Biogon 35mm or Summilux 35mm pre-ASPH ?

A

alex_g_2000

Newbie
Local time
9:12 PM
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
9
Location
London
View My Gallery
This is a difficult question I have been asking myself for a little while, as both types of lenses are not easily comparable.

I was wondering whether some of you might be able to share some opinions on the topic. Which one of the two would you choose?
- Leitz Summilux 35mm f1.4 (pre-1994)
or
- Zeiss Biogon 35mm f2.8 (or f2.0 small price difference for small length difference)

I wish to buy one of the two lenses but hesitate:
- the Summilux is a legendary lens and I can't believe I would be disappointed with it. The aperture is phenomenal and gives a clear advantage over the next one in low light conditions.
- the Biogon, especially the f2.8 with its small size, seems to produce images of excellent quality.

Although I am taking pictures with an M8 and an R-D1, I hope to soon be able to acquire an M9, so the larger sensor may accentuate differences between the two lenses.

Given these many aspects (aperture, sharpness, costs, lens size, image feel...), what are your thoughts?

Alex
 
Hi Alex, for the reasons you have stated, the two aren't really comparable.
I have the Lux and the f2.0 Zeiss and have them for different reasons. The Lux loves to make the highlights bleed which gives everything soft glow. The Zeiss is completely opposite, sharp, no flare and has a unique way of recording mid tones.
I use both on my 8.2, save up for both.
Andrew.
 
Last edited:
I have also owned a Zeiss F2 and the Summicron ASPH, as well as shot with a LUX that I borrowed for a few months about 5 years ago. I would suggest that the Zeiss produces an image that side by side...F stop to F stop ( 2-4-5.6-8) that is superior to the ASPH CRON and for sure the "Lux". Why the Leica lens will give higher contrast image the Zeiss F2 a sharper image but honest tonal reproduction. I shot with both F2 lenses for about 2 weeks and sold my ASPH Cron and never looked back. I shot only film so maybe a M8.2 or M9 may actually produce a different result.

The New Zeiss F2.8 is from what I know actually a better lens than all 3 listed above, sharper all the way. I am getting ready to buy a F2.8 ZEISS myself. I lost my Zeiss F2 35mm when I dropped in a stream about a year ago.

But personal testing is really what matters.....if possible. Best of Luck
 
As Never said, this is a good pair of lenses to own & use, but not a good pair to choose between.

Like the Jungian Intuitive Type, the Lux is glow-y but unreliable: sometimes you lose whole shots because of big arcs of veiling flare. The 2.8 Zeiss is a Sensation type, reliable and clinically accurate, as long as you don't ask it to step into the dim areas of available light.

Perhaps consider the intermediate single-lens choice, a used pre-Asph Summicron (the best are ver. 1 & 4)?

Kirk
 
Biogon 2/35 ZM

Biogon 2/35 ZM

I've been using the 2/35 Biogon on my M8 for a couple months now, and it's an outstanding lens - nonetheless I decided to part with it.

It's got rather warm colours, is rather contrasty, has superb subject separation and 3D rendering and is quite sharp at f/2, getting super sharp at f/2.8 and mind-bogglingly sharp at f/4.

But, you've got to like its rendering. While I absolutely adore it for its 3D-ness, I am not so much a fan of its contrastiness and sometimes too warm colours. That's why I decided to switch.

From what I've heard and seen, the pre-ASPH Summilux is a lens rather difficult to master, and you've gotta like the soft and glowy rendering wide open. Also, it's supposed to exhibit focus shift - correct me if I'm wrong.

An alternative might be a pre-ASPH Summicron, which is smaller and lighter than the Biogon, and easier to handle than the Summilux. Also, it has a more neutral rendering than the Biogon.
 
I've got a titanium pre-ASPH. It's got some glowiness wide open but pretty much gone at f/2 and very sharp from there on. It doesn't have the contrast that most Zeiss lenses have but it's usable under a wider range of conditions as a result. The rendering is definitely different from Zeiss but I love it. I haven't seen any focus shift. The ASPH version is the one known for focus shift according to Sean Reid.
 
I'd choose the biogon, It's slower but the better lens IMO. It's scary sharp though, edge to edge. Make sure if that is the look you're going for or not.

But in 35mm, id be shooting the Nokton 1.2 regardless.
 
Dear Andrew, Larmarv916. Kirk, efix, rodl an dNeare,

Your responses are very helpful. Thank you for coming back so rapidly.
It seems that the best is to buy one of each, try them out and keep them...

I have just met with a photographer specialising in film pictures (on film sets) and he suggested to widen my search to the Summicron as you suggested (even though he often works in sub-optimal light conditions with his Leicas). He even suggested to consider the f2.8. So I need to do some further reseach into this.

People seem to agree though: the sharpness of the Zeiss is scary good across the frame (in an almost clinical way) while the Summilux gives a little of a glow which only Leica masters. So somehow, these lenses would be complementary.
The summicron though, might be the one to have if one can only have one lens...
Thank you again.

Alex
 
I can vouch for C-Biogon. It is as people here say, incredibly sharp, small and at a great price.
That said, I have just bought the Biogon f/2.0. I just can't live without the speed 🙂
 
I think I've responded to a couple of threads asking the same question.

I have NOT used any Leica lenses, and I invested in the Zeiss Biogon 35/f2.0. I couldn't be happier. The Zeiss lens is a very modern design, with low- to no-flare. It's got 1/3 aperture stops, in case you shoot the occasional slide film. It's VERY sharp, but I like it's bokeh...I like shooting with shallow DoF.

I can't comment about the Leica lenses, or the Zeiss 35/2.8...but I'm very happy with my Zeiss 35/2 and won't be replacing it. In fact, when I go wider, I'll probably buy another Zeiss (25 or 21).

All shot with the same ZM 35/f2.0 lens:

4288553641_288a8a87fb_b.jpg


3830830853_f055556089_o.jpg


4204170690_2fc4a34e7f_b.jpg


4352436852_c38254c326_b.jpg
 
Great shots David! You took those with your M6 I assume. Are there any focusing issues with the 35/2 on the M6? And - not to highjack the thread - but would you mind sharing which film stock you used, and which scanner?
 
Thanks for the kudos guys.

Yes, they're all M6 shots. All four were shot on Kodak BW400CN film, an often-maligned emulsion which I really like.

All four were mini-lab scanned, although I adjusted mid-tones after-the-fact. The minilab did an okay job of blacks and whites, but left the mid-tones pretty flat. No heavy lifting though...they were just basic 1800pix 8-bit scans.
 
I've found the pre-asph summilux an ideal lens on my M8. It spends much of its time there, usually partnered with a 75 1.4. I have not had a problem with focus shift with either lens. Both are less contrasty than the newer lenses - 1.4 Asph for 35 and 2.0 Asph for 75. I've found it's easier to add contrast than cut it back - both digitally with M8 and with TriX with M7.
 
one nice trait of the zm 35/2 is that is softens slightly at f2, making it more flattering for wide open portrait use than its reputation as a "scary sharp" lens would suggest.
 
With the M9, love the ZM 25/2.8 and ZM 35/2.8, but the ZM 35/2 lacked contrast and the usual zeiss rendering I am used off, particularly for landscapes and seemed to be prone to flare. I also have the ZM 50/2 Planar, which I feel is a brilliant lens.

I had the ZM 35/2 for a short while, and upgraded to 35 Summicron Asph. The difference was very noticeable, on landscapes with bright highlights. For B&W, there may be less of a difference, as with street scape shots.

Personally this is one of the Zeiss lineup, that does not match the others IMHO.

PS. I do embrace the Z* rendering, as I also the ZE range with 5DII.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom