Leica 35mm Summicron vs Zeiss 35mm

They are both really, really good. The Zeiss is bigger; some say it's better. The Summicron is more compact and superb. But then what matters is what you do with them, no?
 
They're both great lenses. Search here and you'll find plenty of examples of both; a rough consensus puts the V4 and Biogon roughly equal. Many prefer the compactness of the Summicron; some, including Karen Nokamura @ photoethnography.com prefer the OOF rendering of the Biogon - which, these days, is much less expensive.

One recent thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=65851
 
Last edited:
I've had both. They're both excellent. At the end of the day I'm a summicron guy because of the ergonomics and size.
 
I hate to confuse the issue, but since 35mm and size have both been mentioned, I'm curious about the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 C Biogon T*, C for compact I assume. I read an interesting comparison on flare reduction between it and the Summarit-M 35mm f/2.5. Can anyone share?
 
I had the Zeiss and it's a very very good lens, really sharp, contrasty, good OOF rendition. I sold it for a Summicron IV for I preferred its (much) smaller size, its less clinical sharpness, and its OOF areas. 😀
 
Both are great, but in the end I'm a summicron guy for it's small size and criminal sharpness, er... I mean clinical sharpness 😉

Todd
 
I've owned both. It's very difficult to say which is "better" than the other one. Really.

Ergonomics and size decided in the end, and the 35mm Summicron IV is just easier to carry, focus with or without gloves (hard to do that with the Biogon; it's important, believe me, when you wear gloves half of the year).

I'd still keep the Biogon. Having both really is the best solution.
 
vieri said:
I had the Zeiss and it's a very very good lens, really sharp, contrasty, good OOF rendition. I sold it for a Summicron IV for I preferred its (much) smaller size, its less clinical sharpness, and its OOF areas. 😀
Click to expand...

Well said vieri. I will just add that if I did shoot mostly colour film, I think I'd have kept the Zeiss f2 because it excels with K64.
 
thomasw_ said:
Well said vieri. I will just add that if I did shoot mostly colour film, I think I'd have kept the Zeiss f2 because it excels with K64.
Click to expand...

Very true - I should have added that I shot 98% BW film (or something like that - I would say 100% but then there is that occasional color film sneaking in...! 😀 ); for color, I leave it to more expert people than myself to suggest what works best for them... 😀
 
I have both of these lenses as well as the ZM C Biogon 35f2,8. The difference between the ZM 35f2 and the Summicron 35f2 IV isn't huge. The ZM is better at f2 (less edge fall off and slightly sharper edges too). The 35f2 Summicron is very small and compact in comparison, but I have issues with the construction quality of it. It is a bit flimsy with the plastick'y aperture ring and occasionally I have had f-stops "jump" on them. As for resolution and sharpness, it is probably more dependant on the film and the user. If you shoot mainly bl/w (as in my case) and handheld - you will not see much difference between them. Of course, one of the advantages of the ZM is that it is considerably cheaper as a new lens than the 35f2 IV is as used!
The 35f2.8 C Biogon is a wortwhile alternative to either one of these lenses, if you can live with the 1 stop speed loss. It is reasonably compact - not petite as it uses the largish diameter barrel common to most of the ZM lenses (like a short Planar 50f2). It is very sharp at f2.8 and subjectively speaking - it looks better at f2.8 than both the 35f2 Biogon and the 35f2 IV Summicron @2.8!. It has slightly higher contrast than the 35f2 Biogon too. Not too high, but you see it on the negs. The "fuzzy stuff", i.e bokeh looks OK to me, but then I dont pay much attention to it. It is very well controlled for flare - you REALLy have to work it to get it to flare enough to be noticable.
As in most cases with todays optics, it is more a matter of wallet, ergonomics and personal preference when choosing a lens. They are all extremly good.
 
I suppose I'll chime in again about f/2. It's been my experience on the M8/M6 that the summicron is sharper in the center but not as good in the corners. Whereas the biogon is great in the corners but not as sharp in the center. At f/8 they're both extremely sharp with the biogon having the edge. But as I said before ergonomics wins over and I prefer walking around with the summicron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kxl
Any love for the Leica M-A (Typ 127)?
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
4K
Archiver
A
macmx
Eisenstaedt's M3 and 35mm lens
Replies
11
Views
1K
Glenn2
G
Shab
A 35mm lens for a Nikon FM3A
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Dogman
Dogman
Roastchestnuts
Tiny Voigtlander 35mm f3.5 Aspheric
2 3
Replies
54
Views
6K
Yokosuka Mike
Yokosuka Mike
R
Leica M3 Lens issue
Replies
16
Views
1K
Richard G
Richard G
Back
Top Bottom