yaacovk
Member
It is unnecessary to compare these two lenses!
Zeiss has a different perception of image appearance.
Zeiss has a high contrast perception and her unique in their coating,
and the leica has there different perception og another contrast and coating.
so you have to choos what kind of picture is your preference.
Yaacov.
Zeiss has a different perception of image appearance.
Zeiss has a high contrast perception and her unique in their coating,
and the leica has there different perception og another contrast and coating.
so you have to choos what kind of picture is your preference.
Yaacov.
faris
Well-known
I voted for the cron. That’s what I have used for a long time on both film and
digital.
I am certain there must be better 35mm. I have not felt the need to consider them.
digital.
I am certain there must be better 35mm. I have not felt the need to consider them.
Beemermark
Veteran
Scanning the replies I don't see the obvious answer. The 35/2 is a very small lens and fits perfectly with the M body ergonomics. The Zeiss lens is very, very good, much cheaper and GIGANTIC.
james.liam
Well-known
The Zeiss is focus shifted @ ƒ/2 and 'appears' soft unless using an EVF. It's also considerably larger and heavier. If you can live without the extra stop, the Biogon 35 C is compact and extraordinary.
The 35 Summicron is of an archaic design notwithstanding a recent 'tweak' for digital censors, and dates back to its introduction in 1996. It would seem from images I've looked at that the new CV 2/35 would be the best present option.
The 35 Summicron is of an archaic design notwithstanding a recent 'tweak' for digital censors, and dates back to its introduction in 1996. It would seem from images I've looked at that the new CV 2/35 would be the best present option.