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
I use the Summicron 35/2ASPH. practically every day. But I've been tempted to get the Biogon for when I shoot film and digital. I like 35. Wonder what the Biogon would be like on the M8. It might be a great combination--Summicron on the M7 and the Biogon on the M8.
 
How Big Is Biogon Big?

How Big Is Biogon Big?

If you can't snap it shut in a traditional eveready case it's too damn big.
You can compare a Biogon to anything you want in size, and it may be close, but it ain't close enough. And, it's big enough to attract attention if you like being discreet.

At 60 years old and jumping rocks to cross creeks, mountain biking, climbing down embankments, or passing through crowds a back pack or shoulder bag is just to damn big.

I LOVE the traditional lower contrast image of the Biogons. Folks on this site keep saying how high contrast the Biogon is, well it ain't. In black and white it makes most B&W look like very-chrome pan or pany-tomic X.

Today's high contrast images look like charcoal or conte crayon drawings. They're great for production imgages and even posting to the net but they make ladies look like hags, kids like little old men, and landscapes devoid of any information in the shadows. All the rocks in the world are jagged. Mountains are torn paper. They great for 'in your face' shots but so what?

If you are shopping for a new lens Biogons are the only game in town, but they are far from perfect.
 
it fits under both leica and hexar rf neverready cases...are you talking about the old, old brown leather leica cases?
 
But I've been tempted to get the Biogon for when I shoot film and digital.
Click to expand...

Alex, Sorry for the smug observation, but what medium do you use with the Summicron?!! I couldn't resist & no offence intended by this pun!

Peter
 
Another poll

1 I have used and compared both lenses

2 I own (or have tried) one of them and want to persuade myself I have made the right choice

3 I have used neither and am relying on worthless speculation and second-hand reports

I'm (sort of) in category 2 in that I've tried (but not owned) the Zeiss lens for an extended period (and liked it) but never tried a Summicron ASPH.

Ergonomics and 'signature' are all-important. Either lens can take better pictures than 99.99% of photographers who can afford them, and 99.9999999999999% of fantasists who can't, so why worry?

Also, how many people who have used either/both have had anyone pay good money for their pictures? And among those who have had pics published, how many give a toss about which is 'sharper' or 'contrastier' or has 'better bokeh'?

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but when does one take better pictures than the lens? I don't quite understand that part.
Click to expand...

Straight answer: When one is a photographer. (Not that I'm there, yet, mind you. :) )

The "superiority" of Leica lenses is measurable, in many cases. But so what? We're talking about a camera system that's intended for discreet, handheld photography. Leica's hitting notes only a dog can hear with their lenses, in too many cases; the benefits certainly don't measure up to the cost, IMO. I figured this out the hard way, BTW. I had a 35 Aspherical Summilux and a VC 40 SC Nokton at the same time and I couldn't usually tell the pics apart. If the Leica cost double the VC, then so be it; but it costs, what, $2,500 on the used market now.

I just paid $350 for another SC Nokton. :)
 
We'll see how these two perform side by side - I've got both right now and am shooting the same thing and you guys can figure out if you can see a difference - I'm not going into the whole MTF chart crap or shooting brick walls but we'll see if there's any real huge difference between the two that would justify a 2.5x price difference.

Cheers
Dave
 
cmogi10 said:
well
it looks like I'm ending up with the asph 35/1.4

Expect to see a biogon in the classifieds soon.
Click to expand...


Wow, you go through lenses faster than NY minute!.
What made you switch so soon? Just a little while back you were so happy with the Biogon, right?
 
I like my "ugly duckling" 'Lux35mm/1.4. It is prone to flare, soft wide-open but it is small, well build and has one stop advantage over f/2.0.:) Otherwise, the Summaron 35/2.8 is a nice lens, too.
 
Krosya said:
Wow, you go through lenses faster than NY minute!.
What made you switch so soon? Just a little while back you were so happy with the Biogon, right?
Click to expand...

The Biogon is a beautiful lens.
Not a damn thing wrong with it.
the 35/1.4 is better for me. I was super happy with the 35/75 combo when I realized I used 35 90 percent of the time and 75 a very small amount. So I'm trading the 75mm lux for the 35 asph lux and then selling the biogon.
Probably buying a current 50 cron and a CV 75/2.5.

*whew*

yeah.
I'l never say i'm done again
ever
I promise.
 
Wow, I wish I had the money to go through lenses like this.
I love my biogon and I am not trading it even for a lux and crone combined.
Well, maybe yes. Then I could sell a lux and a crone and get 6 biogons.
Well, I actually think that biogon produces better images than either a cron or a lux.
"Better" here is the matter of taste. However, one stop difference for me is not worth $2700. And I got my biogon used (like new) with a hood for $650. I may miss a shot or 2 because of 1 stop difference, but the ones I get will be more appealing to me
because of the biogon look. And for the difference in price I can get another Ikon body and a few more ZM lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom