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
Never liked the asph cron with digital (R-d1 or M8) but it realy shines with film!
Just a pity i do not like 35mm lenses very much and prefer 50mm 😉
 
f6andBthere said:
Just looking ... 332 to 322 is hardly running away with it considering the price advantage of the Zeiss!

I remember checking this poll a while ago and the difference was much greater ... the Leica fans have been late to the party. 😀
Click to expand...

Don't get offended... Leica's are still good. 😉 Also, did you notice that some time went by since you posted a response to my quote... weeks went by... perhaps the poll changed? 🙄 😀
 
I have three Zeiss lenses and cannot fault the quality of build and certainly not the imaging. The best thing that has happened to me in my equipment habits is to branch out from Leica to the other M mount makers. I am sure the 35 and 50 Leica asphericals are every bit as good as the most that is claimed for them, but my 21, 25 and 50 Zeiss lenses are merely different to the Leica equivalents not inferior. I would get the C Biogon 35, favouring very much small size as very important in a street shooting lens. My pre-ASPH Leica 35 is smaller than the ZM equivalent, and on an M6 I can have the whole package buried in one hand. I no longer have the idea of only being able to afford non-Leica lens X.
 
I got all my Leica lenses during the dark days of '05 or before, when prices were substantially more reasonable (they (Leica) must coat their lenses in gold now), but if I were doing it today I would go all ZM. I do prefer the Leica for B&W, but the ZM is real nice too.
 
I just took delivery of a 35mm 2.8 c Biogon. After reading some posts about it, especially some of Semilog's, saying how great it is, I couldn't resist. Can't wait to take it out and try it. I'll let you know how it gos...now if I could only get my hands on one of those focusing tabs.

Joe
 
7469223726_d73e3dd693_c.jpg
6728222405_ced1ce9e77_b.jpg

Biogon, M6, Ektar
 
I consider buying a lens as an investment, that I will keep for a very long time. When I was serving in the military, I bought a Nikkormat body and several Nikkor lenses at various ports when I was serving in Viet Nam. All still work today, 40 plus years later.

My thought to help and consider, if you buy a lens that you will keep for a long time, how much extra is the expensive lens costing you each day? For me it's a penny or less!

Now that I have a few Leica cameras I will only buy Leica lenses. I consider it an investment, something I will keep for a very long time.

My recommendation, buy what works best for you.

Kind of like my wonderful wife as we married for forever and we celebrated our 35th anniversary this year!

No short term or disposable/recyclable stuff for us!
 
i thought i liked the 35mm summicron asph but would rather just have the zeiss as the leica seems pretty close to sharpness as the zeiss but then again it has a better lens fingerprint but then again i prefer the 40mm-c summi as it has nicer contrast.
these lenses sit in my closet and as i have been using rolleiflex's for the past month
yes i am trying to break the leica GAS
http://www.tumblr.com/blog/richarddanielson
 
Hi,

I had all Leica glass, 50 summilux, 35 Cron, 90 Elmarit-m.

Yes this was fantastic glass, but I sold all 3 and bought Zeiss Zm lenses.

I am now using ZM 35mm f2.8 and ZM 50mm f1.5

The 35 is very nice. Small and light.

The 50 is an interesting lens, due to focus shift at wider aperatures. However, it is easy to use once you figure it out and the image quality from both lenses is superb. Personally, I prefer the "Bokeh" of the Zeiss lenses.

The big difference I see is the construction of the lenses. The Leica lenses are more durable than the Zeiss. This only matters if you are really hard on your lenses. I figure my new zeiss lenses should last me a lifetime.

Regards,

Akitadog
 
akitadog said:
The big difference I see is the construction of the lenses. The Leica lenses are more durable than the Zeiss. This only matters if you are really hard on your lenses. I figure my new zeiss lenses should last me a lifetime.
Click to expand...

My experience (and I am not hard on gear):
1. C-Sonnar: after 3 years rebuilt and relubed (zeiss said "worn gearing")
2. 35 f/2 Biogon: relubed and adjusted for focus ring play (not wobble)
3. 50 f/2 planar: relubed and adjusted for focus ring play (not wobble)
4. 18 f/4 distagon: adjusted for front ring play

All of my ZM lenses perform very well. My mainstay 50's and 35 have needed repairs after a short period of use (the C-Sonnar is my most used lens), and are better afterwards even compared to new. None were repaired under warranty, unhappily.
 
I'm on my fourth ZM lens. I have had no mechanical problems with any of them. On the other hand, I had a self-disassembing Gen IV Summicron 50. The most durable and reliable lenses I've had are AIS Nikkors. I wouldn't dare to put my Leica lenses through the wringer as I've done with the Nikons.
 
semilog said:
I'm on my fourth ZM lens. I have had no mechanical problems with any of them. On the other hand, I had a self-disassembing Gen IV Summicron 50. The most durable and reliable lenses I've had are AIS Nikkors. I wouldn't dare to put my Leica lenses through the wringer as I've done with the Nikons.
Click to expand...

funny enough the only lens Ive had come completely apart on me was a rather scarce AIS Nikkor.

my Minolta 58/1.2 (the early type with the metal scalloped focus ring) had an internal screw back out that required a full CLA to get fixed.

and frankly, sometimes you win the grind lottery and get a lens that is substantially better than average, or straight up lose it and get awful centering and poor performance.

the ZM lenses do appear to have greater longevity issues than some other brands, but I think Zeiss will probably always be willing to fix them up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom