2/35 'Cron vs. 2/35 Biogon

[santino]

Hi!

I've been asking myself for quite a long time if there's much difference between the 'cron and the Biogon? I've got to get a 35mm lens for my M6 (the only lens I have is a 50mm 'Cron and I'm very happy with it but I've got to get a 35mm). A new Biogon is 850€ and a used 'Cron in mint condition about 1000€. Now the question is, is it better to get a more expensive second hand 'Cron or a brand new Biogon. I know the Biogon isn't leica but it's still Zeiss, isn't it. I don't expect it to be as well finished as the 'Cron but what about image quality? Is there a major difference or is it just a matter of taste how it performs and so on. I can't afford a new 'Cron so it has to be the second hand one or the Biogon. Would anybody be so good and post example images? 😀
is there anybody who used both of them?
thanks a lot in advance, I need your advice, who else coould help me in my decision 😀 🙂

 

[santino]

off course I meant the ASPH 'Cron 🙂

 

[back alley]

i have the biogon but have not used the leica lens.

i quite like the zm lens, very well made and excellent sharpness.
it is a better lens than i am a photographer.

i think i posted some shots taken with it from my first roll.
i'll have to do a search.

joe

 

[Huck Finn]

I bought a used Biogon for $650 (514 Euros) & I'm very happy with it. I prefer the more compact size of the 'Cron, but I'm not willing to pay the difference for that size. The Biogon is compact enough - same size as my 50 'Cron.

 

[ghost]

tom abrahamsson says the asph has harsher tonality than the biogon and pre-asph cron.

http://cameraquest.com/rf2005.htm

 

[back alley]

found them

hth

joe

 

[Mackinaw]

I haven't used the Zeiss, so no comments there, but I do own a 35/2 Summicrom asph and can vouch with its performace at all apertures. if properly focused, at F2.0, you can be absolutely certain that the picture will be tack-sharp from corner-to-corner, no questions asked. As for bokeh, I have no complaints. The attached was taken with the 35 summicrom asph last summer. I focused on the racer.

Jim Bielecki

 

[back alley]

I focused on the racer...

why?
😉

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Racer? What racer? :angel:

 

[Mackinaw]

Another vantage point.

Again, with the 35 summicron asph, albiet cropped.

Jim Bielecki

 

[santino]

thanks!
back alley: the pics look great, seems to be a great lens. though I still can't decide, what does he exactly mean by "the 'Cron is harsher"? does that mean that it has harsher bokeh but more contrast?? 🙂

 

[back alley]

from the dictionary...tonality...the scheme connecting the color tones in a work of art such as a painting.

i see tonality as the transition area from light sections of a print to the dark sections and the tones tht make up the photo. so harsh to me says too strong, too contrasty, not smooth or creamy.

don't know if this makes much sense written down.

joe

 

[LeicaLux]

tom abrahamsson says the asph has harsher tonality than the biogon and pre-asph cron.

http://cameraquest.com/rf2005.htm

I have used the Biogon and once owned the 35/1.4 asph which has almost the same signature as the 35/2 asph.

I believe both are finished to the same quality, though the parts in the Leica are probably of a higher quality material.

In terms of image quality, the Leica has more contrast, which gives the perception of higher resolution, especially when shot at fairly open apertures. Whereas the Biogon is lower contrast, but still quite sharp at open apertures, with a decent but not great bokeh rendition. From memory I think the Summicron 35 asph is slightly smaller than the unusually large Biogon (with hood attached).

Personally the Biogon didn't wow me like I was hoping and I prefer the look from the older Summicron V4 and asph versions better. I believe the Biogon TO BUY is the 25mm lens. So unless you're hung on buying a new lens and on a budget, I'd opt for the Leica lens. Remember, you're not really shooting a Leica unless the lenses are Leica right? (ps. I am not hung up on Leica over other brands - just a thought to consider).

Good luck

 

[santino]

yeah, it's a tough decision, I'm so pleased with my 50 'crom, it's worth considering a second hand 35 ASPH 'Cron

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Another vantage point.

Again, with the 35 summicron asph, albiet cropped.

Jim Bielecki

Nice shot Jim ...

uhm, what was the question again? 😛

 

[santino]

on the other hand the lower contrast doesn't really bother me, I prefer creamy bokeh and tonality, the larger size doesn't bother me too (as far as it isn't larger than my 50 'cron, right??).
thanks again. the more opinions/expereinces you share, the more you'll influence my decision 😀 🙂

 

[Toby]

To be blunt I don' think you could honestly tell the difference between the two lenses in most situations, especially at their optimum apertures. There may be a difference wide open but ultimately your skill will be more important than the lens you use. Just to p*** in the punchbowl here are some CV 35/1.7 ultron shots. I don't think you would genuinely notice the difference if I'd used leica or zeiss glass - that would ony be apparent in low light

 

[Jacob]

Since You are not size sensitive, not a die hard brand-a-holic and Your funds have some kind of restriction, have You thought of the CV Ultron 35/1.7? A bargain compared to the others, slightly faster, almost as nice build quality (except the plack paint) and a signature close to the Biogon (I guess?). And a German name! Maybe not Your cup of tea, but I just wanted to remind You of an option.
Jacob

 

[willie_901]

I need your advice, who else coould help me in my decision 😀 🙂

Of course both lenses are excellent. I own the Biogon and have not used the Leica.

I am very pleased with the Biogon. My Flickr stream has many examples and there are some in the RFF Gallery too.

The Biogon is physically longer than most 35mm M lenses. The finish is very nice and the lens is a joy to use. The optical performance is the best I've encountered (compared to Nikkor AIS F mount lenses).

I really enjoy the results from my Biogon. I think choosing between the Biogon and the Leica boils down to two issues.

1/ The Biogon is bigger, but you would get a new lens. Leica enjoys a well-deserved brand reputation. The Zeiss ZM product line is new and these lenses have to earn theM mount community's respect.

2/ The images from the two will have different characteristics. Which characteristics a photographer prefers is subjective.

Good luck,

willie

 

[Dan States]

I owned the Biogon 35 and sold it once I got the ASPH. If you shoot at night or at f2-2.8 a lot the difference is pretty noticable. The Biogon has a very curved field of focus and prints of the full frame will not be critically sharp in the corners. In this respect it is much closer to the pre ASPH Summicron. It also renders points of light as discs (coma) at F2-2.8.

For middle aperture users it's a great lens. Flare control is oustanding and the handling of the lens is great once you get used to the shape, focus throw and extra aperture detents.

Also consider that a new Biogon will resell as a used one later on, but the used Summicron ASPH will hold a better part of your original purchase price.