2/35 'Cron vs. 2/35 Biogon

[jaapv]

another piece of hearsay. didn't dante stella slam voigtlander for their lens line's inconsistent fingerprint?

What part do you refer to as hearsay? 😕 😕 Even if the fingerprint is inconsistent (which is why I put CV in brackets btw) it does not mean the designers didn't try. That can be put down to the fact that the German way of designing lenses is different to the Japanese approach. With Leica, and I assume with Zeiss at well, the basic concept of a lens is done by an optic designer, who, incidentally, must have a mind like a chessmaster to do so, and that concept is refined, revised and generally computed by a team of experts until it reaches production stage. The Japanese manufacturers rely more heavily on computers for the initial design and then work it up to a product. In the case of CV they then scale the lens down, element by element and aberration by aberration to reach the most simplistic and therefore least costly design which is acceptable within the parameters of the original quality goal. Obviously the first system has more scope to harmonize the lineup, but the second will produce less costly lenses at an optimum, but not maximum level of quality.

 

[ghost]

the hearsay was mine, but not anymore. i found it! *pant*pant*pant* i had to rummage through several forums. 😀

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hexarRF/message/1806

except he's talking about intentionality, not consistency. i don't know enough about lens diagrams and formulas to tell what was going on in the lens designer's mind, though.

 

[jaapv]

Thanks 🙂. Basically he says the same as I do, I see. I think the term intentionality is supposed to relate to the different design philosophies.

 

[Dan States]

I also have never found Zeiss lenses to be behind Leica in macro-crontrast...quite the opposite! In general Zeiss lenses have gobs of contrast and micro-resolution to boot, but are not at the level of the Leica lenses at the wides apertures. A difference in design style only. Each is more capable than any of us are as shooters!



Best wishes
Dan

 

[summilux]

most people talk too much about their equipment, they find self expression more in the gear they use, not in the pictures they make, the truth is that most lens made nowadays are good enough.

 

[Turtle]

I owned the Biogon 35 and sold it once I got the ASPH. ...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....

Thats interesting because the biogon f2 is regarded as having the best corner performance of any 35mm lens on the market - bar none. Its the centre performance that is perhaps a touch below the asph cron (tho not on all tests I have seen). Certainly my biogon is astounding in the corners from wide apertures, though I dont doubt the average asph cron is better in the centre than the average biogon. An old thread I know, but I would not want a prospective buyer of the biogon to think the biogon is poor in the outer field when it is in fact mind blowing.

 

[maajka]

One question for those that have the biogon: how much does the lens protrudes into the frameline?

 

[oldoc]

I have used the biogon, but have exchanged it for the ASPH cron, and wouldn't go back. The harsher tonality, as Tom describes it, is a perceptible difference at all apertures,IMO.
I must say that I prefer the Hexanon 35/2 (currently M hexanon, but I am swapping MCTuomey for his UC) to the Zeiss as well, in terms of image overall quality, not to mention it's results wide open.
This is not to say the Zeiss is an inferior lens, that would not be the case. The difference is there, whether the focal length be 35 or 50mm. I think the Zeiss wides, at least the one I use, is a different matter, but I am still looking for a 24/2.8 elmarit or 28 ASPH I can afford.

 

[Pablito]

most people talk too much about their equipment, they find self expression more in the gear they use, not in the pictures they make, the truth is that most lens made nowadays are good enough.

The truth is that most lenses made nowadays are excellent. I never thought about obsession with gear as a form of self expression and fulfillment, but I suppose for some folks it is. I'm not casting judgment - it's just that this really helps me understand why so many folks who do not distinguish themselves as photographers are so into equipment & testing it.

 

[elshaneo]

I got the Zeiss ZM Biogon 35mm f/2 at first, it was a great performer although not as high contrast and as sharp wide open as the Leica M 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH. I sold the Biogon and then got the Summicron afterwards, so far so good, I have no regrets, and in terms of handling, the Leica is my favourite as it's much smaller and also is better built with smoother focusing action.

But I have to admit that for price to optical performance ratio, the Biogon wins easily !!! Leica lenses are always a bit too expensive ;-)

 

[f16sunshine]

I got the Zeiss ZM Biogon 35mm f/2 at first, it was a great performer although not as high contrast and as sharp wide open as the Leica M 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH. I sold the Biogon and then got the Summicron afterwards, so far so good, I have no regrets, and in terms of handling, the Leica is my favourite as it's much smaller and also is better built with smoother focusing action.

But I have to admit that for price to optical performance ratio, the Biogon wins easily !!! Leica lenses are always a bit too expensive ;-)

Having owned the Biogon for about a year and a half. This spring I received the latest Cron 2/35 with an M8 package I purchased. In a "clinical" tripod test. There was so little difference to see between the "performance" of the two lenses I had nothing to note. Performance being sharpness, flare resistance, rendering etc...... The Cron is a smaller lens which I liked. Both built to excellent standard. They have some personality differences of which the winner is subjective. In use....... how can one justify the price of the Leica lens? I sold that Summicron and for the $2k that came in bought a lightly used Summarit 2.5/75 and Biogon 2.8/25 . I know for some value is an abstraction but, really is it?? The Biogon 2/35 is an excellent image maker and a much more valuable lens by complete comparison.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I like my biogon, but haven't used a 'cron. I've also had an ultron and color-skopar. My favourite is the biogon, with the others in price order - all are good though.

FWIW Pete Myers switched from 'cron to biogon for the last couple of years of his film work - now he's using a Nikon D3x and Zeiss 50 2.5 macro ZF. These is a review by him of the biogon somewhere and it obviously suited his sort of work.

I'm sure both are more capable than most of us...

Mike

 

[Steve M.]

They image differently, but not everyone sees that. To others it's glaringly obvious. The Zeiss has a very clean, technically sharp look. The Leica a more pronounced way of imaging that's impossible to describe, but if you like Leica lenses you know it when you see it. Obviously both are great lenses.

Another way to look at it is that some people prefer the Hasselblad look w/ a Zeiss lens, others the Rolleiflex w/ Xenotar. Both are probably as good as it gets in MF and we're fortunate to have the choice.

 

[robbo]

It's been said earlier, but bears repeating, I think. The fact that you might own an M6 has little relevance in that it is merely the name of a light-tight box that has limited effect on the end result. So, you use the lens that gets you the type of image that you like. Again, it's name is largely irrelevant, unless you are buying with other criteria in mind of course. Personally, I can't see the point in buying a Leica body (with all that it stands for) and then using any other make of lens.
If financial constraints apply but you want Leica, then buy their lenses and use a cheaper alternative light-tight box.

 

[sojournerphoto]

It's been said earlier, but bears repeating, I think. The fact that you might own an M6 has little relevance in that it is merely the name of a light-tight box that has limited effect on the end result. So, you use the lens that gets you the type of image that you like. Again, it's name is largely irrelevant, unless you are buying with other criteria in mind of course. Personally, I can't see the point in buying a Leica body (with all that it stands for) and then using any other make of lens.
If financial constraints apply but you want Leica, then buy their lenses and use a cheaper alternative light-tight box.

I have to agree - I don't see the point, if you want the Leica look, of buying a Leica body and alternative lens. Buy a Bessa and Leica lens for the look.

On the other hand, how a camera feels to work with depends on both pieces,

Mike

 

[David_Manning]

Santino,

Off-topic, but I've eaten at Josef in Linz...great place. I have family in Freistadt. I was last there in 2003.

 

[David_Manning]

Back On-topic, I've only used the Biogon (and only VERY recently), but I'm impressed with it's sharpness and bokeh. See my thread on "My new Zeiss is here."

 

[Paul T.]

Personally, I can't see the point in buying a Leica body (with all that it stands for) and then using any other make of lens.

I can. Sometimes the alternative is better.

I used to own a V4 Cron, sold it because they're so overpriced and, if I buy another, would get a Biogon, whose look I prefer.

I find this kind of brand obsession totally bizarre. There is no rational basis for it.

 

[David_Manning]

Robbo,

That's a common argument, but I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment.

I bought a Leica body because it's reputation for toughness, it's ability to image w/o batteries if need be (thus resistance to temperature extremes), and it's small but professional form factor. No other rangefinder comes close in professional feel, in my opinion. The argument of a light-tight box doesn't fly with me, because I can FEEL a difference in everyday shooting.

There are many great lenses out there, but you'll lose whatever perceived advantage the Leica lens is giving you in sharpness once it is printed (optically) with a standard enlarger lens that isn't as good, or scanned if it's printed digitally. Of course, if you are a believer of "that Leica glow," then you'll still perceive those characteristics if you use a Leica lens (I guess). Leica lenses are fantastic, but so are professional Zeiss lenses. I think, for me, the Leica advantage would be a smaller lens in some focal lengths, which can be an advantage to a travel or street photographer. I personally think that Zeiss' T* line is more modern and has more elements, thus less prone to flare, which can ruin a good picture.

These are just my opinions, and as you can tell, I'm new around here...but I've used lots of different equipment professionally for different reasons, not just end result (if that makes any sense).

 

[David_Manning]

Finally,

If you intend to shoot any chrome film, as an aside...the Zeiss T* lenses can adjust their apertures in 1/3 of a stop, as opposed to half-stop increments. One-third stop can save highlights and make a slide a bit more useful and punchy, if anybody meters that closely. I usually don't 🙂