35 f/28 Summaron or 35 f/28 Biogon (new)

M

muser53

MUSER53
Local time
12:16 PM
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
501
If anyone has used these lenses would you care to comment on the differences in how they render? Thanks for any and all feed back. For what its worth they will be used on on M Leicas.

Thanks,

Paul
 
Paul, it is the difference between a 40+ year design and a modern design. The Summaron 35f2.8 is a very good lens, in many way a better lens than the Summicron 35 from the same era. It is particularly good at close in shots - an area where the Summicron from the 60's never excelled. It has a bit lower contrast than a modern lens, softer color rendering (not necessarily bad with modern high contrast films anyway). Feels like a 1 st version Summicron and it does have the infernal infinity stop (can be dis-abled though)
The C Biogon 35mm f2.8 is what it sets out to be, A modern high performance lens, with emphasis on performance, rather than speed. It is reasonably compact (though not as small as the 35f2.8 Summaron). It has a slightly different contrast from the rest of the ZM line from Japan. They are extremely consistent in how they "draw" - from the the 18mm to the 50's. The 35f2.8 is slightly higher contrast and with very good resolution - even at f2.8.
Is it better than a Summaron 35f2.8 - I don't know. Both lenses are more than good enough for 99% of the shooting I have done with them - and the missing 1% is probably when i try "hope over experience" type of shooting handheld at the ragged edge of slow speeds.
One advantage with the C Biogon is that you can buy it new - no scratches, no fog and no sticky focus. The Summaron is old and finding a clean one is difficult, not impossible though. Finding the C Biogon is but an e-mail away!
 
2369923962_25d4c75347.jpg


M2 and Summaron 35mm f2.8 Microdol -X/Tri X @250
 
Last edited:
2560265536_5433016228.jpg

Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8. Neopan Presto 400 and Pyrocat HD 11 min.
 
Last edited:
FAB photos Tom... You certainly captured the Characters of Light & Glass

Like them both but the first one seems to have a softness thats more appealing to my eyes
however
the second one draws you in from a mod zen like
line & tone simplicity

Lovely- Best-H
 
Last edited:
although in a difference price range you may also want to consider the Canon 35/2.8 LTM - excellent resolution with lower contrast... smaller than either of the lens you've mentioned ...
 
helenhill said:
FAB photos Tom... You certainly captured the Characters of Light & Glass

Like them both but the first one seems to have a softness thats more appealing to my eyes
however
the second one draws you in from a mod zen like
line & tone simplicity

Lovely- Best-H
Click to expand...

Thanks Helen, I personally like the dog - he was waiting for his owner to return and to take him to the beach! Both of these lenses are very good and it is more a matter personal preferences here.
 
Tom A said:
Paul, it is the difference between a 40+ year design and a modern design. The Summaron 35f2.8 is a very good lens, in many way a better lens than the Summicron 35 from the same era. It is particularly good at close in shots - an area where the Summicron from the 60's never excelled. It has a bit lower contrast than a modern lens, softer color rendering (not necessarily bad with modern high contrast films anyway). Feels like a 1 st version Summicron and it does have the infernal infinity stop (can be dis-abled though)
The C Biogon 35mm f2.8 is what it sets out to be, A modern high performance lens, with emphasis on performance, rather than speed. It is reasonably compact (though not as small as the 35f2.8 Summaron). It has a slightly different contrast from the rest of the ZM line from Japan. They are extremely consistent in how they "draw" - from the the 18mm to the 50's. The 35f2.8 is slightly higher contrast and with very good resolution - even at f2.8.
Is it better than a Summaron 35f2.8 - I don't know. Both lenses are more than good enough for 99% of the shooting I have done with them - and the missing 1% is probably when i try "hope over experience" type of shooting handheld at the ragged edge of slow speeds.
One advantage with the C Biogon is that you can buy it new - no scratches, no fog and no sticky focus. The Summaron is old and finding a clean one is difficult, not impossible though. Finding the C Biogon is but an e-mail away!
Click to expand...

This is a perfect analysis.
I regret my nearly perfect Summaron (sold it because I was in a M3 phase, and bought the googled one), it had the perfect flare that give an unbelievable charm to the photograph, but still kept enough sharpness and "modelé" for enlargements.

The main difference in the results would be the contrast. You only have to adapt your developing process.
 
Tom A said:
The Summaron 35f2.8 is a very good lens, in many way a better lens than the Summicron 35 from the same era. It is particularly good at close in shots - an area where the Summicron from the 60's never excelled.
Click to expand...

I agree completely here. Some of the best photos I've ever take of my family & friends are with my 2.8 Summaron at about 2.5 feet. They always end up look stunning.

 
I have the same dilemma recently, and just happen to come across this thread from a Google search...

So basically I'm considering to get one of the two 35mm lenses mentioned here - the Summaron 2.8, and the ZM 35/2.8. I understand that these are not apple to apple comparisons given they are very different lenses. But perhaps you could share your views given I own the following 35mm lenses:
- 35mm Summicron V1 (currently sent to Shintaro-san for a black repaint...)
- ZM 35/2 Biogon
- VC 35/1.2 (rarely used due to its size)

Apart from the 35/2 Summicron V1, the other two lenses are not so compact by M mount standards, so I'm considering to acquire a new compact 35mm lens. I'm kind of inclined to a chrome / silver lens as I've recently bought an M2-R chrome. The ZM 35/2.8 is very appealing given the rave reviews here and from reidreviews.com - but the Summaron is an equally attractive choice as a classic Leica lens (I do shoot a lot of B&W)

... I'm still quite confused...
 
If you want a synthetic advice, it would be:
B&W - Summaron
Colour - C Biogon

Summaron 2.8

4223262430_ae82f2eabf_b.jpg


Biogon 35/2.0

1217248456_2e876afc88_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
You can't go wrong with either really ... it comes down to if you want an older style lens or amodern lens.
 
Summaron needs 5.6 to be sharp and it gets very sharp. My son uses mine on his M3.
I traded it for his 3.5 screw mt Summaron for my 111f. I like the rendering of the 3.5 better myself.

I would go with Tom`s evaluation of the Biogon.

I like the 8 element Summicron and don`t care if close range is not so good. I do not do close shots with wide lenses. F2 is just there. 2.8 make a really nice photo. Not sure if it ever really gets as sharp as the 2.8 Summaron though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom