35 Biogon size compared to asph Summilux 50 and v4 35 Summicron

sorry to dig up an old thread
but why is the zm much longer ?
seems like they might have used a different formula / number of lens group
hmmm
 
..hey Cool! dredging up this thread, i did not recognise it as "old' until i got to the end.
i sure like the focus ring on the LHSA 50mm lux, and it's overall 'feel' is more satisfying than what i 'feel' with the 35mmlux, which has to me, an ackwardness with the focus tab. these photos of the ZM make it appealing.
 
This gives me a good opportunity to say I love the Zeiss glass even more after using it under really tough lighting. I've shot both my Leica asph and Zeiss glass side by side and have deceided I really like the look of the Zeiss glass over the Leica. A month or so ago I added a Zeiss Planar 50 and now favor it over the asph summilux 50. The asph is one fine lens and my favorite of the new asph lenses from Leica but the Zeiss is more clasic looking with a creamy smooth tonality, superb contrast and exceptional sharpness. I now don't feel the asph 50 has anything over the Planar. If I couls only own one set of glass it would most certainly be Zeiss. I feel the Leica asph lenses are certainly sharp but they're more harsh in texture and tonality with a tendancy to give strange OOF. For people the Zeiss is much more pleasant to my eyes and the Leica is exceptional for other subjects. I have money sitting in a special fun account for the 85 sonnar. I can't wait for this lens and will most certainly order one as soon as it hits the market.
 
Huck Finn said:
The 35 biogon is exactly the same size as the 50 Summicron when mounted on the camera.
Click to expand...

Thank you for answering that, I was keen to see the 35mm biogon alongside the 50 cron but I felt it was close in size. I have a current 50 cron in chrome so I now have an idea how the 35 biogon will handle.

I am interested to see the 35mm biogon alongside the current ASPH 35mm cron also - can anyone help?.

I am trying to deceide between a new 35mm biogon or a mint 35mm ASPH cron. The lure of Leica glass and that nice and small ASPH cron is great. Someone help me deceide!!!

However I love the look of Zeiss glass, the T3 with its Sonnar is a fav of mine.

I may have to get a 35mm VC Pancake to tide me over while I deceide.

Tim
 
I sold my v4 summicron when I won a new asph summicron. The asph is excellent but not small or light. The asph summicron has much more of a tendancy to flare than the Biogon. The Biogon may be slightly sharper wide open as well. My asph is chrome and much heavier than the Biogon. There's no question in my mind that i would personally buy the Zeiss over the Leica 35. I'll shoot a side by side when I have a chance and post them.
 
haagen_dazs said:
sorry to dig up an old thread
but why is the zm much longer ?
seems like they might have used a different formula / number of lens group
hmmm
Click to expand...

They did use a very different formula, which has 9 elements in 6 groups. If you go to the Leica & Zeiss websites, you can see diagrams of the 2 different lenses & just how different the Biogon & double Gauss design of the Summicron are. The two designs have different characteristics & each of these manufacturers have their preferences. Consumers can make their own choice.

I'm not sure if the design differences completely account for the size differences. Zeiss lenses with the same formulas are bigger in the ZM series than were those made for the Contax G. There has been some speculation that the ZM lenses were designed to work better with a digital camera than smaller lenses might. I haven't seen anyone verify this & have no idea if it's true. I should note that there was no Biogon in the 35 mm focal length for the Contax G. Zeiss chose to use a Planar design for this focal length in that lens series. So there is no direct comparison. My comment is drawn from a comparison of other focal lengths in these 2 series.
 
x-ray said:
I now don't feel the asph 50 has anything over the Planar. If I couls only own one set of glass it would most certainly be Zeiss. I feel the Leica asph lenses are certainly sharp but they're more harsh in texture and tonality with a tendancy to give strange OOF. For people the Zeiss is much more pleasant to my eyes and the Leica is exceptional for other subjects.
Click to expand...
x-ray, I think at some point since you have had the Planar, you posted that it was quite similar to the current 50 Summicron, but with superior flare control. Assuming I am remembering correctly and attributing correctly, I'm curious whether your assessment of the Planar vis-a-vis the Summicron has changed. For example, would you definitely prefer the Planar for people, or is that more of an "ASPH look" thing going against the lux? Thanks for any further impressions you may have.
 
Matthew Runkel said:
x-ray, I think at some point since you have had the Planar, you posted that it was quite similar to the current 50 Summicron, but with superior flare control. Assuming I am remembering correctly and attributing correctly, I'm curious whether your assessment of the Planar vis-a-vis the Summicron has changed. For example, would you definitely prefer the Planar for people, or is that more of an "ASPH look" thing going against the lux? Thanks for any further impressions you may have.
Click to expand...

The planar is rapidly becoming my #1 favorite 50 of all RF lenses that I've owned which includes all the formulas of the summicron. The Planar look does remind me of the Summicron but it is extremely flare resistant. In back lit conditions the summicrons would have a veil of flare over the subject but to this date i have had no problem with the Planar doing this. The planar contrast is better than the Summicron but without being harsh. I would call it a very well balanced lens in terms of contrast, resolution and tonality. It's probably the best 50 in this regard that I have used including slr 50's. There's certainly nothing wrong with the LUX and in my opinion it's the best of the ASPH lenses but the Planar is so smooth and creamy compared to the aspherics and retains that sharp detail in a very nice way without being harsh. I have actually thought of selling my Lux but have deceided to keep it just for the speed when needed. Overall my Zeiss lenses are edging out my asph lenses in my bag. I feel the Zeiss are more of the classic look but with modern advantages. For those who like the hard edge look most likely you'll like the Leica glass but for the more classic look but with modern sharpness and flare controll beyond Leicas modern glass then the Zeiss is the way to go. My personal taste dictates a more balanced lens. Like I mentioned before I would select leica lenses for landscapes and machines and Zeiss for people and warmth in the image (B&W).
 
Thanks, x-ray. I had to have Leica NJ repaint the rear metalwork inside my current 50 cron with a more nonreflective matte black paint to prevent the somewhat unpredictable flare-like effects I and others observed. I haven't noticed the problem since then, but still need to test with specially chosen difficult backlit and strong-light-source shots. In every other respect have been delighted with the current cron.

The planar sounds like a consummate "shoot with confidence" lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom