x-ray
Veteran
From reading your posts I don't think you'll be happy with any of them. I'm guessing you're pixel peeping at 100% and any flaw will make you crazy. You'll never be happy with the results.
My take on the lenses, I've owned these lenses and used them professionally since the 60's. My standards are very high but I understand lenses aren't perfect.
I started out with a new summilux in 1968 and used it into the mix 70's. There's not much I can say good about its performance wide open other than it was f1.4. The lens had serious flare that could totally obscure your image. It formed secondary images under some high contrast situations. I lost a number of excellent images from a shoot with President Richard Nixon in 1970. I eventually sold it and never returned to the summilux.
I currently own a V1 summicron and had one years ago. I also have my second f2 Biogon after foolishly selling the first. I owned a V4 Summicron after my first V1 and used it for many years and have nothing but praise for it. It was very good in all respects. The V1 is equally good IMO but way over priced as is the V4. I used a V2 a little but wasnt impressed. I had a CV 35 2.8 and liked it very much but sold it. I also had the V1 f1.2 Nokton and was mocked out by it. It was t perfect but was perfectly usable at 1.2. I sold it but regret that I did.
I won a Leica LHSA Hammertone MP kit with retro 35 asph Summicron and Leicavit in the LHSA drawing. I found the asph Summicron to flare badly when a lights were just out of frame. I was wogking on a documentary project shooting in serpent handling churches in Appalachia and with a moonshiner in his still house and has a number of excellent shots ruined by flare from open light bulbs hanging from the ceiling. I owned a Biogon f2 and switched to that lens on later shoots in those locations and never had any more issues with flare. The asph Summicron was no sharper than my Biogon in real world shooting. I also felt the asph Summicron gave an artificial look to the image. To me the images lacked roundness and looked plastic. I later had a 35 asph summilux fle and felt much the same about it. I owned several new asph Leica lenses and felt the images lacked the organic feel I like and get with other glass. It was crazy sharp and if that's your thing then you might love it but there's more to a great lens than sharpness.
If you think Leica is immune to mechanical problems let me tell you my experience. I no longer own these but used them for many years. My V4 50 Summicron had serious binding problems in the focus at about 8 ft. Very annoying to say the least. My first 50 summilux asph had an improperly made focusing mount and would not focus to infinity. My second was fine but would not have met your corner sharpness standard. My 90 Apo asph Summicron would not focus properly on my M9 and made 3 trips to Leica. They had the lens for a total of 19 month and never got it working until I threatened them and they exchanged it. I promptly sold it and all of my M9 gear.
I've owned several ZM lenses and have never had a problem with them.
I went back to the f2 Biogon and will remain there. The lens gives me everything I want. IMO the Biogon has the smoothness of a classic but very sharp even at f2 in real world shooting. It's buttery smooth and easy to focus with the focusing ring. Tabs are ok but I personally like a focusing ring. Size is fine and about the size of a 50 f2 which is fine. I can not make it flare. I like the weight over the 35 asph Summicron. I don't equate weight with quality construction. Heavy doesn't mean better built, just a different selection of construction materials.
This is just my take and just personal opinion based on years of shooting under difficult conditions not shooting test targets and pixel peeping. I don't know what you're shooting and what size prints you're making so your requirements are most likely different. In all the years I e shot Leica, whether CV, Zeiss or Leica glass I've never had a client or anyone else for that matter complain that the corners are t sharp enough.
My take on the lenses, I've owned these lenses and used them professionally since the 60's. My standards are very high but I understand lenses aren't perfect.
I started out with a new summilux in 1968 and used it into the mix 70's. There's not much I can say good about its performance wide open other than it was f1.4. The lens had serious flare that could totally obscure your image. It formed secondary images under some high contrast situations. I lost a number of excellent images from a shoot with President Richard Nixon in 1970. I eventually sold it and never returned to the summilux.
I currently own a V1 summicron and had one years ago. I also have my second f2 Biogon after foolishly selling the first. I owned a V4 Summicron after my first V1 and used it for many years and have nothing but praise for it. It was very good in all respects. The V1 is equally good IMO but way over priced as is the V4. I used a V2 a little but wasnt impressed. I had a CV 35 2.8 and liked it very much but sold it. I also had the V1 f1.2 Nokton and was mocked out by it. It was t perfect but was perfectly usable at 1.2. I sold it but regret that I did.
I won a Leica LHSA Hammertone MP kit with retro 35 asph Summicron and Leicavit in the LHSA drawing. I found the asph Summicron to flare badly when a lights were just out of frame. I was wogking on a documentary project shooting in serpent handling churches in Appalachia and with a moonshiner in his still house and has a number of excellent shots ruined by flare from open light bulbs hanging from the ceiling. I owned a Biogon f2 and switched to that lens on later shoots in those locations and never had any more issues with flare. The asph Summicron was no sharper than my Biogon in real world shooting. I also felt the asph Summicron gave an artificial look to the image. To me the images lacked roundness and looked plastic. I later had a 35 asph summilux fle and felt much the same about it. I owned several new asph Leica lenses and felt the images lacked the organic feel I like and get with other glass. It was crazy sharp and if that's your thing then you might love it but there's more to a great lens than sharpness.
If you think Leica is immune to mechanical problems let me tell you my experience. I no longer own these but used them for many years. My V4 50 Summicron had serious binding problems in the focus at about 8 ft. Very annoying to say the least. My first 50 summilux asph had an improperly made focusing mount and would not focus to infinity. My second was fine but would not have met your corner sharpness standard. My 90 Apo asph Summicron would not focus properly on my M9 and made 3 trips to Leica. They had the lens for a total of 19 month and never got it working until I threatened them and they exchanged it. I promptly sold it and all of my M9 gear.
I've owned several ZM lenses and have never had a problem with them.
I went back to the f2 Biogon and will remain there. The lens gives me everything I want. IMO the Biogon has the smoothness of a classic but very sharp even at f2 in real world shooting. It's buttery smooth and easy to focus with the focusing ring. Tabs are ok but I personally like a focusing ring. Size is fine and about the size of a 50 f2 which is fine. I can not make it flare. I like the weight over the 35 asph Summicron. I don't equate weight with quality construction. Heavy doesn't mean better built, just a different selection of construction materials.
This is just my take and just personal opinion based on years of shooting under difficult conditions not shooting test targets and pixel peeping. I don't know what you're shooting and what size prints you're making so your requirements are most likely different. In all the years I e shot Leica, whether CV, Zeiss or Leica glass I've never had a client or anyone else for that matter complain that the corners are t sharp enough.
uhoh7
Veteran
Agree on the 35/2 Biogon. You see them for 650USD all the time. Only weakness of the lens is slightly nervous bokeh at times ( I don't mind it), and super extreme corners do soften at all apertures. You can forgive this when you examine spectacular mid-zone and edges.
asiafish
Established
Sorry to disappoint, but the optical formula is the same. The old one was aspherical too, they just didn't market it that way. Look at the front element, it is obvious even just from visual observation.
I tried the new one side-by-side with my old one and saw no difference whatsoever. Sharpness, rendering, bokeh, it's all the same. No clue on color as I didn't own my M-E yet and only shot with the M Monochrom at the store.
Brian Legge
Veteran
So running with your requirements in order:
0. Price
1. Perfect flare resistance
2. Good sharpness from center to corner starting from f4 (preferably from wide open)
That screams Biogon f2 or f2.8 to me. The flare resistance and sharpness rules out most vintage lenses. The price culls the higher end Leica lenses (and the Konica 35 tends to be in about the same price range). Modern voigtlanders are great but tend to be softer in the corners and a bit more prone to flare than the Zeiss offerings. The Summarit is up there as well, though its higher price and more flare prone from what I've read.
I think its going to come down to prioritizing your values and figuring out what lens(es) are the best fit. As stated, it seems like there is a clear winner.
0. Price
1. Perfect flare resistance
2. Good sharpness from center to corner starting from f4 (preferably from wide open)
That screams Biogon f2 or f2.8 to me. The flare resistance and sharpness rules out most vintage lenses. The price culls the higher end Leica lenses (and the Konica 35 tends to be in about the same price range). Modern voigtlanders are great but tend to be softer in the corners and a bit more prone to flare than the Zeiss offerings. The Summarit is up there as well, though its higher price and more flare prone from what I've read.
I think its going to come down to prioritizing your values and figuring out what lens(es) are the best fit. As stated, it seems like there is a clear winner.
thegman
Veteran
I don't pay much attention to corner sharpness etc. but I was always happy with my Nokton 35mm f/1.4. Other than that, I'd be tempted with the new Summarit, if only for the small size.
andriirad
Member
Wow, that is very impressed post! Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experience of shooting with different lenses.
I'm not the pixel peeping person (or perfectionist in this meaning) and never checking 100% crops, but I understand why you get this conclusion) I'm doing mostly street shots around my native town and outside of it (here you can see, what I'm talking about https://www.flickr.com/photos/andriiradevych/).
You can be probably confused about my multiple mentioning about "from center - to corner" sharpness requirements, thinking that it's all I need - doesn't matter about the story, what is telling my picture in the end of the day. Anyway, it's a little far from the true)
I had this experience of shooting with many different and unusual lenses (mostly on my mirrorless cameras), where I was looking for some unique lens character, the way how its "drawing" the picture, and so on...but not anymore. Now I need only 1 camera and 2 lenses, which are my M9, Elmarit 90mm f2.8 v.1 (which I'm keeping for portraits) and one good 35mm prime lens, what I'm looking for now. I can easily survive with that sharpness, what was given to me by Biogon 35mm (or even my current Skopar 35mm), but I just want to get one lens without the issue (which can be sometimes annoying and make you think to get another one) and stick with it for really loooong time, quitting with any other lens searching
In the real word shooting, as you absolutely right mentioned, extreme sharpness is not so important, but...sometimes, when Im looking at my street shots, noticing some objects in the corners or even just on the side of the pictures, which are REALLY SOFT and missing lots of details...its simply looks annoying to me and makes me start thinking about the things, which are far away from the real meaning of my shooting passion.
I used to have a 28mm elmarit apsh, which I was using with my M8 and was never bothered about flare or sharpness. And from my IMHO - its a real pleasure, when you are looking at your pictures and never noticing any technical issue, which were produced by the lens performance. Same was with my Summicron 50mm type IV and now Summicron 50mm type III - they are just perfect in the meaning of my requirements to the lens performance and I would love to stay with it, but unfortunately found out, that 50mm for me is far less convenient, for street shooting, then 35mm
So, after some discussion and opinions in this thread, I guess that I will chose the "one and only" from next 3 lenses:
1. Summarit 35mm f2.5 (Cause its fit my budget, its Leica and I'm really hope, that there will be no "annoying issue" with it)
2. Biogon 35mm f2.8 (Cause I read many feedbacks about its amazing overall sharpness, resolution and flare resistance. Anyway, I never tried it by myself)
3. Biogon 35mm f2.0 (Cause it was really overall "good enough" for me - only build issue was the thing, which I really don't like in my previous sample).
So, I hope that your further thoughts and suggestions (or even maybe the samples of your pictures) will help me to make my final decision
andriirad
Member
Thank you so much, Brian, for your opinion. I'm really feel tempted about to try Biogon 35mm 2.8, cause its seems to be a superb lens in all the meanings, which are important for me: small, light and with great optical performance. Anyway I'm gonna keep looking for this discussion for a bit more, before I'm gonna make some conclusion.
stephen.w
Established
You could take a look at a Summicron V2. Really small and light -- a joy to use. The Made in Canada samples are cheaper (and functionally identical to the Wetzlar ones) -- the best value Leica lens at 35mm IMO.
Ariefb
Established
I'm actually interested in new ASPH Summarit. Brand new, it costs a lot less than a used Lux in here. have you try one? seems like a great value to me.
andriirad
Member
Never tried any of Summarit lenses, include new 35mm) But as for me for the price of new Summarit 35mm its better to buy used Summicron 35mm ASPH, which should be much better option for sure.
ferider
Veteran
Why ?
Again watch out for lens/sample variation. A new lens has just passed QA from the manufacturer. Important for your requirements.
BTW, how do you test your lenses ? Do you focus bracket ? I'm asking because in the (tiny) example that you show in the OP, clearly focal plane and target are not parallel.
Roland.
Ariefb
Established
Exactly that. i personally would settle with the new lens, no need to worry about past usage, new warranty gives a peace of mind, and just shoot with that.
andriirad
Member
From my experience of using Leica lenses, I can say that "just passed QA from the manufacturer" - is not the reason to make a decision to the side of brand new lens. You can buy even 30-50 years old Leica lens, which will "work" 95% same, as in the time, when it came from the factory (probably only focusing ring will move little tighter, then on the new one
). Off course you have to watch - what you are buying, but me personally never got any really bad experience with purchasing of used lens.I'm not making some deep and "fancy" lens tests) Mostly for every each lens I shoot the bricks wall on all of the apertures - just to see the overall sharpness and then shooting with it a lot on the streets, doing the obvious "field test". After some time of using, I'm making a conclusion - how good this lens for me. Thats it
tuanvinh2000
Well-known
if you shoot mostly at f5.6 or f8 i can't see how the summicron asph or whatever other lens can be sharper than the skopar. Got the skopar for a few months to use along with my summicron asph and image qualities wise they are identical on film, the summicon performs better on my digital camera (A7). the only difference i see is the flimsy aperture ring on the skopar and how close the focus ring get to the film camera body compared to the asph. But that's handling difference.
Check out Simon shots with the skopar, he proves that you can create superb images with the skopar. i always feel overspent with the summicron asph but it's nice to use daily.
Btw i have the same experience with my ZM lens (21 biogon) that when focus horizontally it makes noise. $30 trip to my repairman and it's smooth again. dont let it throw you off.
Check out Simon shots with the skopar, he proves that you can create superb images with the skopar. i always feel overspent with the summicron asph but it's nice to use daily.
Btw i have the same experience with my ZM lens (21 biogon) that when focus horizontally it makes noise. $30 trip to my repairman and it's smooth again.
dont let it throw you off.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
You might also consider the UC-Hexanon 35mm f2 in ltm.
Most reviwers match it up to the 35mm f2 Summicron (ASPH).
It's generally $500 less then the Summicron (ASPH) to boot (their is one for sale now in the classified - not mine).
Plus it's smaller then Biogon f2.
Most reviwers match it up to the 35mm f2 Summicron (ASPH).
It's generally $500 less then the Summicron (ASPH) to boot (their is one for sale now in the classified - not mine).
Plus it's smaller then Biogon f2.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
andriirad, I don't think you would be unhappy with any of the 3 lenses that you listed.
FWIW, I believe that the new Summarit-M 35 ASPH is not exactly the same design as the previous generation. The front element of the new design looks different from the older lens -- I owned the previous design so I'm quite sure that Leica has changed / improved the Summarit.
This is the lens I used to own, the Version 1 of the Summarit-M 35mm F2.5:
The Summarit-M was a nice lens, but it didn't have any "wow" factor for me. The color and rendering were nice, but there was some distortion wide-open that I didn't like.
Here is a sample photo, shot wide-open. Leica M7 and Kodak Portra 400. The lens rendered in a very "classical" way, the bokeh was neutral -- neither good nor bad.
FWIW, I believe that the new Summarit-M 35 ASPH is not exactly the same design as the previous generation. The front element of the new design looks different from the older lens -- I owned the previous design so I'm quite sure that Leica has changed / improved the Summarit.
This is the lens I used to own, the Version 1 of the Summarit-M 35mm F2.5:
The Summarit-M was a nice lens, but it didn't have any "wow" factor for me. The color and rendering were nice, but there was some distortion wide-open that I didn't like.
Here is a sample photo, shot wide-open. Leica M7 and Kodak Portra 400. The lens rendered in a very "classical" way, the bokeh was neutral -- neither good nor bad.
ferider
Veteran
andriirad said:
Yet, you make the following statements:
andriirad said:
Do you understand that for corner sharpness evaluation, you need a parallel test target ? BTW, my Skopar is plenty "sharp" (whatever that means) in the corners at f4 on a camera with higher resolution than your M9.
Just buy the Summicron ASPH already
If you like the brand name that's good enough a reason. I cann't help you justify it scientifically, but why would you need to ? Roland.
rscheffler
Well-known
Or wait for the new Voigtlander 35/1.7. Apparently it might ship soon and should be attractively priced. I've seen some film shots done by Tom A with a prototype lens, posted on Flickr, and it looks pretty good, as far as one can tell from grainy film scans.
I think you're going to get a huge range of suggestions and like with your 28mm Hexanon example, you're going to have to try them out for yourself.
The 2.8 Biogon is a nice lens, flare resistant and has nice background rendering in those situations when there is some subject/background separation.
As mentioned by someone else, the Canon 35/2 becomes very sharp across the frame by f/5.6, but it can flare easily and will never have quite the contrast and saturation of a modern lens (though not really a bad thing IMO). 1m minimum focusing distance is a bit of a pain at times.
For my wants and needs, I'm going to decide between the ZM 35/1.4 and the new CV 35/1.7, possibly starting with the latter and can see myself ending up with both.
I think you're going to get a huge range of suggestions and like with your 28mm Hexanon example, you're going to have to try them out for yourself.
The 2.8 Biogon is a nice lens, flare resistant and has nice background rendering in those situations when there is some subject/background separation.
As mentioned by someone else, the Canon 35/2 becomes very sharp across the frame by f/5.6, but it can flare easily and will never have quite the contrast and saturation of a modern lens (though not really a bad thing IMO). 1m minimum focusing distance is a bit of a pain at times.
For my wants and needs, I'm going to decide between the ZM 35/1.4 and the new CV 35/1.7, possibly starting with the latter and can see myself ending up with both.
andriirad
Member
Roland, I got your point. I uploaded all this pictures on Flickr - just to show you what Im talking about, when I'm saying that Skopar 35mm PII is not even close to any of Summicron 35mm, as someone writing here
This is f5.6. All objects are in parallel with a photographer, so all is according to your "requirements") Now check please the sharpness in the center and on the both sides (not even corners!) of the field. Huge different, don't you think? And again: this is f5.6! On f8 everything looks not much better, unfortunately.
L1002222 by Andrii Radevych, on FlickrHere is a great sample of typical Skopar flare:
L1002136 by Andrii Radevych, on FlickrAnd here is "creamy" Skopar bokeh at f2.5 (I dont care about bokeh-shmokeh, but the fact still remain):
L1000342 by Andrii Radevych, on FlickrDont get me wrong guys: Skopar 35mm PII - is GREAT lens and definitely worth the money, what you will spend for its purchase, but...When I'm reading the feedbacks about it, that its sooooo good as Summicron 35mm IV or any other of crons...Well, you must be joking)
andriirad
Member
Or wait for the new Voigtlander 35/1.7. Apparently it might ship soon and should be attractively priced. I've seen some film shots done by Tom A with a prototype lens, posted on Flickr, and it looks pretty good, as far as one can tell from grainy film scans.
I think you're going to get a huge range of suggestions and like with your 28mm Hexanon example, you're going to have to try them out for yourself.
The 2.8 Biogon is a nice lens, flare resistant and has nice background rendering in those situations when there is some subject/background separation.
As mentioned by someone else, the Canon 35/2 becomes very sharp across the frame by f/5.6, but it can flare easily and will never have quite the contrast and saturation of a modern lens (though not really a bad thing IMO). 1m minimum focusing distance is a bit of a pain at times.
For my wants and needs, I'm going to decide between the ZM 35/1.4 and the new CV 35/1.7, possibly starting with the latter and can see myself ending up with both.
You know what? I'm gonna follow your advice, cause that new 35mm 1.7 seems to be really interesting lens! 9 elements in 7 groups, 0.5m minimal focusing distance, 10 blades aperture and the weight like Biogon 35mm 2.0...quite good, I must to say!