicron or a few other lenses, it is bigger. But it has good sharpness, great flare resistance, and fair price. I have since bought and sold the good Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5, and currently also own the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8. The 2.8 feels perfect on the camera, and unless I am going to be shooting indoors, 2.8 is generally enough for available light photography. And the 2.8’s sharpness and micro-contrast is noticeably greater, even when just looking at negatives. I alsoways stayed away from the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 due to the large size. I additionally own the Zeiss 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/2, 50mm f/1.5, and 85mm f/4. All are great and produce wonderful images.
I’ve owned all three of these. Started with the Biogon f/2, which complemented my Planar nicely. But then one day I noticed some slightly smudgy corners when used wide open, so sold it. Later I got a C-Biogon f/2.8 which is fantastic when the light is good and I just want a smaller lens. Recently I decided to given the Distagon a go. Reviews like this really helped me to like the Distagon, because I was prepared for it to be much bigger than it is - it’s large, I just think the size is overhyped. I will agree that it would be great if it was smaller, but it’s ok for me. The thing is that the images it produces are sublime, I’ve never really understood the ‘draw’ of a lens until I got this, just something about the way the in focus subject is separated from the background which is rendered smooth and beautiful makes images with this lens really stand out. The results are as sharp as you could want but have a smoothness to the rendering which is really pleasing. I’ve never tried the Summilux ASPH FLE, but example photos I’ve seen don’t seem to have quite the same look to me - specifically not as smooth in the out of focus areas. I do find the Distagon a bit slow to focus, the focus is really well damped and perfectly smooth, which makes it feel quite accurate to focus, but you can’t wiz from infinity to 0.7 in a heartbeat - it’ll take a second to get there. So I’m pretty happy with my two Zeiss 35s, but have to say that the Distagon is pretty much glued to my M9 at the moment. Thanks for taking the time to do this comparison video!
I have put my Zeiss 35mm F2 lens,. in my leica M11 monochrome.. and I think I reached heaven... what the light of 1.4 does not give me, the 200,000 iso of my camera gives me..Very happy with the purchase and thank you for your advice.
I agree with your sentiments around the sheer size of the Distagon which is why I opted for the Biogon. If you get your hands on it, I'd be curious to your thoughts around the Voigtlander 35mm f1.5 that just came out. It's just around the size of a Biogon and comes in at less than $1k.
I am a long time Biogon 2.8 user and just bought the 1.5 Nokton asph ii for 2 weeks and I'm now selling the Biogon. The Nokton has everything I want in a everyday lens. Compact, great ergonomics, great IQ even at f1.5, and looks great with that brass black paint. Oh, the extra 2 stops of light do come in handy, I find myself shooting at night time more now. You won't regret it if you make the switch. Voigtlander's been doing great lately
@@zimbabwe0 thanks, yeah agreed. shortly after I made that comment a while back I purchased the Voigtlander 35 Norton 1.5. It's proven to be one of my favorite 35mm lenses to date. Its size flexibility, and performance just hit all the marks for me.
I got the 2,8/35, mainly due to its size. For the Leica MP it is perfect match and allows it to be daily carry. in the day i have to shoot at around f/5,6-8 so it is fine. But it is so compact that you can hide it under your flanel or whatever. Imagewise, it performed well enough eve on the M11. The outer edges are always a tad softer, but still fine. The colors, contrast, microcontrast are perfect. I think it is great travel package that is often overlooked. And as a bonus it is fairly affordable :)
Thanks for the vid Benj. The Distagon pairs beautifully with the SL2, because of its heft. Agree that it is heavy on the m10 but it is my only 35 so I have learned to live with it.
I use the C-Biogon 2.8 on my m6 and absolutely love it. The sharpness and contrast are excellent. A bit annoying when there’s not enough light, but for most things it gets the job done. And it’s so small.
I rented the f2 Biogon when I rented the M10-P for Christmas and I quickly fell in love with it. It’s a good feeling lens (still prefer the build of Leica-made lenses but still), and I really loved the rendering it gave. It was fun messing with Christmas lights in the bokeh. But yeah it was so awesome to use with all the family time when I had it
Great job with this test, and the wedding photos are wonderful. I'd say that the Distagon has the best spherical highlights even at F/2.8 with the Biogon T* F/2.8 coming in at second best. The rendering of the spherical highlights looks very nervous and distracting to me on the Biogon T* F/2. I hope to eventually see you do this test with the Voigtländer and Leica along with the Distagon. I'm curious to see which lens performs the best.
Zeiss really gives Leica a run for the money. I have the C Biogon 28mm. Its flare resistance and chromatic abberation are better than my Leica Cron 35mm Asph. The reason why I didn't opt for the Distagon is its size and focus ring. I also have the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm F1.2 Asph III as I also shoot film. F1.2 comes in real handy. I like its characters and it 's sharp at the center wide open. However, aftersales support is nonexistent from Voigtlander/Cosina. Had to send my Nokton to DAG Camera for calibraiton instead.
So grateful for this review. If you have a second, I'd really appreciate your opinion on which might work best to give that Zeiss POP on a 40 megapixel Fuji. Thank you!
the distagon is on another level. it is an epic, historic, amazing lens. it's a little bit heavy but it's lighter than a view camera (which is what it looks like).
I'd love to see the Contax G (Zeiss) 35mm F2 also here into the comparsion. It could being converted via Funleader helicoid to Leica M mount. I don't own it, neither a M body, but would enjoy to see a 1:1 comparsion.
I’m surprised you didn’t talk about the things every review mentions about the Biogon f2: that it has soft corners and coma at f2. I’m curious if you saw that in your photos at all
I noticed soft corners in my copy but I chalked it up to an abnormality of a VERY well-used lens as I went back and didn't notice the same on over photos I'd had with a different copy of that lens before. I didn't shoot anything where coma would come up, but I could see that being an issue for sure if the corners are soft.
As a casual street shooter, I got the 35 FLE thinking it would be the ultimate lens because of the IQ and size. But I still find it too big and heavy but I'm also tired of my 35 1.4 Nokton. I've actually settled on a 40mm Summicron C and I love the size and can deal with its quirks. I'll be selling my Nokton while the FLE collects dust until there is a special occasion.
Do you think Zeiss optics have a distinctive look. They seem to render like no other manufacturer. Sharp but smooth...I know that makes little sense. I love the pictures from 6:24 to 6:34. Really nice work. I bet you clients were over the moon.
Based on my experience with the Zeiss lenses on a Contax G1 rangefinders, I knew that I liked Zeiss lenses. Based on my experience with the 35mm f/1.4 Nikon lens on my Nikon SLR, I knew that I liked a fast 35mm focal length. Therefore, the first lens I purchased for my Leica M6 rangefinder was a 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss ZM.
I considered the Biogon f2.but went with the Voigtlander f2 Ultron. The Ultron is significantly lighter (170g vs 240g) and also smaller for the same image quality.
absolutely dollar for dollar the 35 distagon is arguably one of the best lenses in the entire leica lineup. The first time I shot mine I knew right away i'll never sell it. It's really too bad its so big.
I am quite a fan of these lenses too, but as others have commented the terrible Zeiss customer support prompted me to sell my others after one developed a fault.
Zeiss Ikon AG is making glass for eyeglasses and microscopes, the prime lenses you have on your table are made by Cosina, that's why they are so cheap. So are all the Voigtlanders.
Weight and size matter, I went with a little Sony 40mm 2.5 over a 1.4 GM because I didn't want to deal with the weight. Ask Sony to send you the three F2.5 prime lens to review
35mm Distagon adapted on an SL2S? More balanced than an M? I absolutely HATE my 7Artisans 35mm 1.4. Even with peaking I have so much trouble with getting good focus that I stop it way down. Considering the Distagon now.
In defense of the Distagon, it is lighter than my APO Smmicron-M 75mm ASPH, and so close in weight to my Summilux-M 50mm ASPH that I cannot usually tell the difference, when either the Summilux or the Distagon is the one on the camera. I started Leica M shooting with my Summilux, which remains my most-favored M lens, so the Distagon not being noticeably heavier effectively cancels the Distagon’s weight as being a problem, for me. (Others’ tastes may vary.) I favor wearing my camera strap over my right shoulder, so that the camera hangs on my left side. When using a relatively long M lens, such as my APO 75, Summilux 50, or the Distagon 35, it can he helpful to turn the camera face-down, so that the lens acts like the keep of a sailboat, to keep the camera/lens stable, and, less dust tends to settle on the outer element.
Have you tried the Summicron-M 35mm, if so, how does it compare to the zeiss in terms of size/weight/handling? Judging from pictures online the Summicron 35 is about the same size of the Biogon 2.8/35 with an added stop of light. Also, what are your thoughts on combining a 35mm with, say, a 75mm as a 2-lens setup? Great work Benj and thanks for taking the time to make these videos!
I have the Cron Asph and the Zeiss Biogon 28mm F2.8. The Cron is of course heavier. Ergonomic wise, I prefer the Cron because of its bigger size focus tab. It feels more solid than the Zeiss. But in terms of sharpness, I think the Zeiss performs better throughout the focal range corner to corner. Surprisingly, the Cron exhibits some longitudinal chromatic aberration near the corner when you shoot at trees and such. This is not correctable in post as I have discovered. I don't see such issue with the Zeiss Biogon 28mm. So I would expect the Biogon 35mm should perform better. Also the Zeiss is more contrasty and has better resistance against flares. The only other reasons to get the Cron is its legendary status, compactness, and retaining value. It does render images less clinical than the Zeiss. But still, both have a modern look to their images on digital. On the other hand when I shoot film, I prefer the Cron for its warmer tones. I shoot many Cosina made Zeiss glass and they tend to render colder tones right off the bat with the exception of the 85mm F1.4 Planar.
@@erichung9043 Thanks! I appreciate your comments. I was looking into the 35+75 combo as a smaller lightweight setup, you know, mainly vacations and everyday stuff but some serious work every now and then. My other option would be 50+90
Once you taste that Zeiss contrast & 3D pop you are addicted. Zeiss value for money is the best in M mount. Even more since Voigtländer raised their prices !
Hi first thank you, is the Voigtander 35mm F1.2 asph III VM better than Zeiss 35mm F1.4 ZM if you tested them out which one is better? would you let me kown.
A lotlotlot of people shoot stopped down almost all the time (street shooters), so that's another reason it might make sense to opt for the 2.8 with its smaller size and lower price.
Hi Benj - I sent my 35mm 1.4 to Germany for a check as it’s loose in the mount of my M4 - has been tested with M3/4/6/10/11 and all have issues with movement in the mount yet ZEISS have said this is normal and don’t recommend replacement of the mount as it will exhibit the same if changed. Can anyone else chime in to see if theirs moves slightly in the mount??
Honestly I’m so over the whole fast lens stuff, environmental photography doesn’t need to blast the background into oblivion. It’s not creative nor interesting . I’m super good with f2.8 and f2. Fast glass is best used as a situational tool. With low light capability of modern cameras, and the less weight of the 2.8. I’ll take that.
The Nokton classic is really tailored for film shooters. Note that Leica also has released its classic "Steel Rim" from the 60s. The Nokton is modeled after that. For digital and if this is your first 35mm, I would opt for the Zeiss Biogon F2.8 not the F2 due to the size. If you really need F2, Leica Cron all the way.
Maybe consider the new VG 35mm Nokton f1.5 ii ? It's different to the f1.4 and it is getting some interesting reviews right now. It looks very nice indeed.
@@y34r 35f2ultron is tinier and sharper edge to edge. The black paint and silver paint versions are all brass and multi coated. They don’t have any focus shift and CA is corrected by abnormal and double sided aspherical lens elements. The Zeiss is an older and much less corrected lens, similar to an older v3/4 cron albeit excellent lenses.
