James6714
Newbie
Hi Tom,
What is your perspective on these 2 lenses ?
I am undecided on which one, currently the Summaron costs a bit more than the Biogon, my heart is leaning towards the Leica. Can you help me out ? BTY, I will mainly use it on M8.
Thanks,
What is your perspective on these 2 lenses ?
I am undecided on which one, currently the Summaron costs a bit more than the Biogon, my heart is leaning towards the Leica. Can you help me out ? BTY, I will mainly use it on M8.
Thanks,
magicianhisoka
Well-known
I'd go with the zeiss unless you want the Leica brand or "character" filled look. Don't see why I'd pay more for a 50 year old lens when I can get a brand new one with better technical performance for less.
horosu
Well-known
The C-Biogon is just perfect, flawless.
The Summaron is a much weaker Leica lens.
The rest is up to you.
Kind regards, Horea
The Summaron is a much weaker Leica lens.
The rest is up to you.
Kind regards, Horea
Johann Espiritu
Lawyer / Ninja
Two very different lenses, IMHO. The Summaron will give you a much lower contrast, vintage look; the Biogon has a much more modern rendition (and will deliver crisper colors). It all depends on what lens signature you'd like more, but if I were shooting on the M8, I may just choose the latter.
BTW, when you're shopping for a Summaron, make sure you get a copy that is haze-free. This lens tends to haze up quite a bit.
Good luck!
BTW, when you're shopping for a Summaron, make sure you get a copy that is haze-free. This lens tends to haze up quite a bit.
Good luck!
nanthor
Well-known
I have to agree with Horosu, the Biogon is perfect. I don't know how to describe it, but it just seems every picture taken with it, whether BW or color, just comes out looking great, no flaws. I think if you're looking for a vintage look, you can spend a lot less than the cost of the Summaron but if you're looking for just great images, the Biogon wins.
fbf
Well-known
C-biogon is the best zeiss lens i have ever used
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Summaron V. Zeiss
Summaron V. Zeiss
I bought my Summaron in 1966 new, I've babied it and it still functions as new. It was removed from the body it was on less than half a dozen times and always sported a UV filter(s). I bought my Zeiss a couple of years ago.
If you are doing available light out doors, and street photography the Summaron is superior to the Zeiss. It is also wonderful for portrait work. It takes years off the ladies. It is far more ergonomic than the Zeiss. It tends to flare more, but the Zeiss can make for halation flare too. The Summaron is noticeably wider than the Zeiss, and yet has little distortion.
The Summaron has that National Geographic 1960's look, has contrast that lends itself to manipulation in Photoshop. There is a point where less contrast means greater ability to draw subtle tonal gradations. Take your pick, micro contrast is more useful where, in highlights or shadows? Ergo, you can take away or emphasize only what is recorded.
The Zeiss is wonderful too. It has that Biogon look, and is by far my favorite Zeiss lens. It's a bit clumsy to use, and I find myself using it more and more, but only because I value my Summaron so much I want to save it for more special occasions, and it would be very difficult to replace it. 50 years later and at a price of some $1200+ for used Summaron I would always recommend the Zeiss over the Summaron because it is the only pragmatic decision. I firmly believe that unless your lay out thousands, glass is no better today, just different in look, and my preferences for my favorite imagery still lie with the hits of the past (which thank God I still own).
The Zeiss is PLENTY good for the price and performance. You can't go wrong with it.
Summaron V. Zeiss
I bought my Summaron in 1966 new, I've babied it and it still functions as new. It was removed from the body it was on less than half a dozen times and always sported a UV filter(s). I bought my Zeiss a couple of years ago.
If you are doing available light out doors, and street photography the Summaron is superior to the Zeiss. It is also wonderful for portrait work. It takes years off the ladies. It is far more ergonomic than the Zeiss. It tends to flare more, but the Zeiss can make for halation flare too. The Summaron is noticeably wider than the Zeiss, and yet has little distortion.
The Summaron has that National Geographic 1960's look, has contrast that lends itself to manipulation in Photoshop. There is a point where less contrast means greater ability to draw subtle tonal gradations. Take your pick, micro contrast is more useful where, in highlights or shadows? Ergo, you can take away or emphasize only what is recorded.
The Zeiss is wonderful too. It has that Biogon look, and is by far my favorite Zeiss lens. It's a bit clumsy to use, and I find myself using it more and more, but only because I value my Summaron so much I want to save it for more special occasions, and it would be very difficult to replace it. 50 years later and at a price of some $1200+ for used Summaron I would always recommend the Zeiss over the Summaron because it is the only pragmatic decision. I firmly believe that unless your lay out thousands, glass is no better today, just different in look, and my preferences for my favorite imagery still lie with the hits of the past (which thank God I still own).
The Zeiss is PLENTY good for the price and performance. You can't go wrong with it.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
The 35 C-Biogon is my favorite lens, period. I like it even a bit more than my old 35 Summilux ASPH. Its only weakness is that it vignettes a bit when wide open. On film I think this looks fantastic but on digital it could be a nuisance.
Other than the vignetting, it has essentially no technical flaws, and its rendering is gorgeous. At a given aperture it seems to have a bit more OOF than one might expect for a 2.8, perhaps because of its great contrast at 2.8 and the way it renders the transition from critical focus to OOF. I have not seen any 35 with bokeh that I like better.
Untitled by Semilog, on Flickr
Untitled by Semilog, on Flickr
Other than the vignetting, it has essentially no technical flaws, and its rendering is gorgeous. At a given aperture it seems to have a bit more OOF than one might expect for a 2.8, perhaps because of its great contrast at 2.8 and the way it renders the transition from critical focus to OOF. I have not seen any 35 with bokeh that I like better.
Untitled by Semilog, on Flickr
Untitled by Semilog, on Flickr
loneranger
Well-known
Summaron for digital, biogon for film.
Sparrow
Veteran
If one can't take a decent photo with the Summaron switching to the Biogon probably isn't going to help I fear ...
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I think that the C Biogon is the perfect 35 medium speed. Incredible sharp, nice tonality. I have the 35f2.8 Summaron too - but I admit it gets little use since I got the C Biogon 35!
This is a sculpture that was part of the Vancouver Bienale Arts display. Of course, once this was over - it was removed from the Steveston park.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
For many years the Summaron 35mm f2.8 was my "walk about" lens - usually on a M4 or M2. It is very good for a lens that is 50+ years old. It also has the advantage of being better at close focus than the Summicron 35 vI/vII. It is one of those cases that if you have nice clean sample of a 35f2.8 Summicron - you probably dont need the C Biogon 35 - but if you are buying one of these now - go for the C Biogon.
One of the italian cafe's on Vancouver's Commercial Drive - a bit of Rome on the West Coast.
TriX in PCK developer.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Please note that the Biogon has a different filterthread than the Leitz lenses, 39mm or 46mm doesn't fit, also the less common 40,5mm used by older Zeiss and FSU lenses doesn't fit. I believe the Biogon has 43 x 0.75mm filter thread and the Summaron has plain 39mm. Not important perhaps but for some a consideration..
If you go for sharpness, than your choice seems easy > only the Biogon would count, already tack sharp in the center wide open
once I went only for these summarons (on the Barnacks and on the M-Leica's)
I guess I always found their barrel design one of the most attractive ever made (like the summicron 1st type)
btw over the years Leitz gave them different coatings (from left to right - 1960 blue, 1962 yellow-brown, 1968 purple)
If you go for sharpness, than your choice seems easy > only the Biogon would count, already tack sharp in the center wide open
once I went only for these summarons (on the Barnacks and on the M-Leica's)
I guess I always found their barrel design one of the most attractive ever made (like the summicron 1st type)
btw over the years Leitz gave them different coatings (from left to right - 1960 blue, 1962 yellow-brown, 1968 purple)
Matus
Well-known
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
probably all comparisons against the 2.0 Biogon and not with the 2.8 C Biogon which is claimed to be sharper
but indeed a Summarit is a nice lens which is (second hand price wise) comparable to the Biogon and Summaron
redisburning
Well-known
it's a minor difference but if you have a perfect sample of each the f2 biogon is a bit sharper; both in that it hits a higher maximum cycles (nearly 90cycles MTF40 at f4) and that it's MTFs stay above the c-biogon's for most of the field.
I don't think you should base your purchase decision on that, but I would consider all of the potential factors involved in any claim that the c-biogon is sharper.
I don't think you should base your purchase decision on that, but I would consider all of the potential factors involved in any claim that the c-biogon is sharper.
