Upgrading 35mm Summicron ASPH to Zeiss Biogon 35mm?

Z

ZebGoesZeiss

Established
Local time
7:23 AM
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
137
View My Gallery
You can probably file this under "M for Madness", but anyway. I bought a 35mm Summicron ASPH about 5 years ago, and it has served me well. From time to time I've these short bursts of longing for a 35mm Summilux ASPH, but these usually pass in a couple of minutes. But after having read Sean Reid's reviews and even Puts' website, I've started to develop an interest in the Zeiss 35mm Biogon. From what I can see, it is actually a better performer than my ASPH, at least in the corners. Now, I usually don't trade my equipment that often, but if the Zeiss is *better*, I'm tempted to do so.
Is there anyone out there who has gone this route before, or perhaps the other way? Is there any noticable difference at all, or are we talking tripod/ISO25 differences here? With "better", in this case I'm talking about resolution and perceived sharpness. I would be interested to hear from those who have owned (or own) both lenses.
 
yes, I sold my Leica asph35 and kept the Biogon.
I normally use slidefilm like Fuji Velvia or Kodak Extracolor. Therefore I found the asph35 too contrasty. The Biogon seemed to be of same sharpness but not too harsh. I also like the preasph35, a lens which is also softer in contrast than the asph35 when used f/2-5,6.
It is personal taste, but I think it depands a lot of kind of film you use normally.
 
Actually, the contrast bit doesn't concern me that much. Pared with films like HP5+ I seem to get a look that I like a lot. If I want to go "gritty" there is always the option of Tri-X and Neopan. But the resolution in the corners that the Biogon seems to have (at least "perceived"), is very interesting. Often, I've found that the corner sharpness I get from the ASPH is somewhat "lacking", but that might also be from shooting handheld, so I'm not sure what to expect from the Biogon.
 
Ok, I don't have either one of these lenses, so I really can't talk, but....from the photos I have seen both are very good. What I want to know , what is it that you use lens for so that corner sharpness/resolution specifically is so important? I mean, I don't think in most situations one would really be hard pressed to see much difference, unless you shoot test charts and brick walls.😉
 
Krosya said:
Ok, I don't have either one of these lenses, so I really can't talk, but....from the photos I have seen both are very good. What I want to know , what is it that you use lens for so that corner sharpness/resolution specifically is so important? I mean, I don't think in most situations one would really be hard pressed to see much difference, unless you shoot test charts and brick walls.😉
Click to expand...

Quite often I have elements in the outer thirds of the photo. And when I do, it really helps to know that there is some level of sharpness there 🙂 And I'm not talking extreme edges here.
 
Hi,

I owned the 35ASPh and after getting some experience with the Biogon, I kept the Biogon.
In most circumstances I could not see a major difference between the two. If at all the transition from sharp areas to out of focus seemed more pleasant with the Biogon.
In addition the Summicron ASPH has a tendency too flare badly with smaller apertures, so it is, at least for me, not the everyday/every situation lens I needed.

Ciao

Joerg
 
ZebGoesZeiss

From what I gather, both are competent lenses. Beyond the sheer sharpness, what I like from my Biogon, are a couple of things which strike me quite a bit, and which I haven't easily seen in the Leica shots.

1- the image plasticity - this is subjective, I know, so I'll show an example - this one taken at f4.0 on Neopan 400:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1944993365/sizes/l/
and this one wide open on XP2:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1361612497/sizes/l/

2- flare resistance - frankly, the whole ZM line is the most flare resistant thet I've ever seen, and this for me means a lot, because I love difficult lighting situations:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2189745407/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2189745407/

3- bokeh, while is not so critical in a 35/2 lens, it still is a good thing to be able to enjoy it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1362510410/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1362510410/

4- the kind of sharpness sufficient to get a landscape shot you don't have to excuse yourself for later:
this one at f4.0
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1217248456/sizes/l/
this at f8.0
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2207175464/sizes/l/
 
I'm one of those nut jobs who actually prefer the Summicron 35 ASPH to the Biogon 35. I find it has a bit more punch. I'm one of the lucky ones who own both.

Summicron ASPH:

1494085906_4f31d02174.jpg


1333199848_d6f9e2f279.jpg


1318165006_06499426ce.jpg


Biogon:

2057978875_99b9169720.jpg


1784834737_f706d8977b.jpg
 
Last edited:
I started appreciating flare resistance after the biogon 😉. I didn't notice how much flare changes things before I got the biogon. The contrast of my images with other lenses was all over the place because of flare and really spoiled some shots.

my observation has been that the biogon is razor sharp out to the edges. but I thought the cron asph was known for that too?
 
Last edited:
Nice shots Darren! But the cron shots are more interesting in terms of content, so that might bias my take on the lenses 🙂 However, I am also a fortunate dude who has owned both of these very fine lenses, but not as fortunate as Darren, for I could not afford to keep both 35s. I chose the ZM 35 as preferable over the cron due its performance, signature and flare resistance; it is fine to shoot it w/o a shade most times, making it quite compact when compared to the cron with its shade. And I found the cron req'd a shade most times. If you love to shoot slide film, I would strongly recommend the ZM 35...it makes sweet love with kodachrome 64 ;p

I think the L 35/1,4 asph is the only sexier 35 than the ZM 35/2 due its low light capabilities. Does sexy count 🙂
 
Yes the ZM's are known for their color. I've never had the Biogon, but do like the 25 very much, the 28 almost as much and the 21 pretty well- I'm still learning that one. But the 35/2.0 ASPH is one of my favorite lenses ever, with the 50/2.0 Summicron. The 35 ASPH has never let me down, making negatives that can be printed at 16x20 and retain crisp details right out to the edges.
 
thomasw_ said:
I think the L 35/1,4 asph is the only sexier 35 than the ZM 35/2 due its low light capabilities. Does sexy count 🙂
Click to expand...

Hi,

sexy counts 😀

In fact I replaced the summicron with a Summilux, partly for low light but also for it's signature.

Ciao

joerg
 
R2-D2

That waas developed in Tmax RT developer in a machine process at a lab. I stopped doing this though, due to an elevated number of unevenly developed negatives, and I am trying out some developers at home. So far Neopan 400 gave me impressive results with Prescysol EF semi stand.
 
I have a biogon and love the way it draws. I want to get a summicron, though, because it is physically a little smaller.

If you're interested in a trade let me know.

Michael
 
Excuse my lack of knowledge, does sharpness mean everything to a photo or to you guys ? I hardly believe any RF lenses are as sharp as some of the top macro lenses in SLR world. The newly made Zeiss lenses are known for their color rendition or I should say super-saturation and sharpness. Is that why most ppl in favor of modern zeiss glass? I am just curious.

I recently acquired a 35mm cron pre-asph and I love it very much.
 
fbf said:
Excuse my lack of knowledge, does sharpness mean everything to a photo or to you guys ?

I recently acquired a 35mm cron pre-asph and I love it very much.
Click to expand...

To me? Pretty much, yes. At least when it comes to lenses. Shooting landscape with ISO 20 film - sharpness matters, also in the corners. For now I think I will sticking with the Summicron, I red through that very long thread, and a lot of it seems to come down to personal taste. In that case, I think I will be sticking to the lens I know. If and when a Biogon comes along, I might give it a shot.
 
The sharpness is not everything, but it can be undone if you don't need it, while it cannot be created if you don't have it. Zeiss glass in my opinion has it's look, which is contrasty, sharp in most cases, yet due to a sparing use of aspherics, the drawing is very pleasant and the bokeh is usually good. I do not find the colour too saturated, but I There are two other less tangible qualities which I enjoy, like flare resistance and 3d rendering. But, even if Leica lenses are not Zeiss, they also can take nice pictures, as we may learn from lots of fine pictures made in the last century.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom