russelljtdyer
Writer
I've been using rangefinder film cameras for over a year now--digital for about 5 years. I started with some older, simpler models (e.g., a Canon Canonet). I quickly moved up to a Canon P, though, and have been enjoying it. Last week I jumped up a few notches by buying a Zeiss Ikon rangefinder camera. To be able to start using it right away, I bought also an adapter for a Voightlander screw-mount lens that I already own.
One of the reasons I decided on this particular camera--besides on its own merits--is because I want to work my way slowly to a digital, full-frame rangefinder camera, a Leica M9. However, that's probably two years away for me. With the Zeiss Ikon, though, I can begin assembling a collection of M-mount lenses. So, I'm looking for advice on buying my first M-mount lens.
My 50mm lens works alright with an adapter for now. It's not a fantastic lens, so I'll eventually replace it with a better, true M-mount 50mm lens. I thought of buying a 28mm lens, but think I'd make more use of a 35mm focal lens.
There are two 35mm lenses I'm considering buying: the Leica 35mm f/2.5 Summarit, which sells for $1,695 new; and the Zeiss Ikon 35mm f/2.0 T* ZM Biogon lens, which sells for $1,005 new. The Zeiss lens has a larger maximum aperture. It's also about double the length of the Leica (about 1.3 vs. 2.6 inches), but that's not an important factor for me. Other than those two items, the primary difference that I can determine is a matter of whether the quality of Leica exceeds that of the Zeiss to justify the extra $690 for a slower lens. I'd appreciate any comments to help me make this decision.
One of the reasons I decided on this particular camera--besides on its own merits--is because I want to work my way slowly to a digital, full-frame rangefinder camera, a Leica M9. However, that's probably two years away for me. With the Zeiss Ikon, though, I can begin assembling a collection of M-mount lenses. So, I'm looking for advice on buying my first M-mount lens.
My 50mm lens works alright with an adapter for now. It's not a fantastic lens, so I'll eventually replace it with a better, true M-mount 50mm lens. I thought of buying a 28mm lens, but think I'd make more use of a 35mm focal lens.
There are two 35mm lenses I'm considering buying: the Leica 35mm f/2.5 Summarit, which sells for $1,695 new; and the Zeiss Ikon 35mm f/2.0 T* ZM Biogon lens, which sells for $1,005 new. The Zeiss lens has a larger maximum aperture. It's also about double the length of the Leica (about 1.3 vs. 2.6 inches), but that's not an important factor for me. Other than those two items, the primary difference that I can determine is a matter of whether the quality of Leica exceeds that of the Zeiss to justify the extra $690 for a slower lens. I'd appreciate any comments to help me make this decision.
horosu
Well-known
Had both. The C-Biogon is much better made than the Summarit (the aperture ring on this one got extremely loose after 6 months), has less distortion and flare.
My impression.
My impression.
Papercut
Well-known
I have never used the Summarit, so I can't comment on that part of the equation at all. What I can say, however, is that you may want to take the following into account in your decision making.
I used a 35/2 Biogon on film (hundred of rolls) for nearly two years. It was wonderful and I highly recommend it actually. But ... since your eventual goal is digital, you should be aware that at maximum aperture the Biogon will produce color fringing on high contrast borders on a digital sensor -- and that's true (or was for my copy of the lens) even at the center of the frame, not just the corners. I never saw this with film at all, but it was plain as day (and rather pronounced -- fringes were several pixels wide) at f2.0 on an M8.
So, IF you're serious about eventually getting an M9, AND IF you envision using maximum aperture frequently, AND IF dealing with color fringing in certain situations bothers you, then you may want to think carefully about the Biogon.
Whew -- that's a lot of ifs and ands!
On the other hand, none of that may be bothersome to you, or your shooting habits may be such that it would appear very infrequently. Additionally, if the M9 is a long ways off, you could get a lot of use out of the Biogon on film in the meantime ... a used one resold two years from now would be a very small "loss" (or, seen a different way, a minuscule "rental fee") ... only you can decide.
I can't remember where (Puts perhaps?), but somewhere I stumbled across a statement that the Biogon lens design is really best for f/2.8 and smaller and that Zeiss had to make some compromises to get it to f/2.0. Not sure how accurate that is as I'm not an optical engineer, but it may explain why the color fringing appears at 2.0 (and only on digital).
EDIT: horosu's suggestion of a C-Biogon (35/2.8) might be a good alternative to either of your candidates -- I've never used it but all accounts are that it is a terrific lens if one can live with the slower speed. As a further alternative, you could likely pick up a used Summicron ASPH for about the same price as the Summarit new. Some people don't like its signature or tonality, others love it. But it's definitely a possibility to consider, unless you're dead set on buying new (or already know you hate how it draws).
I used a 35/2 Biogon on film (hundred of rolls) for nearly two years. It was wonderful and I highly recommend it actually. But ... since your eventual goal is digital, you should be aware that at maximum aperture the Biogon will produce color fringing on high contrast borders on a digital sensor -- and that's true (or was for my copy of the lens) even at the center of the frame, not just the corners. I never saw this with film at all, but it was plain as day (and rather pronounced -- fringes were several pixels wide) at f2.0 on an M8.
So, IF you're serious about eventually getting an M9, AND IF you envision using maximum aperture frequently, AND IF dealing with color fringing in certain situations bothers you, then you may want to think carefully about the Biogon.
Whew -- that's a lot of ifs and ands!
On the other hand, none of that may be bothersome to you, or your shooting habits may be such that it would appear very infrequently. Additionally, if the M9 is a long ways off, you could get a lot of use out of the Biogon on film in the meantime ... a used one resold two years from now would be a very small "loss" (or, seen a different way, a minuscule "rental fee") ... only you can decide.
I can't remember where (Puts perhaps?), but somewhere I stumbled across a statement that the Biogon lens design is really best for f/2.8 and smaller and that Zeiss had to make some compromises to get it to f/2.0. Not sure how accurate that is as I'm not an optical engineer, but it may explain why the color fringing appears at 2.0 (and only on digital).
EDIT: horosu's suggestion of a C-Biogon (35/2.8) might be a good alternative to either of your candidates -- I've never used it but all accounts are that it is a terrific lens if one can live with the slower speed. As a further alternative, you could likely pick up a used Summicron ASPH for about the same price as the Summarit new. Some people don't like its signature or tonality, others love it. But it's definitely a possibility to consider, unless you're dead set on buying new (or already know you hate how it draws).
Last edited:
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
The difference in speed is only a half-stop, but you probably would not be able to see an appreciable difference between them stop-to-stop.
I would be leaning to the Zeiss Biogon - it's a little faster and the differences in performance are marginal on the specs.
I would be leaning to the Zeiss Biogon - it's a little faster and the differences in performance are marginal on the specs.
healyzh
Well-known
The Zeiss lens looks most interesting, though personally I'm a little concerned about the additional size/weight. I'd like to give it a try. I tried the CV 35mm f/1.4, and except for some distortion I rather liked it.
scottwallick
ambition ≥ skill
I have both of these lenses, and they are both fantastic.
I prefer the focusing tab and build of the Summarit-M 35/2.5 to the C Biogon 2,8/35. Both lenses are well put together.
Both are better lenses than I am a photographer. I have had little issue with flare and distortion with either. True, MFT tables and pincushion charts may tell a different story, but on screen and in print, I see little 'quality' difference.
There is a price difference.
More importantly, the photos. Have a look:
Photos with the C Biogon 2,8/35
Photos with the Summarit-M 35/2.8
While the Summarit 35 is small, the C Biogon 35 is tiny.
I like the Summarit 35 hood and haven't had any problems with it. None.
I kinda don't like the hood on the C Biogon. In narrow spaces, its width catches on things. Meh, not a deal breaker though.
I have used both with my Zeiss Ikon and M9. Without issue.
Either way, you're getting an excellent lens.
Good luck.
I prefer the focusing tab and build of the Summarit-M 35/2.5 to the C Biogon 2,8/35. Both lenses are well put together.
Both are better lenses than I am a photographer. I have had little issue with flare and distortion with either. True, MFT tables and pincushion charts may tell a different story, but on screen and in print, I see little 'quality' difference.
There is a price difference.
More importantly, the photos. Have a look:
Photos with the C Biogon 2,8/35
Photos with the Summarit-M 35/2.8
While the Summarit 35 is small, the C Biogon 35 is tiny.
I like the Summarit 35 hood and haven't had any problems with it. None.
I kinda don't like the hood on the C Biogon. In narrow spaces, its width catches on things. Meh, not a deal breaker though.
I have used both with my Zeiss Ikon and M9. Without issue.
Either way, you're getting an excellent lens.
Good luck.
Papercut
Well-known
I wonder if the lack of an IR filter was why the 35/2 fringed on the M8 for me (no IR filter as I was just borrowing the M8). Wish I had done more systematic testing, but didn't really have the chance in the short time I had it in my paws.
The Zeiss lenses are fantastic -- I thoroughly enjoyed the Biogon in all ways, save the focusing nub (much prefer real tabs).
The Zeiss lenses are fantastic -- I thoroughly enjoyed the Biogon in all ways, save the focusing nub (much prefer real tabs).
I've not used the Summarit, but have the 2/35 Biogon ZM. No issues with flare or fringing. I always use a hood and a UV/IR when on the M8. Lovely rendition and bokeh; something I enjoy from the ZMs - and why I sort of standardized on them. The cost savings over Leica alternatives alone paid for half of them.
ferider
Veteran
There is an extensive comparison of Summarit and the two Biogons on Reid Reviews.
Roland.
Roland.
Papercut
Well-known
I should have saved the files, but ... that M8 had the dreaded "red line" issue ... really bad: anything over 160 ISO had easily visible line. (1250 up it was even visible on the LCD without magnifying.) So I just trashed the files when I returned the camera.
