35mm Summaron 2.8 vs C-biogon 2.8

semilog said:
Its only weakness is that it vignettes a bit when wide open.
Click to expand...

The OP is looking to use the lens on an M8 (but he will soon graduate up to film I hope :D) on which the crop will remove that vignette. It does, of course, change the look of many lenses that have softer corners you may or may not see that as an advantage.
 
redisburning said:
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)
Click to expand...

You mean 90% (=0.9) modulation transfer at 40 cyc, not 90 cycles.

And even that is not correct. Both the 2.0 [Zeiss MTF at Rockwell's site] and the 2.8 [Zeiss MTF at Rockwell's site] peak at about 80% MTF at 10 cyc, not 40 cyc. 40 cyc is the bottom pair of lines in each set, not the top.

The 2.8 lens is a bit sharper on center and holds its MTF a bit further into the corners. But the differences are minor. Both are terrific lenses.
 
semilog said:
You mean 90% (=0.9) modulation transfer at 40 cyc, not 90 cycles.

And even that is not correct. Both the 2.0 [Zeiss MTF at Rockwell's site] and the 2.8 [Zeiss MTF at Rockwell's site] peak at about 80% MTF at 10 cyc, not 40 cyc. 40 cyc is the bottom pair of lines in each set, not the top.

The 2.8 lens is a bit sharper on center and holds its MTF a bit further into the corners. But the differences are minor. Both are terrific lenses.
Click to expand...

I guess the graph I was looking at was a bit cramped. I had assumed the scale was correct, I got this from Denoir over at FM:

hvbf2b.jpg
 
That's a useful comparo, thanks for posting it. My assessments were just by eyeballing the MTF charts.
 
helenhill said:
Oh Dear I'm One of those :eek:
sometimes Flare can add Atmosphere & can be Coool ... :)
though I much prefer Vignetting , in particular with the 21 Super Angulon :D
Click to expand...

Helen, I agree with you 99% of the time. It's rare that I think the flare ruined my photo. I also add vignetting often after the fact.
 
Thank you all for your inputs and lovely pictures.

Very helpful comments from: Tom (always), Semilog, Dektol Dan, and last but not least helen hill (I love your pictures).

I will definitely go for the Biogon.

Regards,
James
 
I'm a huge fan of the Zeiss look: punchy colors, crisp contrast, no distortions... the reason why I cannot get rid of of the Contax G. However, I'm head over heels for teh Summaron 2.8, especially shot on XP2 at 320. There's so much tonal gradation in the negatives this combo produces that you could mistake it for a bigger format. Simply superb. Sharp enough without the razor's hedge.

I posted some images from this combo here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118984&highlight=summaron
 
Inthink both lenses are great, but wasnt there an article discussing about how sharp the sumaron is wide open? Im not sure if I rember correctly but I think one does exist somewhere. But disregarding the fact I believe the summaron has a certain character and so does the biogon. It would be best to try both out and see which one you like better for your style of shooting.
 
For B&W film, Summaron tones I like more, as if more gradations from black to white. C-Biogon's contrast is striking, similar to Summicron 35 Asph. Both have almost no distortion, bokeh by the Biogon is buttery smooth. Center sharpness of Summaron and the C-Biogon is almost the same, f2.8 and f5.6 tested; a tiny tad to Summaron's favor. The C-Biogon is superior in the edges/corners. For color and digital the C-Biogon is an outstanding lens.

Not to undermine; Summaron's center sharpness was better than any 35mm lens I have tested including the Summicron Asph and Summicron v1.
 
2672868319_64125229bd_z.jpg


Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8 on a M2. Kodak Double X in Pyrocat HD developer.
Vancouver International Airport is pretty much like any busy airport - but they do have a copy of Bill Reid's "Haida Gwai" on the departure level. The original is at the Canadian Embassy in Washington. DC. This is pretty close for the details (it is big) and the light is usually around 1/125 and f4/5.6. It doesn't get much better than this with a 35f2.8!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom