CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I don't know why i'm participating in this thread. Boredom, i suppose, as i've never shot the Biogon.
I have owned the 35Cron-ASPH (twice now) and the 35Lux-ASPH. Before buying my second Summicron-ASPH, though, i considered the Biogon. Although there are many positive reviews and posts about that lens, when reviewing images here, on flickr, and on any other site i could find, i just did not see anything about the Biogon images that gave me a sense that it has 'character.' It looks to be very smooth, and perhaps 'accurate.' I can't assess sharpness in JPGs, but i'm sure it's good in that regard. But there's nothing in the imagery that speaks to me. Maybe that's what people refer to as "clinical," in that the lens doesn't seem to impart anything onto a scene.
The Cron-ASPH, though, has a look that i very much like. It seems to have BITE. I don't know if that's the "excessive contrast" some refer to, but with classic B+W emulsions, i see a rendering and tonality that i like. In the bokeh, i see character that speaks to me. And, lastly, when i owned the first sample, i actually liked what the lens was doing for me.
The only thing i don't like is the tab focus. I'd be ever so much happier to grip a barrel rather than searching for a tab that's never where i expect it to be. The tab also forces a slight change in hand/finger position depending on the subject distance, while a barrel focus lets you shoot with a consistent hand posture. Oh, well. As with every other piece of photographic gear, nothing is perfect.
I have owned the 35Cron-ASPH (twice now) and the 35Lux-ASPH. Before buying my second Summicron-ASPH, though, i considered the Biogon. Although there are many positive reviews and posts about that lens, when reviewing images here, on flickr, and on any other site i could find, i just did not see anything about the Biogon images that gave me a sense that it has 'character.' It looks to be very smooth, and perhaps 'accurate.' I can't assess sharpness in JPGs, but i'm sure it's good in that regard. But there's nothing in the imagery that speaks to me. Maybe that's what people refer to as "clinical," in that the lens doesn't seem to impart anything onto a scene.
The Cron-ASPH, though, has a look that i very much like. It seems to have BITE. I don't know if that's the "excessive contrast" some refer to, but with classic B+W emulsions, i see a rendering and tonality that i like. In the bokeh, i see character that speaks to me. And, lastly, when i owned the first sample, i actually liked what the lens was doing for me.
The only thing i don't like is the tab focus. I'd be ever so much happier to grip a barrel rather than searching for a tab that's never where i expect it to be. The tab also forces a slight change in hand/finger position depending on the subject distance, while a barrel focus lets you shoot with a consistent hand posture. Oh, well. As with every other piece of photographic gear, nothing is perfect.
They did, Gary, and called it the 40mm Rokkor, included in Minolta CLE packages. A lovely lens. As to the main question, I've not used the 35 Summicron ASPH, but I do have the 35/2 Biogon and find it very pleasant.
The photo below was before I was a "believer" in UV/IR Cut filters for the M8, and it sure helped convince me!
Attachments
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
35mm 1/4 ASPH
Olsen
Well-known
Since this thread started Reid has posted an extensive test on most of the available 35 lenses for the M-system. The Biogon and the Cron comes out very close - possibly with a slight advantage to the Biogon. - This advantage would not be visible for photographers not using a solid tripod. Let that be clear.
Even though I am a very Carl Zeiss-man, having had a large heap of Hasselblad gear for decades, I happen to own a 35 mm 2,0 Cron myself, accidentally. Bought it 2.hand with my MP. What a lens!
It was my first Leica lens, - and I was appalled at the quality level. While I have never tried a 35 Biogon, but I have the 25 mm 2,8 version. No doubt, these two, the Leica 35 mm 2,0 Summicron and the Carl Zeiss Biogon 35 mm 2,0 are the two best 35 mm lenses in the World.
Even though I am a very Carl Zeiss-man, having had a large heap of Hasselblad gear for decades, I happen to own a 35 mm 2,0 Cron myself, accidentally. Bought it 2.hand with my MP. What a lens!
It was my first Leica lens, - and I was appalled at the quality level. While I have never tried a 35 Biogon, but I have the 25 mm 2,8 version. No doubt, these two, the Leica 35 mm 2,0 Summicron and the Carl Zeiss Biogon 35 mm 2,0 are the two best 35 mm lenses in the World.
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
Link to Reid's reviews
Link to Reid's reviews
or is it pay only?
The big difference between the cron asph and biogon and v4 cron to me is the sharp cutoff of in/out focus with close subjects, but otherwise all are great lenses. I haven't owned a Biogon 35, so am judging by photos. I owned the cron asph and v4 at the same time and did extensive a/b testing.
Link to Reid's reviews
or is it pay only?
The big difference between the cron asph and biogon and v4 cron to me is the sharp cutoff of in/out focus with close subjects, but otherwise all are great lenses. I haven't owned a Biogon 35, so am judging by photos. I owned the cron asph and v4 at the same time and did extensive a/b testing.
Yes, http://www.reidreviews.com/ is a subscription site. Since 35mm is such a major focal length for 35mm RF cameras, it's justifiable (hmmmm!) to have more than one such lens. For decades the only one I had was a V1 Summicron, but that's sorta expanded now with a 1.4/35 Nokton, 1.4/35 Summilux ASPH, and 2/35 Biogon. I've been using and enjoying them all.
Turtle
Veteran
I've just done a bunch of comparative testing with the biogon at f2 vs other apertures and under an 8x loupe I find mine to focus smack on and be very sharp. There is a very slight reduction in contrast compared to 2.8 but this is nothing major (that a touch more contrast in the darkroom wont make up for). sharpness is slightly less than smaller apertures of course but it not much to worry about unless wanting absolute razor sharpness and using slow film. Its much closer to 2.8 and 4 than I expected from side by side tests - very impressive indeed. Edge performance is superb.
Teus
Thijs Deschildre
I got my 35 ZM Biogon T*. Some words on the build quality, but I don't have a 35mm Leica to compare with. The lens isn't as pretty as my 50mm tabbed Summicron and the overall build quality feels lower. Ugly engravings. Aperture ring feels very good, and I prefer it over the aperture ring of my 50mm Summicron because you can't change the aperture so easily by accident. On the 50mm summicron I need to recheck my aperture more often.
Focus ring of the Biogon feels good, but as good as the 50 summicron: it's good, but has a little bit of "play". The 50 summicron focusing is more solid and can't be wobbled at all. I dislike the summicron Lens shade, but I might like the bayonet mount shade for the Biogon.
Focus ring of the Biogon feels good, but as good as the 50 summicron: it's good, but has a little bit of "play". The 50 summicron focusing is more solid and can't be wobbled at all. I dislike the summicron Lens shade, but I might like the bayonet mount shade for the Biogon.
larmarv916
Well-known
Well..I had a Cron and got a Biogon and noticed that the Zeiss gave a better or longer curve. I shot 2 test rolls on the tripod..F Stop to F Stop. And Graphic Arts Grey Scales attached to sticks in the test area. The ASPH Cron was to contrasty to me in the higher value areas. Pushing them up from 1/2 stop to a full stop and this showed up in the Zone areas that would be 6 and up. So the zone 6 would go to 6.5 or even almost 7. The 7 zone wanted to blow up almost a full stop in almost every case. The Cron produced it's best tonal range when in heavy shade. As would be expected. The Zeiss was best at middle distances and did not have the excessive contrast thumb-print. In bright subjects is was very good at seprations of very low and very high values. So in the end I kept the Zeiss 35 Biogon....now the tragedy.
About 2 weeks ago I was in a stream and dropped the Zeiss 35 in 3 ft of water and the force of it hitting a rock made bent the focus ring so it is stuck forever. Needless to say the water drained out but the lens is now JUNK !
So now I will be looking for another 35mm Zeiss Biogon for my Leica.
All the best....Laurance
About 2 weeks ago I was in a stream and dropped the Zeiss 35 in 3 ft of water and the force of it hitting a rock made bent the focus ring so it is stuck forever. Needless to say the water drained out but the lens is now JUNK !
So now I will be looking for another 35mm Zeiss Biogon for my Leica.
All the best....Laurance
colker
Well-known
i can't see any difference. chose a different film, developer, paper and the differences are much stronger. Not to mention printing on a magazine.
they are all good lenses.
kodachrome x ektachrome. now that's a big difference. slide x negative.
once you scan and photoshop, contrast is adjusted, sharpnes enhanced or decreased. saturation is optimized.
just saying.
nothing against obsessing w/ little things though..
they are all good lenses.
kodachrome x ektachrome. now that's a big difference. slide x negative.
once you scan and photoshop, contrast is adjusted, sharpnes enhanced or decreased. saturation is optimized.
just saying.
nothing against obsessing w/ little things though..
Laurance, sorry to hear of your tragedy! But at least you know for sure what you want...
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
I liked the Biogon right away with colour. It's taken me a little while to warm up to it with black and white but I am getting there. I just needed to get a feel for it and make a few prints.
matt335
Well-known
This may already have been asked, but what is the difference in cost? I believe Leica is more expensive. I have Cron on my mp = a magic combo. My only experience with zeiss is on my Blad. when its spot on its very spot on !
Nando
Well-known
Popflash is currently has a new 35mm Summicron ASPH for $2,297 and a new 35mm Biogon ZM for $876.
matt335
Well-known
Thanks Fernando. Money seems to make decisions for us sometimes. That's a huge difference in price. I will check stores here.
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
I'm waiting for my first results with the recently bought Biogon. The feel of this lens is very good, although I can compare them to FSU lenses Jupiter and Industar yet. Never used Leica glas so far.
Teus
Thijs Deschildre
35mm biogon.
my 50mm summicron is barely getting any use these days :angel:
my 50mm summicron is barely getting any use these days :angel:
clicker
Well-known
I have owned both the Cron ASPH and the Biogon.My vote goes for the Cron ASPH, the focusing feel is more natural in my hand.Both are good, just different both in signature and touch.
arseniii
Well-known
I do not have much of an experience with 35mm Zeiss. But in general I will pick Zeiss over Leica lens any day. G2's planar 45mm was such a beautiful lens! When I look at the photos I took with Planar, I want to cry I sold it. I had Summicron 35 ASPH it was great, I sold it because I don't use 35mm focal length... I prefer Zeiss simply because of it color tones and contrast it produces(so real). Leica goes more towards magenta and violet colors. IMHO...
P.S. Anybody want to trade tabbed 50'cron 4th version (black) on black ZM Planar PM me...
P.S. Anybody want to trade tabbed 50'cron 4th version (black) on black ZM Planar PM me...
Last edited:
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Summi 35 asph 2x merged in psp:
