Summaron 2.8 vs. C-Biogon

[Dektol Dan]

Ultimatley Why You Want a 2.8 Summaron

Ultimatley Why You Want a 2.8 Summaron

I love my 2.8 Biogon too, but it comes to subtleties, not micro contrast (whatever that means), the Summaron just can't be replaced:

 

[jim0266]

I have the C-Biogon, 2.8 Summaron and a 35 ASPH Cron. Optically the C-Biogon may be the best 35 optically I've used. I had DAG remove the focus lock and CLA the summaron 15-20 years ago. My Summaron is amazingly sharp, but not as contrasty or flare resistant as the Zeiss.

 

[x-ray]

Looking back at the images here it becomes apparent the biggest difference is not in the lenses but the individual processing technique, exposure of the film, the scanner and scanner profiles and post processing. If they're from wet prints it in the printing more in the film, exposure, processing and printing, scanning and post processing. I think we see what we want to see. I'm going to guess the majority of viewers don't even have a calibrated and profiled monitor. It's near impossible to critically evaluate anything on the internet.

 

[Trius]

Looking back at the images here it becomes apparent the biggest difference is not in the lenses but the individual processing technique, exposure of the film, the scanner and scanner profiles and post processing. If they're from wet prints it in the printing more in the film, exposure, processing and printing, scanning and post processing. I think we see what we want to see. I'm going to guess the majority of viewers don't even have a calibrated and profiled monitor. It's near impossible to critically evaluate anything on the internet.

I agree and suggest that handled with skill, any of them can be used to produce wonderful photos. That said, I would likely choose the Biogon first, then the Summaron. But I would prefer to have both.

 

[maggieo]

I'm inclined to go with a Summaron, eventually...the Zeiss certainly isn't clinical, but I like the lower contrast and vintage look of the Summaron pics...

Maggie, that is a real sweet Jag you got there

Thanks! It's the Johnny Marr Signature.

 

[froyd]

Looking back at the images here it becomes apparent the biggest difference is not in the lenses but the individual processing technique, exposure of the film, the scanner and scanner profiles and post processing. If they're from wet prints it in the printing more in the film, exposure, processing and printing, scanning and post processing. I think we see what we want to see. I'm going to guess the majority of viewers don't even have a calibrated and profiled monitor. It's near impossible to critically evaluate anything on the internet.

I agree about the ability to judge a lenses from small images on a forum, and that processing and developing play a big role in the look of an image. For instance, Helen's snow picture, which is a masterpiece, is not what I would point to as an example of Summaron goodness because of the high contrast of that particular image.

Still, I will attest that the Summaron can produce images with more delicate BW tonality than other lens I've owned, and with a high degree of center sharpness. The difference was not subtle and hard to spot. It was immediately evident from when I developed and scanned my first roll.

 

[alonbenav]

I had the C-Biogon and it's a really terrific lens, however I do agree with the idea that it's a little TOO modern for my tastes.

The problem with the Summaron is that finding a good copy puts you into Summicron (V2 or V3) price range. That's actually how I ended up with a Summicron. At $1000, I can't think of too many reasons to choose the Summaron over the Summicron, but both are fantastic lenses.

 

[Dektol Dan]

More Comparisons

More Comparisons

I like both lenses, for the practical lens buyer the Biogon is it, but the ultimate for the craftsman is the Summaron. An experienced photographer reads the light of his shot like an instruction manual.

A comment was made about image size and here is a larger example of the Summaron in bright light, followed by shots from the Biogon first in bright light then shade. The Biogon is almost out of control in bright light contrast wise. For optimum post processing it is better to add contrast than try to take it away.

Familiarity with both lenses makes both winners.

 

[Daryl J.]

My 3,5/35 Summarons are my favorite film lenses for b&w in the 35mm format. As to why, it is something intangible, something artistic.

One is goggled, the other is LTM+adapter. And both ran $250.00-$300.00 in excellent condition.

I do not like how they deal with color though. For that I have something else.

 

[truefriendship]

I sometimes regret selling my Summaron, because the BW rendering is something that's very noticeable in side by side comparisons with other 35s. I swear that lens has night vision capabilities for its ability to distinguish gradients of gray where other glass just paints pure black.

I'm treating it well, Federico. It's still my favorite lens on the GXR!

~rif

 

[Ronald M]

Summaron is typical of 1960 image quality. Biogons are more modern and snappy.

My Summaron was not sharp at 2.8 and 4. Others have reported better results, other same as mine.

Ability to distinguish greys is because contrast is low.