35 mm cron' v.4 compare to 35 mm summilux asph?

My feeling is that the 35f2V4 is a better black/white lens. The 35 ASph is way too contrasty. To the point that you have to keep track of films shot with it and process for a lower contrast (D 23 or D76 1:2). ...

There is all this "mumbo jumbo" about the various 35 Summicron's. I find that they all do credible job. If you get a V2 or V3 ot V4, you will probably do fine with either one of them. .

Would you care to comment on how the C Biogon 35/2.8 compares to the various 35 Summicrons --- aside from max aperture and price? "Very sharp, but not too contrasty" you said in another thread. Similar to V4 Summicron?
 
I haven't really shoot a side by side with Summicrons and the C Biogon yet. Somehow it seems like the Biogon comes along all the time at the moment!
The sharpness of either one is probably pretty close (Summicron stopped down to f2.8 and the Biogon @2.8). The Biogon has less flare though and the contrast is smoother, at least compared to the 35f2 Asph.
I would rank it between a 35f2 asph and a 35f2 v4 in terms of absolutes (sharpness, contrast, tonality). Wide open it is very straight across the field - more so than the 35f2 v4.
I have put about 115 shots on our Flickr site (tag "Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8"). I did an informal comparison between a Summaron 35f2.8 and the Biogon 35f2.8. There is an improvement in the Biogon versus Summaron, but it is not huge by any means. The Biogon and the Summaron work very well in close (better than the Summicrons) and, apart from better flare control, I think both are really good. Mind you, you pay almost as much for a used Summaron today as you pay for a new Biogon 35.
Ok, sunnny weather is here and it might be fun loading up a handful of M2's with Biogon's and Summicrons for an informal test. There are 60 rolls of XX in cassettes in the darkroom that needs to be shot!
 
Back
Top Bottom