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
Do not forget that the value of a Leica lens remains forever, in fact grows with time. A Zeiss lens on the day after you buy it loses its value. I would choose the Summicron asph. But let's not forget the 35 Summicron IV used that costs much less than asph. I am now using the two lenses and really do not know which one to keep. The asph produces technically perfect images, the type IV the most beautiful images.
 
I've always thought the 8 element was the most beautiful in style.

But on the Zeiss value issue once you take the initial hit from NIB to used they don't really go down much. Leica lenses have the same issue. There has been one period in time where demand was so high and access to new lenses so limited that people were paying more for used lenses than new but now things are back to sane levels and a used 35 cron ASPH offers a significant savings over a brand new one (KEH's most expensive 35 cron asph is 600 dollars cheaper than the same lens new, which is in stock from b&h).
 
albertospa said:
Do not forget that the value of a Leica lens remains forever, in fact grows with time. A Zeiss lens on the day after you buy it loses its value. I would choose the Summicron asph. But let's not forget the 35 Summicron IV used that costs much less than asph. I am now using the two lenses and really do not know which one to keep. The asph produces technically perfect images, the type IV the most beautiful images.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't think that's true. All lenses, unless they are tied to an unsuccessful system, retain their value well. Even Leica lenses sell used for a lot less than what they cost new. Thanks to people giving the 35 Summicron IV the name "King of Bokeh" the used prices are not too far from the Asph.
 
I am seeing V4 sell for about $1000 - which is about the same as the V3. Lots of V4 listed at higher prices but few sell at that price, although prices do fluctuate. If you really want a V4 just be patient and you can snag one for under $1000. Germany is a good place to find these at a reasonable price. Avoid sellers like shphoto-gmbh, etc. who just have silly prices on eBay.
 
I don't own the summicron. I do have summarons though (3.5 and 2.8) and they are (obviously🙂 different than the biogon (that I also own).

I got the biogon only partly because of lower price. I agonized over the summicron/biogon decision and looked at lots of example images. I just couldn't see a substantial difference between them (summicron seemed to have better corner sharpness and less corner CA, but that might be in my head). So, I did what made sense.....and, I saved $$ to put toward another lens (which I still need to find; either a newer summicron 50 or v1 summilux 50, but that's a topic for a whole other thread). For me, the only real selling point for the summicron over biogon is the smaller size of the lens and the focus tab style. I imagine the cron handles much like the summaron 2.8, which I like a lot. I like the biogon handling too, just not as much as the 2.8 summaron.

BTW, the summarons are quite special lenses too. Especially the 2.8. Really, all of these lenses are just wonderful. I'm happy with any of them.
 
The voting is near neck and neck ..... 🙂

I'll add that the late 35mm f2 Zuiko I got from Maitani here at RFF a year or two ago appears to be a match for either of these two lenses IMO.
 
cmogi10 said:
Battle of the titans! The Zeiss Biogon 35/2.0 verse the Leica Summicron 35/2.0 ASPH...One costs multiple times as much, but which one is really better? Or the better question is which one do you prefer and why?
Click to expand...

Looks like we are going to have send the results of this poll to the Supreme Court to determine whether all the voters were qualified to vote!
 
If the Supreme Court would take the case... Well, I'm one of those not really qualified, as I have never used the Summicron ASPH... just the v.1 Summicron, but I do also have and use the f/2 and f/2.8 Biogons. Both the latter are brilliant. 🙂
 
it doesn't look soft at all at f2 on the last two examples! nice

While I save for a current 35 C-Biogon I use my beloved Jupiter-12, sort of it's uncertain grandfather 😛
And my also loved Summaron 35/3.5.
Both very interesting, with great plasticity and small
 
I've shooting the ASPH for 10+ years its a fine lens it was the first lens I've owned that made me step back and go wow this is different, its contrast was what caught me a bit off guard and took a bit to get used to. It does have a 3D quality at times in certain light conditions..

L1023852.jpg by Marko Mihailovich, on Flickr
 
All of my Zeiss Biogons have a wonderful signature and are magnificent lenses. I would not turn loose of any of them.

However it kind of depends on whether you prefer the Leica style or the Zeiss style.

As for performance I personally cannot see any difference. If there is one it certainly is not enoughtto justify the huge additional expense beyond the name on the lens.

As usual, these are such terrific lenses that there is no right answer. If you have enough cash or credit, buy what you want. If you don't have enough cash or credit buy a Color Skopar 35/2.5. Small, handy, doesn't show up to interfere with the viewfinder, and great image quality, and only gives up 1/2 stop of aperture.
 
fer_fdi said:
it doesn't look soft at all at f2 on the last two examples! nice

While I save for a current 35 C-Biogon I use my beloved Jupiter-12, sort of it's uncertain grandfather 😛
And my also loved Summaron 35/3.5.
Both very interesting, with great plasticity and small
Click to expand...

I love my LTM Summaron, too!

I've come to believe that the C Biogon 35/2.8 blows both 2.0 lenses away. It's an amazing lens.

Zeiss C Biogon 35/2.8
 
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.
 
I love my Biogon 35/2 and also my pre-asph Summilux 35/1.4 and the Summicron V1 35/2 and the Nikon 35/1.8 LTM. What is there not to like here?
 
My 35 Summi ASPH is the only lens I own in 35mm format that isn't disposable. I can't tell you exactly why, but it's a delight all the way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom