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
The only 35 I've had that I kept is the biogon-C.
All the others, even while I had them, made me think I'm still looking.
I've not had the f2 biogon so can't comment on that but i've had the Leica asph, v4 and summilux pre and although all are great lenses it's the biogon-C that won me over.
 
Last year I was running two M6's one with the Leica Summicron 35 ASPH and one with the Zeiss Biogon-C 35 f2.8, I chose these simply because they are about the same size. From my experience the Zeiss was a little sharper and had more contrast. The Leica definitely had that more classic mid-tone look.

In the end I ended up selling the 'Cron and keeping the Biogon. High contrast is the look I enjoy personally. Some people told me I was crazy but I still feel I made the right choice for the way I shoot.
 
Huss said:
Still don't know why Cosina builds the Zeiss ZM lenses so cheaply, while they build the Zeiss SLR lenses like the ZFs so well. But for the same money to the consumer.
The difference in build between my ZM and ZF lenses is striking. Maybe because Cosina thinks the ZM market is more for amateurs so they wouldn't know the difference, while pros who use ZFs (and ZEs) would complain?
Optically, I do not see a difference between the two.
Click to expand...

I own a 50 planar and 35 f2 Biogon and owned the retro asph summicron. Also owned a 25 Biogon. Also for many years owned a V4 summicron and have my 2nd V1 summicron that I'm keeping along with my Zeiss lenses.

Several years ago when I bought my D800 Nikon I decided to buy a set of ZF Zeiss lenses. I had the 25 f2, 35 f2 and 100 f2 macro. Honestly I was quite disappointed in wide open performance. Everyone makes lenses that perform well at three stops down but wide open is what counts. The 25 and the 35 were soft in the outer zones and the chromatic aberrations were the worst I've ever seen at f2 and 2.8 with the 100. They were excessively heavy too. I kept than for almost a month and returned them for a refund to B&H.

In the 80's I owned 2 Rollei 3003's and A full set of Zeiss glass from 15 to 200. Other than the 25 and 50 I think all were German made Zeiss. Over the several years I owned them, and I used them very heavy, I found some had issues both optically and mechanically. My 35 1.4 wasn't very sharp until I stopped down two stops and then had the front element come lose. After getting fixed it still wasn't sharp. The 85 1.4 wasn't great at 1.4 either. In both cases my Nikkor 35 1.4 and 84 1.4 are as good or better. In the end I went back to all Nikkor glass and find it just as good as the Zeiss or better in some cases.

People equate weight with build quality. A heavy lens is not a better built lens. I've had more mechanical issues with Leica M lenses than with my Zeiss. I believe Zeiss elected to make the ZM lighter due to demand from customers and from experience they're constructed just as well. Think about all the complaining you hear about weight from Leica enthusiasts.
 
x-ray said:
I own a 50 Planar and 35 f2 Biogon and owned the retro asph Summicron. Also owned a 25 Biogon. Also for many years owned a V4 Summicron and have my 2nd V1 Summicron that I'm keeping along with my Zeiss lenses.

Several years ago when I bought my D800 Nikon I decided to buy a set of ZF Zeiss lenses. I had the 25 f2, 35 f2 and 100 f2 macro. Honestly I was quite disappointed in wide open performance. Everyone makes lenses that perform well at three stops down but wide open is what counts. The 25 and the 35 were soft in the outer zones and the chromatic aberrations were the worst I've ever seen at f2 and 2.8 with the 100. They were excessively heavy too. I kept than for almost a month and returned them for a refund to B&H.

In the 80's I owned 2 Rollei 3003's and A full set of Zeiss glass from 15 to 200. Other than the 25 and 50 I think all were German made Zeiss. Over the several years I owned them, and I used them very heavy, I found some had issues both optically and mechanically. My 35 1.4 wasn't very sharp until I stopped down two stops and then had the front element come lose. After getting fixed it still wasn't sharp. The 85 1.4 wasn't great at 1.4 either. In both cases my Nikkor 35 1.4 and 84 1.4 are as good or better. In the end I went back to all Nikkor glass and find it just as good as the Zeiss or better in some cases.

People equate weight with build quality. A heavy lens is not a better built lens. I've had more mechanical issues with Leica M lenses than with my Zeiss. I believe Zeiss elected to make the ZM lighter due to demand from customers and from experience they're constructed just as well. Think about all the complaining you hear about weight from Leica enthusiasts.
Click to expand...

You got some high standards my man haha. There are a few of the ZF lenses that really shouldn't be evaluated on sharpness and CA. These are pretty old designs, with a lot of great character in their rendering. I certainly wouldn't choose the 85/1.4 Planar for example, if pure IQ was my only intent. The Nikon is simply a better lens with AF, and the Milvus, Otus, are better still. OTOH, I would choose the 85 Planar because it has a beautiful rendering. It has more than enough resolution for a portrait and that lovely Zeiss color and contrast to boot. More of a 'different' choice, than a 'better' choice. As for the 25, and 100, well your personal experiences don't mirror my own but I don't doubt that you saw what you saw.

As for the Biogon, I am still loving mine a few months in. $650 bucks buys a lot of lens on the used market. It's perfectly balanced and styled to my chrome M4. . Is it sharp? Well it's probably not the sharpest lens ever made, but I've yet to encounter a subject that was not sufficiently resolved in the real world. And of course stopped down, perfection.
 
I have the Ver1 Summicron, a RX-1 with the 35 Sonnar, and a old 35 mm 2.8 Biogon and I would have to list them in that order, but it's so close who cares I win no matter which one I use. Lucky me.....
wbill
 
For many years the only M mount lens I owned were a 35 Summicron ASPH and a 90 Tele-Elmarit. A few years ago I acquired a 35 3.5 Summaron in LTM and shortly after a Zeiss 35 2.8 Biogon-C. The Zeiss was easy to use, offered 1/3 stops and produced a great look but the 43mm filter size was a bit annoying. The Summaron was small, surprisingly sharp for its' age and the photos it produced had a nice look to them. Late last year I started looking at 28 2.8 Elmarit's and when it came time to raise funds it was the Biogon-C and the Summaron that were shipped off without a second thought. Stll have the Tele-Elmarit too.
 
Interesting to see this again, my flip-flopping continued, I've settled with the ASPH and a V4. The Biogon size got to me IIRC.

Been shooting with this ASPH for five or six years now, hadn't thought of the Biogon in that whole time.

A whole lot of old missing faces in this thread.
 
I haven't personally shot with the Biogon F2, but I did however sell my ASPH Cron in favor of the Biogon F2.8.

I found it to be sharper, a little more contrasty, and smaller/lighter. They are both amazing lenses, it just depends on the look you want. For me the higher contrast and lighter build was something that I wanted. The classic look of the Cron though is something that would have been nice.
 
I have never owned or shot with either because I prefer the 1.4 version of both.

I own and use the 35mm f/1.4mm Zeiss Distagon.

Therefore, I voted for the Zeiss Biogon.
 
djnato10 said:
I haven't personally shot with the Biogon F2, but I did however sell my ASPH Cron in favor of the Biogon F2.8.

I found it to be sharper, a little more contrasty, and smaller/lighter. They are both amazing lenses, it just depends on the look you want. For me the higher contrast and lighter build was something that I wanted. The classic look of the Cron though is something that would have been nice.
Click to expand...

I did the very same thing. The Summicron ASPH tendency to focus shift is what soured me on that lens; killed innumerable shots beyond ƒ2.8 until 5.6. I loved its size and of course, ƒ/2. Considered the Biogon 2/35 but its focus is optimized for ƒ/2.8 and images appear softer at ƒ/2 because of focus shift. But the 35C is the 'Goldilocks' it terms of size, handling and superior optics despite the absence of special glass. Tack sharp already @ ƒ/2.8 that doesn't meaningfully improve stopping down, nearly flare-free with high-contrast and negligible focus shift.
 
Your money, your choice. Both will work for a while.

The Zeiss name does not make it German. Made and designed in Germany does.

CV stuff is not to my liking. My 12, 15, 25 are in my paperweight drawer.

Leica provides the only viable digital RF camera so support them. The extra cost will be forgotten when you are still using it in 30 years.
 
It seems that the 35mm Summicron ASPH is best suited for B&W film prints while the Biogon 35/2 is superior for color digital or film. Maybe I am wrong here.

Having the old Summilux pre-asph and the modern Zeiss 35/2 give me what I need in 35mm lenses, so I am not targeting a Summicron ASPH is not really for me. For ltm and for a change, I still have the Canon 35mm/1.4, 35/1.5, 35/1.8, and 35/2.

There also is a Nikon 35/1.8 ltm.
 
raid said:
It seems that the 35mm Summicron ASPH is best suited for B&W film prints while the Biogon 35/2 is superior for color digital or film. Maybe I am wrong here.
Click to expand...

Having owned both at the same time and shooting both color and B&W with both for a couple of years, I wouldn't at all say one is better for color vs B&W or digital. They're just different. The Biogon is very sharp from f2 on as is the Asph Summicron but the Biogon is smoother and less harsh looking. The Summicron looks artificial at times and almost reminds me of a TV with the sharpness turned too high. Transitions between tones with the Biogon look more natural to me. I don't like that over enhanced look which is why I don't like glossy TV screens and 4K. It looks super real or over enhanced to my eye. I'm the guy that loves the subtle tonality and beautiful smooth transitions of 35mm motion picture film projected from film in a theatre vs digital projection.

It really comes down to your personal taste and whether you want the excellent coatings Zeiss uses and the superior flare control of the Zeiss.

I would up selling my Summicron and have never regretted it.
 
I learned my lesson buying Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses. I quickly realized I didn't like how they rendered or especially the ergonomics. Then I sold them and really felt the weight of my foolishness. Never. Again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom