I'm pretty sure you'll like the lens. My only quibble with it is the size, but it's worth it for the speed I think.
I couldn't decide between the 2.8 and 2.0 Biogons so I purchased both and shot with them for a while. I decided to keep the 2.0, but that 2.8C is a fine and small lens. The 2.0 does intrude into the 35mm framelines on the Ikon, but I actually had to go and check to be sure; it's quite minor.
Anyway I wanted to share a few comparison shots for you, but you already went and bought one. :-) Perhaps someone else will find them of interest. These images are bigger than I remember so sorry for the size. I shot these last year as I was deciding between lenses. Both lenses performed well for casual photography but I wanted to see if a noticeable difference would emerge if I (for once) used a tripod and took identical photos. The first two are at f2.8 and the last two are with the Biogon 2.0 exposed at f5.6.
Thanks for the examples! so in your findings of using both lenses did you see a difference?
Also, I'm excited at the sharpness with the Coolscan. I too have one.