35mm cron v2 and ZM 35mm f2

[j_sebastian]

Pictures taken in the same condition:
- APX100 in ID-11 1+1
- Scanner minolta Scan Dual III / VueScan / at 1410 dpi
- Scanned with the same settings no PS no sharpen mask
- Leica M6 TTL


1- f11 1/125

biogon


summicron



2- f2 1/125

summicron


biogon


3- Bokeh at f2

summicron


biogon


I can´t decide wich I should keep... I like the look of biogon but prefer the compact size of cron....:bang:

 

[j_sebastian]

I Forgot to mention that this are 100% crop samples

 

[johnastovall]

If you want good bokeh, get the version IV.

 

[kmerenkov]

To be honest, they look 99% alike to me.

P.S. I am a nokton 35 owner and I h*te it (same as nokton 50, they just look terrible). So no, I am judging not from experience of using these 35 lenses but from your cropped pics.

 

[totifoto]

Nice test. I can see the difference and for me the Summicron is the winner. A little sharper, more details and a bit less contrasty, also more beautiful bokeh.

 

[Turtle]

f11 is not the best aperture for sharpness tests due to diffraction issues. f5.6 is perhaps more useful, but still interesting to see how the differences are not that huge.

Personally, I think the Biogon bokeh looks much nicer as shown on these two images. more diffuse and less 'wired.'

 

[Sam N]

If you ever shoot color you should definitely keep the Biogon. If not, I'd still keep the Biogon but the differences are pretty minor.

 

[j_sebastian]

Thanks all for the replys and opinions... My final test will be in my new darkroom but I have to wait 15 days... If diference is so little I will keep the cron I think... While I will keep both and continue taking some pictures...

 

[mr roberts]

hard to tell...where did the pics go?

 

[Matus]

Well, interesting, but I would not expect to judge too much on sharpness with a 1440 dpi scan. Make it 4000 on a better scanner and then differences may show up.

 

[MCTuomey]

agree with matus but more generally i would respectfully submit that a few scans of a few negatives is not nearly sufficient a basis for a reasonable assessment. as you say, best to keep both for awhile and keep shooting them. something more definitive might appear as a result.

fwiw, when i compared the cron IV and the biogon (M8 files), i felt the cron was a bit sharper on center and a bit less sharp into the corners than the biogon when wide open. the biogon seemed a bit better at f8 on center and in the corners, but the difference is not meaningful. biogon more contrasty, cooler colors. cron less contrasty, warmer colors. (zeiss' colors always seem rich to my eyes - i'm biased.)

i don't think sharpness alone captures the difference b/w these lenses. more important to me is overall contrast, color, and spatial separation.

i think i can see a bit of the spatial separation difference in the vine-and-leaves photo where the biogon pic seems to have a little more "pop" but i could be mistaken.

 

[Mike Ip]

They look very similar. I personally sold my asph 'cron in favor of the biogon. No regrets.