The CV tabs are nice too -- really makes focusing easier for my hands. I miss tabs so much that I asked Sherry Krauter about adding one to my 50 Elmar-M ... her advice: just put a piece of rubber underneath a hose fitting (the ring type that tightens down with a screw). somehow I could never quite bring myself to do that ...
The CV tabs are nice too -- really makes focusing easier for my hands. I miss tabs so much that I asked Sherry Krauter about adding one to my 50 Elmar-M ... her advice: just put a piece of rubber underneath a hose fitting (the ring type that tightens down with a screw).
somehow I could never quite bring myself to do that ...semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Faced with the same choices, I recently went with the Biogon-C 35/2.8. It is one of the two best lenses that I have ever used in general pictorial photography (the other being the 35 Summilux ASPH). The Biogon-C's bokeh [examples] is stunningly good (significantly better to my eyes than the f/2 Biogon), it has less astigmatism and curvature of field than the Summarit (and less geometric distortion), and it might be the most flare-resistant 35 ever produced. I do slightly prefer the Leica focusing tabs, but not enough to offset these other advantages.
More discussion of the baby Biogon here and here.
BTW, I just got back from a (far too brief) trip to Japan. I took only my M6, the 35 Biogon-C, and a Ricoh GR-1 as a backup (it didn't leave the bag). Left all the other gear at home. Shot ACROS 100 (mostly), TMAX400-2 (some), Neopan 1600 (a little), and Ektar 100 (1 roll).
More discussion of the baby Biogon here and here.
BTW, I just got back from a (far too brief) trip to Japan. I took only my M6, the 35 Biogon-C, and a Ricoh GR-1 as a backup (it didn't leave the bag). Left all the other gear at home. Shot ACROS 100 (mostly), TMAX400-2 (some), Neopan 1600 (a little), and Ektar 100 (1 roll).
Last edited:
russelljtdyer
Writer
Thanks for all of the excellent and rapid responses. It helped me to make a decision. I just ordered the Zeiss 35mm f/2 lens. It arrives Thursday. Hopefully, by this weekend I'll be raving to my friends about how smart I was in making this purchase. Thanks again to everyone for your help.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I think you'll really like it. Superb color, very little field curvature (less than any of the current Leicas), and it has less geometrical distortion than probably any 35mm lens on the market.
time
Established
I have had the summarit. Nice lens, nice build and nice size. However, after just some months, it just to "boring" to me. I must say I like the summicron better. Better bokeh and signature. I think I will go for the Biogon f2 instead (not the C one f2.8).
Tim Gray
Well-known
I had the ZM 35/2 for quite a bit. Wonderful lens. Almost zero distortion, very resistant to flare, and very even across the frame. Don't be worried by the size. There are other 35s smaller than it, but it's not that big. About the same size as a 50 Summicron.
ChrisC
Established
It does have some 'minor' wavy barrel distortion which is improved upon with the C-Biogon which [quoting Sean Reid] is 'almost completely neutral'.
............. Chris
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
With all due respect, Reid's conclusions are not entirely consistent with the Zeiss measurements, which show the Biogon f/2 to have almost no distortion at all (less than 0.1% pincushion with no perceptible waviness), while the Biocon-C f/2.8 has ~0.6% barrel distortion. That is still a class-leading performance, even better than Leica's best lenses. Lloyd Reynolds, whose evaluations I believe to be on par with Sean Reid's, concurs with Zeiss in his assessment of the f/2 Biogon.
35 Biogon datasheet | 35 Biogon-C datasheet.
The only ways I can account for the difference in evaluations are (1) sample variability, which I think is unlikely to explain this difference, or (2) differences in camera-to-subject distance. The Zeiss measurements will probably have been done at infinity focus, and Reynolds is primarily a landscape photographer so he tends to work at long distances as well.
In any case, there is probably no 35 better corrected for distortion available on the market than the Biogon f/2. That said, I personally use the Biogon-C, and for my purposes (including frequent shots of open water with flat horizon lines) it is effectively free of distortion.
Last edited:
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
While these are great lenses, a compact package is too important for me. Hence my liking for the 35 Summicron and 35mm lux pre-asph. Also, a >f2.0 is too slow for everyday use for me.
ChrisC
Established
Interesting. Thank you for your post. Who'd be a lens tester eh? With account needing to be made for field curvature, focus shift, lens contrast versus lens resolution, performance variation at different distances, performance variation at different f-stop, etc. etc..
My subscription to Sean's site has now lapsed so I can't re-check his '35mm lenses on M9' article, but for the test distance Sean used, and that particular sample, I agreed with his conclusions.
Whatever, horses-for-courses; if you really need f2.0 then the C-Biogon is less than hopeless as a choice and no doubt the Biogon f2.0 is a fine contender. For smaller apertures the C-Biogon f2.8 is a stunning lens in a small package.
............ Chris
