Limited 35mm budget: Zeiss vs Leica
- Thread starter time
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 144
- Views 3K
vnukov_pk
Established
I used lot's of cheap 35 - two jupiter-12, CV 35/2.5
now i have leica summarit and I'm most happy with this lens. It gives my pics umistakable leica look, costs less than summi. I do not care much about it being not as fast as cron, because I like shooting at day time, but even wide open it's very sharp.
now i have leica summarit and I'm most happy with this lens. It gives my pics umistakable leica look, costs less than summi. I do not care much about it being not as fast as cron, because I like shooting at day time, but even wide open it's very sharp.
Turtle
Veteran
For under $1K you have some lenses I have owned and used (still do):
35 Summarit 2.5 M
35 f2 biogon
35 Pancake II
All incredible. The ZM is fantastic in every regard. Only criticism is the focus is light. The Biogon is hard to beat as an all rounder. A touch larger but no bigger than a 50 Cron and I dont recall anyone every complaining they could not deal with that.
35 Summarit 2.5 M
35 f2 biogon
35 Pancake II
All incredible. The ZM is fantastic in every regard. Only criticism is the focus is light. The Biogon is hard to beat as an all rounder. A touch larger but no bigger than a 50 Cron and I dont recall anyone every complaining they could not deal with that.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
I have the summicron v.4 and Nokton 1.2. If you don't mind the size/weight then I'd recommend it every time as to my eyes it's a wonderful performer. The v4 I managed to get at a very good price, my one is also seemingly a good build with no issues but I have to agree that's its hugely over priced and has a reputation that is certainly overblown. However, it's small size, short throw and, despite the overblown reputation, it's quality mean it gets more day to day use than the nokton - the long throw of which means I tend to use it with more static subjects.
The purchase and use of a lens is a very personal and subjective matter as so many considerations come into it; as such I agree with the earlier post about starting with cheaper lenses and 'moving up' over time. Of course if you have the money then you can go with whatever takes your fancy.
The purchase and use of a lens is a very personal and subjective matter as so many considerations come into it; as such I agree with the earlier post about starting with cheaper lenses and 'moving up' over time. Of course if you have the money then you can go with whatever takes your fancy.
efirmage
Established
Biogon 2.8 is not an option?
nasdak
Established
if you want to shoot digital, sharp to sharp corner, go for the biogon.
if you want to shoot film B&W, don't mind about corner sharpness and more about soul, just buy my summilux 🙂
if you want to shoot film B&W, don't mind about corner sharpness and more about soul, just buy my summilux 🙂
jordan.dickinson
Jordan Dickinson
the old 35mm f2.8 Summaron is a great choice, in my opinion. The summaron is not too expensive (around $500-650 used). It's also super sharp, tiny, and beautiful, as long as you can deal with the limitations of f2.8
Just my 2 cents
Just my 2 cents
efirmage
Established
If you had only one 35mm would you choose this over the Biogon? It does look like a beautiful little lens, but I wonder if it would be as flexible as the Biogon. How well does it preform wide open?
dee
Well-known
This is not really a reply in this exhaulted company , but I use a CV 35 f 2.5 Color Scopar with screw adapter on both the Leica M8 and Panasonic G1 .
I find the results excellent , but wonder how it stands up to expensive alternatives ?
I would love a Summarit 35mm and 50mm , but it isn't gonna happen as I am effectively forceably retired .
I find the results excellent , but wonder how it stands up to expensive alternatives ?
I would love a Summarit 35mm and 50mm , but it isn't gonna happen as I am effectively forceably retired .
muser53
MUSER53
I too agree that you should consider a Summaron 35/2.8... I purchased a well worn one several years ago and use it whenever extra speed is (which is most of the time)not needed. Then just use the left over cash for film!
Photon42
burn the box
The Biogon 2/35 is a wonderful lens and is very flare resistant. Yes, it could be smaller, but its size is also not excessive, like the Nokton.
Ivo
Ivo
Pirate
Guitar playing Fotografer
Just spent a few weeks looking for a good 35mm. Last week I had minimal cash, so I got a cheap CV color skopar 2.5 - this week I'm getting a big tax return so that might go away soon. The 35 I found I wanted, after much research (I'm sure I could do more) is the ZM F/2. The main thing I was looking for was the Distortion Curve. The Zeiss F/2 has an almost perfectly straight curve until it reaches infinity, and then it's about a -.3 which is absolutely nothing. Just an opinion, but I believe the Distortion Curve of a lens is the most important thing to look at. Secondly I would look at the amount of Contrast.
"I find the 2.8 too slow for a place like here in the very north." -from earlier in this thread.
I live in Michigan. I have yet to see much sunlight for shooting. ...a day here or there at best. I still shoot 25 ISO film with no trouble. F/2.8 should do just fine, I would think.
"I find the 2.8 too slow for a place like here in the very north." -from earlier in this thread.
I live in Michigan. I have yet to see much sunlight for shooting. ...a day here or there at best. I still shoot 25 ISO film with no trouble. F/2.8 should do just fine, I would think.
Pirate
Guitar playing Fotografer
Yes, but with about 1000 usd in my pocket, I'd go for the Zeiss. I settled on the CV because it has wonderful reviews, but I love the way a Zeiss renders so that will always be my first choice when I can afford one.
efirmage
Established
Just got the 2.8. The rendering is beautiful and there's hardly any distortion. I'm pretty impressed with it so far. I'd love the extra stop, but I liked the wide open rendering more on the 2.8 so I chose to go with that. This and a 50 'cron are a formidable duo.
ScottAlexander
Street Photographer
I voted for v4
However, I think the money is best spent with the voigtlander 35/1.2 if you can handle a tank... like others have said.
I love mine.
However, I think the money is best spent with the voigtlander 35/1.2 if you can handle a tank... like others have said.
I love mine.
jsrockit
Moderator
The best under $1000 35mm lens is the 35mm c-biogon f/2.8. This is fact. 😉
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
^--- No joke. A used f/2.5 Summarit is very nearly as good, though.
jsrockit
Moderator
I agree and would even go as far as to say it is maybe even better, but that's not under $1000.
Morry Katz
Established
When I was looking for a 35mm 'cron even the ancient ones were listing for $1500. Too rich , plus shipping and GST tax of 5%. Found a demo 35mm f2 Zeiss Biogon at a trusted supplier and couldn't be be happier. Sharp, contrasty, and very well built. And the price was $900. I lucked out.
celluloidprop
Well-known
Took a quick roll of Portra 400 with my new 35/2 Biogon - even with quick Costco prints and dull subject matter, this looks to be an amazing lens.
It kind of makes me want a M9, just because I don't see using it on a different EVIL body being all that exciting.
It kind of makes me want a M9, just because I don't see using it on a different EVIL body being all that exciting.
