35mm summicron or ZM biogon?

macmx

macmx

Established
Local time
12:35 AM
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
116
I think I recently saw a thread with the exact same subject, but I will ask again.
Which should I buy? I like the Leica best because of its size, but perhaps the money is better spent with the Zeiss?

Does anyone have any picture where the two are comparable?

Can anyone direct me to the other thread on this subject?

Any help is much appreciated.

Mc
 
I think you'll get a better idea, if you go through the pool photos for the respective lenses here:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/m-mount/
As far as sharpness goes, the Summicron should be slightly sharper wide open, from f 2.8 on, the Biogon takes over, especially if you consider the full frame, but this is only a part of the story, as the Biogon is more flare resistant and makes more "3D" images. I think both lenses are very good, although optically the Biogon is better and in terms of size the Summicron is smaller. Then there's the price: the Biogon costs less than a half, and this is a problem, because people think Leica is better as it is more expensive... In case you couldn't decide, I'd have a golden solution for you : get the 35/1.2 Nokton for less than the Biogon, and go off making splendid photographs... ;-)
 
I own the Zeiss and love it.

It has less contrast than the 35 'cron ASPH wide-open, but like Maxmx said, performance is better at the smaller apertures. If you like to shoot wide-open the Zeiss is comparable to the 4th version 35 'cron, which isn't all bad.
 
To me the question was not just Zeiss but which Summicron. I settled on the IV series because of it's Bo-ke compared to the current and older ones.
 
Well if you can wait a couple days, I've got a 35 ASPH 'cron on my way. I can take some test pictures of it compared to my 35 Biogon. I too have read similar threads. I figured, I'll test it out for myself, and sell the one I feel is inferior. Nothing like first hand experience...
 
I've got the 35 mm Biogon and the 35 mm CV Nokton. In terms of sharpness, the CV Nokton is much sharper (how sharp...its razor sharp) at 1.2 than the Biogon is at 2.0 or 2.8 or 4.0 for that matter. My copy of the Biogon isn't very sharp in the centre at all and this observation is shared quite politely by the Reid Reviews who is not as blunt. But the Biogon is ok if you are not pixel peeping. The size is much smaller than the Nokton, and its miles cheaper than the Leica.

If just talking value for money and ignoring the weight and size I'd say Nokton, Biogon and Leica in that order.

If size and weight are a concern and money not a concern, then Leica, Biogon and Nokton.

If money and size matters then Biogon, Leica and Nokton

Cheers
Rob
 
baycrest said:
I've got the 35 mm Biogon and the 35 mm CV Nokton. In terms of sharpness, the CV Nokton is much sharper (how sharp...its razor sharp) at 1.2 than the Biogon is at 2.0 or 2.8 or 4.0 for that matter. My copy of the Biogon isn't very sharp in the centre at all and this observation is shared quite politely by the Reid Reviews who is not as blunt. But the Biogon is ok if you are not pixel peeping. The size is much smaller than the Nokton, and its miles cheaper than the Leica.

If just talking value for money and ignoring the weight and size I'd say Nokton, Biogon and Leica in that order.

If size and weight are a concern and money not a concern, then Leica, Biogon and Nokton.

If money and size matters then Biogon, Leica and Nokton

Cheers
Rob
Click to expand...

It's interesting you mention CV. I forgot about them. While never ever having used a CV lens, reviews like yours really make me want to. I've read other positive reviews on the Nokton, but size and weight are a huge factor. It's primarily my reason to sell my noctilux - too big!

CV also makes a 35 1.7, which I'm VERY curious how it performs. Looking on Cameraquest, the description states... "User reports generally rate this lens the equal of the pre-Aspheric 35/2 Summicron, though not quite up to the performance of Leica's much more expensive Aspherical Summicron."

So that might be the best bang for the buck. Although I've seen pre-asph 35 summicrons sell for ~800?
 
Mike Ip said:
Although I've seen pre-asph 35 summicrons sell for ~800?
Click to expand...

I have seen a few go for $1200 to $1250, though there is a chrome one selling for considerably more at the moment.
 
Depends on which pre-asph version you are looking for. The popular IV version, in good shape, can easily sell in the $1,200 range. I think you would be hard pressed to get one for less than $1,000, unless it was a real user.

Another lens you could think about is the 35 UC hexanon. It's a LTM lens with similar characteristics to the IV cron. You can still buy them new in the box for (I think) around $900. I bought one a month ago. The build quality is just amazing and it is quite compact if you like that sort of thing. I recently sold my cron IV in favor of the hexanon.
But I also have a 35 Nokton for extreme lowlight shooting.
 
If I were shopping for an M-mount lens today, my decision would be predicated on price. In most cases the Leica lens will be marginally better on the specs, but I doubt you would be able to differentiate between them in real world usage.

Believe me, I would love it if someone would prove me wrong.
 
As a guy who has owned both the Leica F2 / ASPH and now the Zeiss Biogon 35mm F2 I would say that I get better results from the Zeiss and it works well on any M series body M6 , M5, and M3 with viewfinder. I think the Zeiss has a better perfromance than the Summicron in the F8 and F11 area in particluar. I posted a photo just today in the member gallery.....Spyker Pedals and that was shot at F2.8 and at the minimum focus distance, very sharp. Also I like the overall contrast treatment of the Zeiss. Before I purchsed the Zeiss I shot some direct exposure, focal distance, F Stop. Comparisons between the 2 lenses and that is why I own the Zeiss now. Good Luck
 
To me it seems, from the other thread also, that people who have owned/used both prefer the Zeiss. I will go have a look at it tomorrow. I love zeiss on my hasselblad gear and would like to add one of their lenses to my RF.
 
Mike Ip said:
It's interesting you mention CV. I forgot about them. While never ever having used a CV lens, reviews like yours really make me want to. I've read other positive reviews on the Nokton, but size and weight are a huge factor. It's primarily my reason to sell my noctilux - too big!

CV also makes a 35 1.7, which I'm VERY curious how it performs. Looking on Cameraquest, the description states... "User reports generally rate this lens the equal of the pre-Aspheric 35/2 Summicron, though not quite up to the performance of Leica's much more expensive Aspherical Summicron."

So that might be the best bang for the buck. Although I've seen pre-asph 35 summicrons sell for ~800?
Click to expand...

My own experience with CV is there is considerable sample variation. This doesn't mean to avoid CV, the sample variation is not as bad as Sigma lens when I used to use the SLR system.

From experience I had the CV 35 1.7. It was sharp but back focused all the time. So I exchanged it for the Zeiss plus paid some cash at the store.

The CV 35 f/1.2 is fantastic if you can get over the size weight (similar to an SLR lens). I should also mention, it does block part of the veiwfinder due to its size. These factors will turn a lot of people off who are looking for something lighter and smaller and don't mind giving up a bit of speed. Oh, can't remember if I mentioned, its really easy to focus.

Cheers
Rob
 
I can't speak at all about the Summicron as I only own the Biogon and love it, it's super sharp when you close down a stop or 2 and has beautiful bokeh when opened up. The build quality is 1st rate, it feels solid and well machined, the focus has a nice geared resistance and the aperture stop ring feels like precision engineering, there's a focusing nipple to which some people love or hate, but it's easy to get used to, it's certainly not offensive, 1 snag is, it does encroach into the viewfinder though if that bothers you
 
Mc,

Just for giggles, look into how each looks, no processing on the camera. My gut tells me the ZI might have less fall off because of the design. Now the M8 might adjust for this with a properly coded 'Cron, but I'm not sure.

Not sure if this is important to you. I'm an old slide lover so any post processing work is not anything I am really in favor of.

Check the CV 35/1.2 out too, it might have low fall off too.

B2 (;->
 
macmx said:
To me it seems, from the other thread also, that people who have owned/used both prefer the Zeiss. I will go have a look at it tomorrow. I love zeiss on my hasselblad gear and would like to add one of their lenses to my RF.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that too. The people who've owned both usually prefer the biogon. Whereas I've seen quite a few who've bought the asph because it's leica. Interesting.
 
baycrest said:
I've got the 35 mm Biogon and the 35 mm CV Nokton. In terms of sharpness, the CV Nokton is much sharper (how sharp...its razor sharp) at 1.2 than the Biogon is at 2.0 or 2.8 or 4.0 for that matter. My copy of the Biogon isn't very sharp in the centre at all and this observation is shared quite politely by the Reid Reviews who is not as blunt. But the Biogon is ok if you are not pixel peeping. The size is much smaller than the Nokton, and its miles cheaper than the Leica.

If just talking value for money and ignoring the weight and size I'd say Nokton, Biogon and Leica in that order.

If size and weight are a concern and money not a concern, then Leica, Biogon and Nokton.

If money and size matters then Biogon, Leica and Nokton

Cheers
Rob
Click to expand...

That's weird, I've owned a nokton and a biogon and have found the biogon to be sharper. From what I've seen the summicron is sharper then the Biogon.

That's just my take on it.
 
Biogon

Biogon

I had the Biogon briefly. If I were shooting color negative it would be the ideal lens. The ZM lenses have great corner to corner sharpness and a smooth transition to very soft OOF areas. I prefer it over the Leica 35 vIV so called 'King of Bokeh" which can actually give some unpleasent results bokeh-wise at certain apertures/distances. The Zeiss has a beautiful signature. I have no experience with the CV or Leica Summicron ASPH.

The problem (for me at least) is I find the Zeiss ZM lenses much to contrasty for digital or E6/transparency work. The 35 Summilux ASPH is the ideal lens for my money for the M8 or for slide work. Flat lighting or color neg or low contrast B&W films the Zeiss will give stunning results but as an all round lens for all conditions, full sun and low light the modern Summilux is really hard to beat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom