Sell Leica lens for Zeiss?

[Dunn]

I have a Leica M6 with a 50mm version 3 summicron. Lately I've been looking to get a 35mm, but I'm on a budget so I can't afford a Leica. I am currently giving very serious consideration to the Zeiss 35mm Biogon (f2 and 2.8). They seem to be great lenses and much better prices. So, I was thinking if I should just sell my summicron and get a 50mm planar and a 35mm biogon. My reasoning is that it would keep the feel very similar when I switch lenses and also the filter size is the same for Zeiss unlike the summicron being 39mm. I might even have a little money left over if I get a planar for less than what I sell my summicron for.

But I'm not exactly sure how the planar photos will compare to my summicron: contrast, sharpness, etc.

What do you guys think about this?

 

[maclaine]

Well, I went down a similar path. I had a v4 tabbed Summicron as well as a DR Summicron at one point. I sold the v4 Summicron in favor of keeping the DR, but had to get rid of the DR when I got a Zeiss Ikon, since it wouldn't mount properly. I traded it for a Nikkor 50mm f/2 and a 40mm Nokton f/1.4, which I then traded in for the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Planar (phew!). The only lens I regret getting rid off is the DR Summicron, but it was out of necessity. Now I have an M6, which I have no intention of getting rid of, and the Planar lives on it 90% of the time. It's such a brilliant lens, I can't see another 50 replacing it for the amount I use it. I sometimes think about getting another DR Summicron or some other "specialized" 50mm, but then I come to my senses and realize the Planar is about as good as it gets, unless you can afford a the Leica 50mm Summilux ASPH, which I can't.

The Planar will have more contrast than your current Summicron, and might possibly be slightly sharper. I don't think that alone would be a good reason to get rid of what you have, as the build quality of the Leica is possibly a step above the Zeiss. However, if you think you can sell the Leica and afford the two Zeiss lenses, then I say go for it.

 

[ChrisN]

I'd keep the 50 Summicron and complement it with a Voigtlander 35/2.5. If you later decide you don't like the look or the handling (very unlikely IMHO) you can sell it at very little loss, after you've saved up for the 35 Summicron or the Ziess.

 

[efix]

If you like the Zeiss look, then this is the right way to go. Zeiss lenses exhibit quite strong contrast with bold and warm colours. They are also renowned for their "3D pop" - they way their optical formula makes in-focus subjects stand out from the background. They are truly unique in this respect.

The Zeiss signature isn't everyone's cup of tea, though. Maybe you can try one in a camera store and see if you like the results?

 

[rpilottx]

Keep the Summicron and pick up a Cosina 35f2.5. It is very sharp and has excellent contrast. And so small it fits in a pocket. They are one of the great values for the money and can be found used for $250. And you will have two focal lengths.

In almost 45 years in photography, I have tried many different systems. They were all great and honestly no one sells bad lenses anymore (can't stay in business with the internet). Even though my two main cameras for Leica M's, more and more I find the fanatic photographers who say Leica makes the ultimate this or that more and more hilarious.

Again, the Cosina offerings for the money can't be beat. And it is not the camera or the lens but the person behind it who makes the photo. Most of the great historical photos were probably made with lenses other then Leitz or perhaps with Leica glass we would look down on today. And I know the two most reproduced photos in history (flag raising at Iwo Jima and earthrise from Apollo8) were not made with Leicas.

Again, I really enjoy Leica M's and Leica optics but I don't hesitate to use other brands (does Leica make a 35f1.2, don't think so). The quality of other brands for most photographers is totally adequate and much more affordable. The lenses may not last 100 years like some Leitz glass but then I won't last 100 years either.

 

[ferider]

I'd keep the 50 Summicron and complement it with a Voigtlander 35/2.5.

+1. They fit perfectly together, same filter size, rendering & resolution, etc.

 

[jsrockit]

Either solution will work. One Leica lens and a CV 35mm is great as is the combo of two Zeiss lenses... you cannot go wrong either way.

 

[bastian a.]

Keep the Summicron!
As a second lens you can buy a Voigtländer/Cosina 35/3.5 or 35/1.7 or wait until you get a cheap Summicron 35 (IV).

 

[bwcolor]

I love the Zeiss look, but I will be selling my 35mm f/2.0 in that I don't need the speed and I already have the 2.8. I generally shoot most of my low light with one of my 50s. If you like the look, then you make the switch. It is really that simple. I've got six Zeiss lenses and even though they represent a minority of my lenses, they see the majority of use.

 

[jsrockit]

I love the Zeiss look, but I will be selling my 35mm f/2.0 in that I don't need the speed and I already have the 2.8.

How'd you like the Biogon 2.0 compared to the C-Biogon 2.8? What are the major differences outside of the larger size and speed of the 2.0?

(I've owned the 2.8 and was always curious about the 2.0)

 

[bwcolor]

I had previously posted photos comparing flare. Once stopped down the two lenses are both very good. The f/2.0 is a bit soft wide open compared to the f/2.8 open, but both lenses track well once stopped down. I will keep the smaller lens because I don't need the speed and I like the size. I'm completely in love with Zeiss lenses in general. I just purchased three Zeiss lenses and some Contax bodies to shoot Velvia and Zeiss. If you are a saturation/contrast freak then this is a combination made in heaven. The top image is the Zeiss 100-300mm zoom and the lower 35mm f/2.8.

 

[maddoc]

Keep what you have and get a 40mm M-Rokkor. Close enough to 35mm focal length and the best lens value for the money in that focal range. 🙂

 

[Tim Gray]

I augmented my 50 Summicron (last version) with the ZM 35/2 a couple years ago. As standalone lenses, I liked the ZM more than the 50 in pretty much all respects. Now, the last version 50 Summicron might be higher contrast than yours, so take this with a grain of salt. I found images from both lenses to be sharp with roughly similar amounts of contrast, etc. The ZM flared much less and has zero distortion. It's very even across the frame too. Some people will point out that it loses a bit of contrast and sharpness wide open compared to f/2.8, but in normal film photography, I didn't find this to noticeable (unlike a lens like the 75 Summilux, which is noticeably different at f/1.4 than it is at f/2). Maybe it is if you pixel peep.

I ended up selling both about a year later because I realized a) I wanted a 50/1.4 and b) 28 worked better for me with 50 than 35 did. But that has no real bearing on my opinion of the ZM 35/2 as a lens - it's very nice.

If you were starting fresh, I'd recommend the 50 Planar over a Summicron. Since you've already got the Summicron, I don't know if it makes sense to get rid of it to get the Planar. Unless of course you can flip it and get two ZM lenses. The advice to keep the Summicron and get the CV 35/2.5 is good too.

 

[Rogier]

I owned / rented Leica lenses.
Just sold them in favor for Zeiss.

My reason for choosing for Zeiss is that I liked the results better from the Zeiss lenses.

 

[Dunn]

Thanks for all the responses.

I guess I will hold on to the summicron for now. Now I just have to decide if the 35 ZM f2 is worth the extra stop and having two filter sizes compared to the CV f2.5 since I do a lot of low light work. Hmmm.

 

[ferider]

It's not even a full stop ... remember that when you go from 50 to 35 you gain at least half stop in "hand-holdability" due to wider FOV. Plus the color skopar is tiny.

 

[Dunn]

Yeah, that is a good point. I do love how tiny it is. I'm all about not having bulky equipment. I'll give it a little more thinking, but the CV is looking pretty good, especially the price tag.

 

[silverbullet]

The disadvantage (for me) from the CV pancake 35mm was the short barrel which had the two rings for focus and aperture very close together. Sometimes in a fast reaction I turned both or the wrong etc......

Another point which is interesting is the front cap. When the nice sunshade is mounted, the cap can be clicked in front of the lens, BUT when you want to remove it, the small push-levers have a wrong moulded angle so the spring compression of the snaps might kick off the cap......small points but in a hurry it's so so.
Beside this the lens is cheap (sh) and capable and together with a M or ZM it's the tiny package for a wider pocket.
I sold mine to get a 35 Cron version IV for € 500 when the M9 hassle didn't start with the short supply for new Leica lenses......The value of the Cron has nearly tripled.......

Here a shot with the VC

http://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/3029438982/

at the left side of the box there might be a small distortion....?

 

[x-ray]

Over the past few years I've built up three lens systems and over the past few decades owned and used many of Leicas lenses. I recently decided to sell off the excess and keep one set of my favorite lenses. The lenses were a 35 PII CV, 50mm 1.5 Nokton, 35mm ASPH Summicron, 50mm asph Summilux, 50mm Planar and 35mm Biogon. First off I'll say all were outstanding lenses.

First I will say the little 35mm CV PII is a fantastic lens in every respect. Speed was it's only negative and the reason I sold it.

Second was the 35 Asph Summicron retro version. It too is an excellent lens but had three qualities I didn't like. I flared quite badly with the round hood it came with and was tamed somewhat with a rectangular hood. Plare performance was only OK, not great. The rendering I felt was harsh. It looked a lot like a digital image that the sharpness was too high on. It was extremely sharp but artificial looking to me. Third I don't care for Leicas focusing tabs.

Third was the 35 Biogon and the one I kept. The rendering was very smooth and natural but quite sharp. I love a natural looking image with good sharpness and smooth tonality and this lens has it. Second the flare resistance is excellent and second to none. Third I like the size and the ability to focus with a real focusing ring and a slight bump for a focusing tab. This is the lens I kept and truly love the performance.

Now to the 50mm lenses. Again all were superb and a tough decision on what to sell. First is the 50 Nokton CV which was the second one I owned. I was extremely impressed with both sample I owned. I felt it performed 98% as good as my 50 asph Summilux wide open. Under high magnification it was extremely hard to tell the two lenses apart and stopped down a stop they were virtually the same. Despite the great performance I sold this lens.

Second was the 50 Asph summilux which was hard to part with. The big advantage was the size and speed over the Nokton and Planar. Wide open it was a knock out but only slightly better than the Nokton. The negatives were the focusing tab and skinny focusing ring and the feeling of the cam change over when focusing. I must admit I never like the feel of the focusing of this lens. Leica did a nice job of balancing sharpness with tonality in this lens but I sold it in the end.

Last is the Planar and my favorite lens in the 50 range. For some reason I always seemed to grab the Summilux over the Planar but when looking at negs and prints from the Planar I would ask myself why I didn't use the planar all the time. The tonality, sharpness and flare resistance were in perfect balance for my likes. It's very hard to make this lens flare even with light striking the front element. Tonality is as smooth as warm butter and the sharpness is superb even wide open. Again I like the focusing ring, size and little hump of a focusing tab. When I purchased this lens I had a 50mm summicron late version. After shooting the two side by side I sold the Summicron. The summicron was nice but flared much easier.

Some complain about the QC and build of the Zeiss lenses but I've had no problems with the Zeiss which includes a 25 Biogon but have had some major problems with construction with some of the more recent Leica lenses.

 

[Dunn]

Thanks for the in-depth response, x-ray.

You only made my decision tougher though. I was pretty much set on getting a CV 35 PII, but you made me second guess myself. I like the flare resistance you mentioned with the Zeiss lenses because sometimes I just like using a lens without a hood. I think it keeps everything less noticeable and more simple.

Also, I like the 35mm biogon being f/2. But I like the small size and price of the PII.

I don't really like bothering with selling things either, but if I went with the biogon it would make sense to get the planar to compliment it.

Ugh. Decisions.