Carl Zeiss Biogon T*35/2 or Summicron-C 40?/2

[Alex Krasotkin]

Guys, what is your impression on Carl Zeiss 35 mm lenses, in particular 35/2 vs Summicron-C 40/2. The last one I had used for some time on my beloved Leica M9, but sold. Now strongly consider to buy Carl Zeiss 35/2 or 35/2.8. Any of those lenses have Leica similar look, or they are similar to Nokton ones?

many thanks,
Alex

 

[Mark C]

Summicron 40 has a different look than than the newer Zeiss lenses. I like the more classic look of the Leitz lens; it is older. But I don't much like the 40mm focal length on full frame and never use mine. I'd get a 35 Summicron or that new 8 element Summicron replica when you can get your hands on one.

The Zeiss is an excellent lens if you want the more modern snappy look. Bigger though.

 

[james.liam]

The Zeiss is an excellent lens if you want the more modern snappy look. Bigger though.

The Zeiss 2,8/35 is about the size of the 35 Summicron ASPH. Its images are snappy and modern. But the lens itself is compact. And readily available unlike the 8-element knock-off from China. It will be many months, if ever, they get around to the 2nd batch which will NOT carry flint glass and so less like the original.

Another option for a small 35 would be the 35 Summaron ƒ/2,8. Lower contrast than the Zeiss (any Zeiss) and in the same lens barrel as the Summicron 8-element.

 

[AbtractBrewer]

For what its worth the Zeiss Biogon 35mm f2 is a pretty highly regarded lens by most sources that I can find. I am limited to internet reviews as no one I know has had personal use of it. I have ordered one and it will arrive today. When searching for 35mm options I was stuck between this and the Distagon ZF. This one won out due to size. I will reply here in a few days with impressions and possibly some images if it helps. I recently sold off my 35mm 1.4 zf.2 due to its outrageous size when not used on a DSLR.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Just sold my Biogon 35mm f2.8 as too contrasty. The same with my Sonnar C 50mm f1.5, and I'll be putting up the 28mm Biogon for sale soon. Entirely sharp, super colours, and very light, but I much prefer Leica lower contrast glass. I also sold my Summicron 40mm with my CL - bokeh a bit so so but a good Leica look.

 

[Bart Bart]

I thought the 40/2 was the next closest thing to the fabled Summicron v4 preASPH and the bokeh was great. Only flaw was the focusing tab and you could even get replacements for that. Just knick the flange with a file and call it a 35mm.

 

[raid]

Guys, what is your impression on Carl Zeiss 35 mm lenses, in particular 35/2 vs Summicron-C 40/2. The last one I had used for some time on my beloved Leica M9, but sold. Now strongly consider to buy Carl Zeiss 35/2 or 35/2.8. Any of those lenses have Leica similar look, or they are similar to Nokton ones?

many thanks,
Alex

I have both lenses. The Summicron-C is an excellent lens. I once compared images with it to images taken with a Pentax-L 43mm/1.8 I could not see any true differences. The Zeiss 35/2 is a great lens overall. Maybe it is "too good". It has a modern look to its images. Great sharpness and flare control. Built very well too.
You have a good taste for exquisite lenses, so maybe getting a Nikkor 35/1.8 ltm may be another choice?

 

[Rangefinder 35]

I had used Biogon 35/2 om M4. It'a a wonderfully sharp glass, especially when stopped down 2 f/stops.
Here's one:

[/url]Argentina_Rio Blanco_001 by , on Flickr[/IMG]

Rio Blanco, Patagonia, Argentina.
M4, 35/2.0 biogon, Velvia 50

 

[Mark C]

I thought the 40/2 was the next closest thing to the fabled Summicron v4 preASPH and the bokeh was great. Only flaw was the focusing tab and you could even get replacements for that. Just knick the flange with a file and call it a 35mm.

I think it is more like a refined version of the 6 element version 3 Summicron. It performs better at the edges than the 35, probably because it doesn't have to cover quite as much angle, or tweaked design. Like that lens, the boke is generally fine, but once in a while it's a bit rough.

The 40 is a very nice lens though. If you don't need 35mm it is hard to beat price wise for a Leica lens, though not as cheap as they were. Once in a while you can find a battered v3 35 for not much more. I use my 35 much more often, but for plenty of people 40-42 is a sweet spot.

 

[lynnb]

Hi Alex,

You might be interested in seeing Jon's comparison of
Replica Summicron 35/2
Voigtlander Ultron 35/2 ASPH
Leica Summicron 35/2 ASPH
W-Nikkor 35/1.8 LTM
in the New test photos thread, starting at post #1768, then #1770, #1777.

Raid has suggested you look at the W-Nikkor 35/1.8 LTM. I've borrowed and used one and to me it's the nicest look I've come across, keeping in mind I like lower contrast. I have the Ultron 35mm f/2 which I've found to be an very good lens at a budget price, a bit lower contrast than the Zeiss 35mm f/2, which I've also tried. The Zeiss had a more pronounced 3-D look than the Ultron.

