35's: Biogon f/2 vs. Asph Cron

35's: Biogon f/2 vs. Asph Cron

  • Zeiss 35/2.0 Biogon

    Votes: 508 50.6%

  • Leica 35/2.0 Summicron ASPH

    Votes: 495 49.4%
  • Total voters
    1,003
kipkeston said:
It just means that the the CN film is very low grain and that the biogon produces an unquestionable plastic like coat to the image.
Click to expand...

It makes images that look plastic because they look plastic-coated?

Well. I think the Biogon smells fresh as a spring morning, then, while the Summicron-ASPH has the unmistakeable scent of lime Jell-O. And the Biogon-C smells like a fir forest on a warm afternoon. And the Summilux-ASPH smells like cordite.

So there.
 
Last edited:
There is a visual language and a verbal language that makes it difficult to "draw a verbal picture" or verbally describe an image. So words may be adapted away from their most common meaning in an attempt to bridge the gap.

From my computer's dictionary; see meanings in category 2:
plastic |?plastik|
...
adjective
1 made of plastic : plastic bags.
• looking or tasting artificial : long-distance flights with their plastic food | she smiled a little plastic smile.
2 (of substances or materials) easily shaped or molded : rendering the material more plastic.
• (in art) of or relating to molding or modeling in three dimensions, or producing three-dimensional effects.
• (in science and technology) of or relating to the permanent deformation of a solid without fracture by the temporary application of force.
• offering scope for creativity : the writer is drawn to words as a plastic medium.
• Biology exhibiting adaptability to change or variety in the environment.
 
rover said:
What impresses me most is that over such an extended period this poll is almost even. So neither? What would be your choice?
Click to expand...

Neither? that's my current choice. I am using, and absolutely loving, the 35/2.8 Biogon-C. If you can live without f/2, I think it's a better lens than either the Summicron-ASPH or the Biogon-C. The only other advantage of the f/2 Biogon is that it has almost exactly zero distortion, while the Biogon-C has negligible barrel distortion (-0.6%). But the Biogon-C's resolution and contrast are equivalent to the other two lenses and -- just my opinion -- its bokeh is better than either one of them.

The only 35 that I like as much as the Biogon-C (though it's a different beast entirely) is the Summilux ASPH.
 
Last edited:
lic4 said:
I had been shooting with a Biogon for a year and got rid of it because I found the images at f2 unusable. I don't know what the reason is, but they looked slightly washed out. Did I have a bad sample? At f2.8, the problem would disappear. From what I understand, the ASPH doesn't suffer from this problem, and b/c of its size, I think it's a better lens. But maybe the point is that I don't own the ASPH because of how much it costs!
Click to expand...

A litely used cron would cost a few hundred schillings more over the Biogon and worth it. It is a workhorse.
 
rover said:
What impresses me most is that over such an extended period this poll is almost even. So neither? What would be your choice?
Click to expand...

semilog said:
Neither? that's my current choice....The only 35 that I like as much as the Biogon-C (though it's a different beast entirely) is the Summilux ASPH.
Click to expand...

Put me down for neither, too. I have a summicron asph and I do prefer it over the rendering of the biogon, as I found the ZM 35/2 to lend a gloss to textures that annoyed me. But I prefer the rendering of the w-nikkor 35/1,8 2005 re-issue over any 35 I have used, even the lux asph 35! I think there are others who might share my preference for this reliable, versatile and exquisite little lens.
 
thomasw_ said:
But I prefer the rendering of the w-nikkor 35/1,8 2005 re-issue over any 35 I have used, even the lux asph 35! I think there are others who might share my preference for this reliable, versatile and exquisite little lens.
Click to expand...

+1 here. I have only used it shortly one time when jonmanjiro was so kind to let me play with his Nikon SP2005 and this lens but the results where stunning, especially at f/1.8 and compared to my 35mm Summilux-M pre-ASPH that I really like.🙂
 
kinok1 said:
I just bought an asph 35 cron in silver. As im sure there is little difference in the photographs taken by these two lenses, there is something to be said for the build quality of leica lenses. I own some of the zf zeiss lenses. Great pieces of glass for sure, but they feel a little light. at least compared to the leica glass i have.
Click to expand...

Although I respect "build quality" as an enjoyable aspect in itself, even if there is no relation to reliability or image quality -- I prefer a Rolex to a Seiko too -- I have to wonder if "build quality" means nothing more than "heavier" these days. Today's aluminum alloys are worlds better than yesteryear's brass in terms of technical characteristics, but Zeiss still gets a bad rap for "build quality" while people fawn over the brass Summicrons from the 1960s.

In the audiophile world, which is a lot like the premium camera world in some ways, some manufacturers figured out that people were judging the value of their amplifiers by their weight. Some manufacturers actually started putting lead weights into their amplifiers. Others used huge, wildly over-speced transformers (a cheap way to add a lot of weight), and others started adding a bunch of power transistors that weren't actually connected to anything (not heavy but looks cool, like a V12 engine).
 
Last edited:
I am sure Leica glass is absolutely excellent but it's just a bit out of my financial reach. I shoot with several lenses and most all of my lenses are Zeiss. I love the way they preform. No complaints. Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom