Leica vs. Zeiss M mount lenes

[garyu]

Looking for a 35mm lens for my M6. I have narrowed down to two alternatives: 1.) Leica 35mm f/2.5 SUMMARIT-M @ $1300, after current rebate. or 2.) Zeiss Ikon 35mm f/2.0 T* ZM Biogon Lens @ $875. That's a big price gap in these less than optimal economic times, but I do want a good lens. I'm a amateur who likes to do street photography -- all B&W. While the Zeiss is 2/3 a stop faster, the Leica lens is smaller which might make me and the camera less noticeable.
Any and all suggestions and advice is appreciated.
Thanks,
G

 

[Richard G]

Erwin Puts reckons the Summarits are really f 2.4 - 1/2 stop slower than the Biogon. Consider also the size and the ergonomics of the focus tabs on the two lenses. Many don't like the Zeiss bump. I am amazed by the compactness of the Summarit 50 and I am pretty sure the f2 ZM 35 will be a lot bigger than the Summarit. I have the Zeiss 25 and will consdier some time getting the VC 25 f4 just for its size. The Zeiss 25 is a great lens though. Assume this is the case for the ZM 35.

 

[notturtle]

The summarit is smaller and slower but a lot more expensive. if you like the size of the summarit and the price of the biogon, consider the biogon-c 2.8, which can be had new for $817 from popflash or used for about $600. if you are prepared to buy grey, I think Tony Rose of Popflash has some Summarits going for more like the $1100 mark with his own warranty. The ZMs are of slightly higher contrast than the summarit but really you will find many fans of the imaging of both.

I own a 35 biogon and it is a spectacular peformer with incredible edge to edge performance. I am sure the summarit is also superb; however, the biogon C is a touch smaller still and a lot cheaper. If you can get a summarit for $1100 that would tempt me if I was in the market for a 35.

Think also about your other lenses. if you have Leica asphs the Biogons might be a better contrast match; however, if you have pre-asph lenses, the summarit may prove more harmonious. You wont go wrong with either choice tho!

 

[Sam N]

I love the Biogon, especially for color. Sharpness, flare resistance, and contrast are incredible, and the size doesn't bother me at all.

If you're only shooting black and white, why not get a used Summicron? To me the Summarits seem somewhat pointless. A 3rd or even 4th gen. (nowadays) summicron 35 will be considerably cheaper than a Summarit. With an older Summicron, you still get the "Leica look" in a very compact and high-quality (and faster) lens.

 

[notturtle]

...If you're only shooting black and white, why not get a used Summicron? To me the Summarits seem somewhat pointless. A 3rd or even 4th gen. (nowadays) summicron 35 will be considerably cheaper than a Summarit. With an older Summicron, you still get the "Leica look" in a very compact and high-quality (and faster) lens.

Sadly, not from the prices I am seeing. A used V4 in excellent to mint condition will go for $1000 to $1300, the upper end being for mint German models and an average being about $1100-1150 for really clean Canadian examples. A V3 might go for $800-1000. A super clean V4 goes for almost the same money as the asph.

These prices are in line with a new 35 summarit (grey markey) or after rebate at the upper end. I have seen mint demo summarits on ebay for $950 with hood. Thats far less than a mint V4 and for that you also get better build and a warranty. I would love a V4 to see what all the hype is about, but I am not paying that sort of money - its ridiculous IMO for a lens that is known to be kinda ordinary at F2 and sometimes disassembles itself. The summarit on the other hand performs very well indeed from wide open, as does the Biogon-C.

The good thing about the Biogons is the supreme flare resistance. you just dont need a hood (many users of the pre-asph crons feel you do to be safe) and so the lens gets smaller relative toa cron with hood.

The bigger issue is look/contrast; the biogons being more modern than older glass (which turns out to cost more). Heck, you can get a mint used biogon F2 for about $600 now; thats half the price of a similar condition V4 cron.

 

[mfogiel]

The Biogon is one of the finest 35mm lenses ever made. It has lots of charms to it, and the relatively biggish size is an easy price to pay for what it delivers. I have not used the Summarit, and from I have seen around it is also a first class lens, but beyond the cost and size, the rendering of the Leica glass is different from the rendering of Zeiss. If I had to point to a single most evident difference, I'd say the microcontrast. If you like lots of it, and do not disdain edge sharpness or "bite" to your shots, go for the Zeiss. If you prefer a more neutral, or "sleek" look, go for Leica.
Here are a couple of examples:
Zeiss Biogon 35/2

Leica Elmarit 28/2.8 ASPH

 

[kywong]

If you also bring the Summicron 35 IV into consideration, you have 3 lenses that all differ in one way or another. The two Leicas are more compact, more expensive and have a different signature to the Zeiss. So it's all down to what you prefer. If the signature of the lens is going to be the decider, pop over to Flickr and see for yourself.

 

[back alley]

the zm 35/2.8 is a great lens, very sharp and compact also.

 

[Tim Gray]

The Zeiss is bigger. It will not however make you more noticeable.

 

[gavinlg]

I'd go that zeiss C biogon f2.8. It looks really sweet.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've used both, and prefer the ergonomics and 'look' of the Summarit, though the extra speed of the Zeiss is very welcome and I rather like the 'Zeiss bump'. Quite honestly I doubt it matters much: the limit to sharpness is going to be your hand-holding! My standard 35 is a pre-aspheric Summilux, and I feel no great need to replace it. But I fear the 24 Summilix may become my standard on the M8.2...

Then again, I'm a speed freak.

Tashi delek,

Roger

 

[momus1]

This is the kind of question that always gets different responses. As Zeiss glass renders images differently than Leica, I suggest you look at some photos from the lenses online. Flickr often is better than pbase, which sometimes has one person loading up 100's of digital low rez photos of a lens. That is little help. Peolpe tend to fall into the two camps and that's that. I would go for a Leica Summaron 35 2.8 myself, as I prefer the way Leica glass draws. An excellent lens for the price.

 

[35mmdelux]

For me, speed is king. Having owned a f/2.8 lens I found it bottoming out far too often using 160 ISO film.

BTW accessible in this price range is a pre-owned 35 Summicron ASPH. Many are sold in mint cond.

 

[RichardB]

Frankly I never look at the specs for these types of comparisons as I much prefer to concentrate on my ability to take photographs and when its all said and done, its the photographer that makes the difference not the camera or lens. I use Leica M lenses exclusively for my M's because I know they are well made both optically and as important mechanically and will function with Leica M cameras without any worry on my part.
So my emphasis is on photography, not lens specfications.
But if I wanted a 35mm lens for my M, had I not had a 35mm 1.4 ASPH, I would consider the 35mm Summicron, either a later type or ASPH and try to find a used example in excellent condition.-Dick

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I would go for a Leica Summaron 35 2.8 myself . . .

Which I wouldn't touch with a bargepole. This is not to disagree with you: rather, the exact opposite. I agree with you 100%. One man's dream is another man's dog, and it comes down to luck, personal style and technique, and individual preference. Sorry, OP!

Tashi delek,

Roger

 

[raid]

Another option is to get a Zeiss 35mm lens for the Contax G2 converted to M for about $700 total. The 45mm G1 lens seems to be sharper than the 50mm ZM

 

[MCTuomey]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the M-Hex and UC-Hex 35's. Nice alternatives to the Big Two in that focal length. Priced around Zeiss, I think.

 

[notturtle]

Which I wouldn't touch with a bargepole. This is not to disagree with you: rather, the exact opposite. I agree with you 100%. One man's dream is another man's dog, and it comes down to luck, personal style and technique, and individual preference. Sorry, OP!

Tashi delek,

Roger

Roger, What dont you like about the 35 Summaron 2.8?

I picked up an old one for free off a relative and have not used it seriously yet. The test roll revealevd much lower contrast than my ZMs and a predictably older look.

Rgds

 

[George S.]

Another consideration... Small size, very good performance and great price= 40mm/2 Summicron-C.

 

[awilder]

No brainer, there's a used 35/2 Biogon w/hood in our classified in great shape for $600. No relation to the seller, but I'd grab this puppy up if you need a 35.