Limited 35mm budget: Zeiss vs Leica

[gavinlg]

TBH I'd get a voigtlander 35mm f2.5 pII over the leicas, especially the summarit. It's a seriously good lens - you won't be able to tell photos from it apart from the summarit ones.

If you want a new lens that's a little faster, I'd get the biogon.

 

[sepiareverb]

Oh. May you give us your view of the difference of those two?
Is the asph that sharper and has that better bokeh than the biogon and worth the extra cost?

I'll post some images once it gets here and the weather cooperates. I've pretty much fallen for the 35/1.4 pre ASPH as my main 35, but this Biogon sort of fell in my lap so I'll give it a try. The 35/2 ASPH has little appeal of late, hopefully the Biogon will allow me a second 35 without having to come up with the cash for a 2nd pre-ASPH lux...

One possible drawback with the Biogon is I have no other lenses that take E43 filters.

 

[35mmdelux]

Leica V3 for about $750-800 and pocket the change.

 

[35mmdelux]

PS: Forget the mystic of the V4. I've owned two and love them but you pay a substantial premium for small improvement over the V3 -- actually the V3 is better built. If, as you say 1450 usd, then the Leica 35/2.0 Cron ASPH for sure -- not doubt about it. The construction is simply incredible.

Disclamer: I have not shot with the 35 Zeiss nor the 35/1.2 Voightlander for comparative purposes. These lenses are too big for my taste in this focal length.

 

[tbarker13]

Went through the same decision process this year. I settled on the Summicron v.3
As has been said, it's built better than the v. 4, which I used to own.
And if you shot the same scene with both lenses, I don't believe anyone could tell them apart with any reliability.

 

[leicashot]

PS: Forget the mystic of the V4. I've owned two and love them but you pay a substantial premium for small improvement over the V3 -- actually the V3 is better built. If, as you say 1450 usd, then the Leica 35/2.0 Cron ASPH for sure -- not doubt about it. The construction is simply incredible.

Disclamer: I have not shot with the 35 Zeiss nor the 35/1.2 Voightlander for comparative purposes. These lenses are too big for my taste in this focal length.

I have to agree about the V4. Never impressed me the two times i owned it. It's a solid performer with smooth bokeh but nothing about it sung to me.

 

[LeicaFan]

I've been impressed by the samples that I've seen that have been produced by the Biogon 35/2. I've never handled one, but I've never heard any complaints about the build quality.

For the price, it is hard to beat.

 

[Krosya]

Hi all.

I know many has discussed it before. However, I did not see any poll of that.

Which of the 35mm´s do you like to buy for about 1000usd?

(900-1450usd)

I'll advise lenses that are not on your list:
CV 35/1.2 and CV Ultron 35/1.7 Asph. and for the money you have you could find both.
If you want a more compact option - instead of Ultron, get a CV 35/2.5.
Having tried many different 35's over time, I've settled with the first option - CV 35/1.2 and 35/1.7 as the best balance for me.
I dont see a reason to pay that much more money for other lenses. CV 35mm options are superb. If you want a great compact yet fast lens at a good price - get a CV 40/1.4.
Just my opinion of course......

 

[tokyoshooter]

The Biogon-C f2.8. Great lens in a compact package.

 

[mfogiel]

For B&W shooting - no doubt the V3 Summicron, for colour shooting, no doubt the f2.0 Biogon - if you like shooting both, and crave for speed too, then no doubt the 35/1.2 Nokton. I would not go below f 2.0 in speed in any case - it is too limiting in intereiors.

 

[semilog]

^--- With the large variety of high-quality ISO 800 options (2TMY, Neopan 400, HP5+, Tri-X etc.) I'm not finding f/2.8 to be terribly limiting at 35mm FL. Not nearly as much as I'd originally guessed.

 

[braver]

PS: Forget the mystic of the V4. I've owned two and love them but you pay a substantial premium for small improvement over the V3 -- actually the V3 is better built. If, as you say 1450 usd, then the Leica 35/2.0 Cron ASPH for sure -- not doubt about it. The construction is simply incredible.

Disclamer: I have not shot with the 35 Zeiss nor the 35/1.2 Voightlander for comparative purposes. These lenses are too big for my taste in this focal length.

Went through the same decision process this year. I settled on the Summicron v.3
As has been said, it's built better than the v. 4, which I used to own.
And if you shot the same scene with both lenses, I don't believe anyone could tell them apart with any reliability.

Exactly the reason I went for the V3 over the V4. The V4 looks better, has more hype, but is also a lot more expensive without buying you anything extra really. You can easily get a minty V3 for 800 euros, but all the v4's I see are going for at least 1100. That is a whole lot of difference for something that is practically the same.
If you're really on a tight budget, I can also recommend the 40mm summicron-c. It is a stellar lens, fantastic, just not quite there practically in terms of caps, hoods, filters, focusing lever. It is however just as good as a 35mm summicron, even smaller, and can be had for less than the difference between a V3 and a v4 😉

 

[Rob-F]

Since the Summaron is not fast enough for you at f/2.8, you may as well take the f/2.5 Summarit off the list. I wouldn't bother with the pre=ASPH lux, as they are almost as expensive as the version IV, yet their wide-open performance is questionable. A version III is not a bad idea, but the 40mm Summicron or Rokkor could be considered as well, unless you absolutely must have 35mm.

 

[stephan_cautaerts]

There is also the M-Hexanon 35 f2. Great lens.

 

[leicashot]

There is also the M-Hexanon 35 f2. Great lens.

Yes but M users do need to be careful when buying and be prepared to have it adjusted. My copy backfocused severely so i returned it.

 

[Spyro]

eeeeasily the Hexanon 35/2
It goes for $400 and it comes with a pretty awesome camera glued on it, the Hexar AF 🙂

 

[Bavaricus]

The Biogon-C f2.8. Great lens in a compact package.

Guess thats the best value 35 lens you can get at the moment. At the CV 35/2.5 you have to be lucky to catch a good one. Quality varies much too much to recommend it (especially on M8/9). I had one and it was definetely NO comparison to the Biogons or Summarit.

 

[dan_sutton]

I'm comparing shots from my 35 lux ASPH and my VC 35/1.4. I sold the 35 lux ASPH and even though I miss the feel, I don't miss the images or speed. The other looks great and came with a free nikon 9000 scanner for the same price

 

[kevin m]

None of the vintage Summicrons is a good value on the used market relative to their performance, and the version IV is the worst offender in that regard. It's not a bad lens wide open, but every CV 35mm lens I've tried (1.7, 2.5, 1.2) is better. You're paying a real 'internet-hype' premium for it (bokeh king!) and getting a lens with middling build quality for your troubles. I had to send mind to Sherry twice to have the loose barrel fixed, then finally broke down and did it myself the third time it happened.

The lens IS a perfect size and handles wonderfully, but regarding optical performance, there are better buys out there. Heck, at today's prices I'd recommend the pre-aspherical Summilux over the Summicron. The 'lux is just as good as the 'cron at f2.0 - maybe better - and you get a unique look at f1.4 to play with! 🙂

 

[raid]

I am sticking with the Leica 35mm lenses.
I like using the Version 1 Summicron and the Version 2 pre-asph Lux.
The combination of thes etwo lenses offers me what I want.