ChrisC
Established
Don't all Zeiss C-Biogon 35mm lenses have the grooved flange for easy-[ish] coding? So why not code it and have some vignetting correction applied. Or alternatively; strip out the Summarit's coding and see how it vignettes without correction. Either option would give a fairer playing field from which to consider each lens' comparative vignetting performance. Surely better than an apples/oranges comparison.
Or have I misinterpreted your sentence; and that you coded your C-Biogon, but meant that the disadvantage to the Zeiss was in it not being factory coded?
.............. Chris
Turtle
Veteran
Current production ZMs do have the grooved bayonet. Older ones often don't.
The ZM Biogon 2.8 and the Summarit look to be quite different in their image characteristics. ZM contrast is noticeably higher and handling is very different. I find my Summarit produces images with a gentler look than the ZMs I own. But it does not matter much. I have images printed for exhibition (together) shot on nearly ten different lenses and they all hang fine together.
The ZM Biogon 2.8 and the Summarit look to be quite different in their image characteristics. ZM contrast is noticeably higher and handling is very different. I find my Summarit produces images with a gentler look than the ZMs I own. But it does not matter much. I have images printed for exhibition (together) shot on nearly ten different lenses and they all hang fine together.
leicashot
Well-known
Thats a fair point, but the Biogon-C vignettes 'with' manual coding too. Either way it's not fair unless you strip the coding for the Summarit because whatever coding is selected for the Biogon-C it won't be 100% tailored like the Leica lens' coding is.
leicashot
Well-known
People are always concerned about matching lenses. I think matching quality 'pictures' should be the priority. No one in a gallery is going to be nitpicking this stuff except for RFF members
like us
filmfan
Well-known
Turtle, I would like to see your photos but the link did not work for me. Also, the link to your RFF gallery does not work either...
EDIT: just did a bit of editing of your links and it works for me now
Really amazing stuff there Turtle. Wow.
EDIT: just did a bit of editing of your links and it works for me now
Really amazing stuff there Turtle. Wow.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
The MTF curves for large structures of both lenses are essentially identical, meaning that under optimal conditions the contrast will also be, as with almost all modern lenses of high quality, essentially identical. However, the Biogon-C is claimed by Zeiss to be designed to minimize (veiling) flare, and Erwin Puts confirms that it generally supresses veiling flare a bit more efficiently than the Summarit. This may explain the perceived difference in contrast in the field.
Note that the Biogon-C uses a symmetrical non-telecentric design and protrudes rather far into the camera body, so its nodal point is very close to the film or sensor. This makes it vignette more on a digital sensor, even one with canted microlenses as on the M9, than it does with film. The Summarit does vignette less on both film and digital, though. And the Biogon-C has less field curvature. No lens is perfect, and both of these are great!
Now, enough talk. This was supposed to be a Summarit IMAGE thread, and since I have a Biogon-C and not a Summarit, I can't contribute.
Onward!
Last edited:
People are always concerned about matching lenses. I think matching quality 'pictures' should be the priority. No one in a gallery is going to be nitpicking this stuff except for RFF members
Exactly!!!! I mix B&W and color too. Matching everything is an old school concept.
Zhiliang2929
Newbie
Sharing a pic from the Summarit.
Turtle
Veteran
zhilang, its rare that I would say such a thing, but that images shows the summarit's look rather well. Very smooth bokeh and tones.
Re the discussion above about matching lens fingerprints, I don't worry about it much, but I do have to switch on if juggling between some of my lower and higher contrast lenses because I need to remember to downrate the film by 1/3 stop with my ZMs to ensure good shadow detail.
Re the discussion above about matching lens fingerprints, I don't worry about it much, but I do have to switch on if juggling between some of my lower and higher contrast lenses because I need to remember to downrate the film by 1/3 stop with my ZMs to ensure good shadow detail.
kosta_g
Well-known
I think the summarit looks like a fantastic lens. tiny, sharp yet smooth, and the tonality is quite good considering it is probably designed for the digital m (?)
I have a summaron 2.8 mit goggles which I like enough not to want to upgrade...but yes, both the c-biogon and summarit are great and I can't see why someone wouldn't be happy with one - unless they really needed larger apertures.
I have a summaron 2.8 mit goggles which I like enough not to want to upgrade...but yes, both the c-biogon and summarit are great and I can't see why someone wouldn't be happy with one - unless they really needed larger apertures.
golem
Member
Fujicolor 100
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Took my Summarit 35/2.5 with me camping earlier this week, and I was suitably impressed when I developed my negs. Great little lens.
rogerzilla
Well-known
Mine's not as sharp as my DR Summicron. In fact, it's only about as sharp as my red scale Elmar which was made in the early 1950s although it does hold onto its performance pretty well at f/2.5. I wonder if it needs checking and recollimating? Focus isn't off.
Turtle
Veteran
What do you mean. I don't think tonality has anything to do with whether a lens is designed for digital or not, or anything to do with lenses at all. Surely lenses can impact image contrast, resolution, colour balance etc but not tonality?