35/2 Summicron (4th ver.) vs. new 35/2 Biogon

Honus

Honus

carpe diem
Local time
1:52 PM
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
732
I am looking to buy a good, compact 35 for my recently purchased M2 (The M2 is fantastic, BTW). I currently have the CV 35/2.5 Skopar. I love the size of the Skopar, but I would like the extra speed for handheld indoors. I also shoot 95% B&W, and the Skopar is often too contrasty in bright light.

For roughly $1,000 US, I could buy either a nice Summicron (4th version, pre-ASPH) or the new Zeiss Biogon. I want a lens that, stopped down, will be tack sharp and contrasty, but wide open will provide a buttery bokeh.

The 4th ver. Summicron is legendary in this regard and is where I have been leaning. The Biogon, however, is very intriguing. I have seen very few sample images from the Biogon, but those that I have found have been impressive.

If anyone has compared these two lenses, I would appreciate your comments.

- robert
 
That's a tough decision. If I didn't already have two 35s which I love (Summaron f/2.8 and f/3.5), I would probably spring for the Biogon, but I can't be absolutely sure. While I have less than zero interest in the ASPH Summicron, the pre-ASPH version is one heluva lens!
 
Thanks for the input. I didn't even think to look at Cameraquest. The Biogon for $800 looks inviting but what really got my attention is a new 50/2 Planar for $600! It would sure make a nice modern counterpart to my LTM Summicron. Hmmmmm...

- robert
 
it seems to me, just from collecting photos online, that the asph has a lower reject rate for bokeh wide open and close up. it's about 5%, while the pre-asph has 10%. the bad ones just look *bad*—bright rings, jangly lines and patches. but the rest are just fine. they all improve a stop or two down. look up mike johnston's bokeh ratings at his lulu store. i would go for the asph since it's only a few hundred dollars more, has more contrast wide open (some people think the pre-asph is too low in contrast at f2), and doesn't have any problem with the front of the lens unscrewing. the pre-asph's compactness is nice, but it's not really a practical advantage. i don't have any pockets that will take it mounted on a camera, and both versions fit in my pockets fine.
 
aizan said:
look up mike johnston's bokeh ratings at his lulu store.
Click to expand...

Aizan, thanks for the tip. Could you provide a link to Mike Johnston's lulu store? I couldn't find it via google. Thanks.

Huck
 
Most of my lenses are Zeiss (C/Y mount) and the B35 looks like a winner for bokeh and stopped-down sharpness. However, the barrel length is brutal for RF bodies. The pre-ASPH 35mm Leica lenses are delightfully small, and in no way harsh. Sample from M4 with 'cron 35 ver 4:
My current fling is a Summaron 35/2.8: nothing quite as sweet as old Leitz chrome!
 
I have had a Biogon 35 for some time now, and have owned two of the v4 Summicrons. My opinions on the Zeiss have wavered...going from initial joy, to slight dissapointment at full aperture performance...to where I am today...I really like the lens.

Its character is very "Zeiss Like". Tack sharp stopped down and absolute freedom from flare. Images are extremely crisp, with a medium format look. For ultimate image quality I suppose the Zeiss is ahead of the older Leica. Figuring size and full aperture performance into the picture it gets harder to choose. The leica looks a bit better at f2, and the size is handy as hell.

I can say that if you have owned Zeiss lenses in the past and liked the rendition, you will like the Biogon ZM. I have and do.

Best wishes
Dan
 
the cosina/zeiss stuff are grossly over-priced and over-sized, wait a bit, and you see their price drop, it is difficult for cosina to wear two hats. :D
 
summilux said:
the cosina/zeiss stuff are grossly over-sized. :D
Click to expand...

Summilux, are you judging ZM size by the spec's?

Just to note that Zeiss spec's include the lens mount, while Leica & Voigtlander spec's do not, so it makes size comparisons tricky. For example, Zeiss lists the ZM 35/2 Biogon as 56 mm long, but without the mount it is only 43.3 mm, or a whisker shorter than the 50 Summicron. For comparison purposes, the ZM lengths without the mount can be found on the Zeiss pages at www.cosina.co.jp.

All of this rangefinder stuff is grossly overpriced in comparison with SLR stuff. Ouch! But I wouldn't single out the Zeiss lenses. Leica stuff costs 2 or 3 times as much. Anyway, I sure hope you're right about the prices coming down. It would make a good thing even better. :) As mentioned above, grey market prices are lower, as are international prices, so that's a good start..
 
i was hoping the 35 biogon will be smaller in size, when it is much bigger than the summicron, perhaps the cosina/zeiss are perfect the zeiss ikon body, having a longer base length.

i am comparing the price of cosina zeiss with the contax zeiss. just dont see why and how the former should be more expensive.

there is no patent for the M mount anymore, i believe the pricing is not directly related the costs in producing, rather with the commerical decision of the new distributor, and rather with their greed.

the dealer i know told me the cosina/zeiss stuff is not selling well. sure they are good stuff, but the market is full of good stuff nowadays.
 
... and also look at the way they price their accessories, hood and viewfinder, i come to admire their self-confidence. :D
 
I ended up opting for the pre-asph Summicron, rather than the Biogon. It's a minty, late model from Henry's in Toronto. The price was about the same as a new Biogon with hood. My choice was not based on anything negative about the Biogon, but on the many positive comments and beautiful images from the Summicron that I have found. It should also match well with my 50mm collapsible 'cron.
 
summilux said:
i am comparing the price of cosina zeiss with the contax zeiss. just dont see why and how the former should be more expensive.
Click to expand...

Summilux, there are several reasons why the new Zeiss Ikon system prices can't be compared with the Contax G system:

1. The Contax G system is discontinued & its prices are lower now than when it first came on the market in 1994. When they were introduced, the Contax G1 & G2 were both more expensive after adjustment for inflation than the Zeiss Ikon is today. You are comparing 1994 discounted prices with 2005 prices.

2. The Contax G system was introduced at the height of the film era, so high volume sales could be anticipated & equipment could be priced accordingly. The Zeiss Ikon system is priced for a rangefinder niche market that is a small fraction of the now niche film market. Low volume sales are anticipated for any rangefinder equipment today & prices reflect that. Just compare with soaring Leica prices.

3. "The ZM series of lenses are new designs, not related to the G-series. The back focus of the G-body is 12 mm and the Leica M has a back focus of 15 mm." - Erwin Puts.

4. The Contax G system was both manufactured & distributed/marketed by Kyocera. Unfortunately, the best deal that Zeiss could find for the ZI was an OEM (Cosina) separate & distinct from the distributor (Hasselblad). Judging by grey market prices, this seems to have added what would otherwise be unnecessary cost.

5. If you are using USA prices as your point of comparison, they are 10 - 20% higher for ZI system products than elsewhere in the world, which is unusual. The Zi seems to have been caught at the high point of the fluctuating value of the USA dollar when Zeiss set its price. Now that the dollar has dropped back down, the system is overpriced in America as compared with other countries.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom