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.