 

[mcfingon]

I have owned a 40 Summicron, Alex and now own a Zeiss Biogon 35/2. I prefer the Zeiss as I found the 40 Summicron too small for my hands. The 35 Biogon is the right size for me to avoid having a problem hitting the aperture ring when trying to focus. I would say the image quality is higher on the Biogon at f2. Both are very high at f5.6 - f8.
John Mc

 

[k__43]

Can't compare to the Biogon 35/2 but I had the Cron 35 IV and ASPH. The 40/2 is very sharp, has a beautiful rendition. I love the 40mm width. I had four of them over the years - always re-buying it

Problems:

1) weird filter thread (but 39mm kinda works) - or that stupid rubber hood with integrated filter
2) the tilted focus coupling cam can cos problems if your RF arm is not 100% in the center (had that problem with my M2 - all lenses were fine just the 40mm was never quite in focus) solution: get the Minolta version (also gives you a proper filter thread)
3) the frame line thing, sadly. I'd be paying to get a 40mm frame line in my M 262. You can modify it to bring up the 35mm lines and work inside the lines or keep it at 50mm and just frame the essential stuff in the lines and imagine a little buffer outside. Both worked for me
4) slight coma in high contrast situations at f/2 (way more than the 35mm crons I had) - solution: stop down half a stop.
wide open at night:
FLICKR

 

[Alex Krasotkin]

Dear friends! Many thanks for your kind comments and proposed solutions! Personally I liked the look of Summicron C 40/2, when I had it before, but did not like focusing tab. It is critically slower for me during event shooting. The ring feels better for me. I guess in size CZ 35/2 will be pretty much the same as my 50/1.4 Summilux pre-asph. So most likely, will look for CZ 35/2. Though the prices are quite high given the recent depreciation of the local currency.

 

[lcpr]

If you have a Hexar AF the Nikkor 35/1.8 will be pretty similar since it’s pretty much a copy. Same thing for the Konica 35 L Hexanon and UC Hexanon. I use a Hexar AF and a UC Hex myself and they complement each other very well. I use the UC Hex on my M4 during the day and then the Hexar AF when the light starts getting low.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If you know how to use focus tab for zone focusing, the focusing by the ring on events becomes very slow 🙂
Here is Minolta Rokkor-M 40-2 CLE, which is refined, multi coated version of Cron 40.
Cost less than Zeiss 35 2.

 

[Huss]

I had used Biogon 35/2 om M4. It'a a wonderfully sharp glass, especially when stopped down 2 f/stops.
Here's one:

[/url]Argentina_Rio Blanco_001 by , on Flickr[/IMG]

Rio Blanco, Patagonia, Argentina.
M4, 35/2.0 biogon, Velvia 50

Beautiful photo

 

[santino]

Maybe consider the 40 M-Rokkor of the CLE. Multi coated and conventional filter thread... plus it should be cheaper than the Cron... the Leica hype keeps the Cron expensive.

 

[raid]

This may be helpful to get an idea of many 35-40mm lenses a few years ago, though. I took the photos while Roland did the side by side postings on his website. Modern lenses will have better coatings, and they usually also cost more money.

It makes for a good read 🙂
https://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Raids-35-40mm-Lens-Test/Lens-Photos/

I may have compared more than 20 lenses then.

 

[Alex1416]

Sorry for the late reply guys.
I don't check the forum as often as I'd like to lol.
I actually own both lenses. It is hard to compare them since they are quite different in rendering.
But i must say for the past 2 years my 40mm Cron has been my most used lens. Especially when it comes to B&W film, the lens shines with its sharpness and character, and i find the bokeh wide open to be classic and beautiful.
However, the more I've used the lens these past 2 years, the more i see some of its faults, but mostly when trying to use it on digital. For one thing, being a vintage lens, it has the classic vintage Leica character of having a certain glow wide open. But i only see this when there is strong, bright lighting. Several times I've taken the lens on family trips to the park or to the amusement park, and in bright midday sunlight, the highlights tend to glow and sometimes distract from the overall image. But like i mentioned, i only see this glow in digital. In film, the lens is near flawless to me.
But after using the lens for so long on digital, i finally decided to try a more modern lens for those difficult situations when i know modern glass and coatings will help. Thus the Zeiss Biogon 35/2 is now practically glued to my M240. It gives the perfect aperture to fit my girls in the shots, and performs well in all types of lighting, even the harsh ones. So editing digital images has become much easier lately.

I guess in short it all depends on what you mostly plan on using the lens for. Like others have mentioned, the 40mm will give you classic character, and the Zeiss will give you modern performance and creamy controlled bokeh.

I do own other 35mm lenses that deserve honorable mentions though!

The Canon 35mm F1.5 is an amazing lens. It performs excellent wide open with beautiful classic bokeh, and a sharp center. However it also has the vintage glow, more so than the 40mm. And also wide open, the lens has strong vignetting at the corners, but in my case it might be the filter that is too thick?

Another wonderful lens is the Summaron 35/2.8.
It is a stop slower than the classic Cron V1, but it perform beautiful like a modern lens would. The colors it produces even in digital are excellent, and the sharpness is great as well. Bokeh might be lacking a little, but it is still great for most situations.

Well that was just my 2 cents on the matter. But like Raid mentioned above, there are sooooo many options when it comes to M mount 35mm lenses. And all of them have their strong points. Enjoy the hunt!