The Ultimate Shootout

[Jaans]

I wanted to hear what others think about the differences between the three big players in the category of f2 35mm lens.

I limited this discussion to three for the sake of clarity.

Okay, what would you describe as the differences between the:

ASPH Summicron vs Biogon ZM 35mm vs Hexanon 35mm

I found the Summicron a delight to use but overpriced for my budget. The contrast it produced was overly strong, but the handling was great. Their has been chatter about problems with reliability.

The Biogon was the better value of the two with performance equal and above its Leica rival. Not bad for a lens that costs less than half the price when purchased new. It also isn't weighed down by the title (in parts to equal to a royal title) of ASPH. Definetely an overachiever for the price.

Now, to the Hexanon. I'm sure other members have experience and some comments about this as well. I never owned one but did shoot with a friends for a day. I felt that it was a good lens, but would rather go for the Leica or the ZM Biogon. It didn't excel as well as the other two either. There was little character compared to the other two, well in my eyes anyway.

Comments anyone?

 

[mfogiel]

I have used many 35mm lenses, so I would like to point to the fact that sharpness and build quality are not everything. It makes a lot of difference if you shoot B&W or colour, and also if you shoot a lot from close distances or not. You should try a lens yourself before deciding what works for you. In absence of such personal experience, my tip is to buy the lens which is available to you at a reasonable price, and start taking photographs. Any of these 3 lenses will deliver fantastic quality, more than the quality available to HCB, Capa or Kertesz.

 

[flip]

I understand the the m-hex flares somewhat. Too bad this doesn't include the UC or L hex's.

 

[ChrisN]

I recommend a little background reading.

 

[Jaans]

I understand the the m-hex flares somewhat. Too bad this doesn't include the UC or L hex's.

Good point. I was entertaining the notion of including the UC Hexanon before I posted the poll, however I decided that I wanted to leave it simple and include only M-mount lens.

However, I have noted after reading other contributors polls/posts that when you include more than three choices in the poll, then the responses can stray away in an unintentional way.

Also, those three that I mentioned do tend to be talked about the most when we discuss f2 35mm modern m-mount lens.

I still think that the Biogon is the pick of the bunch, but in no way my favourite lens overall as I do like the 35mm Summaron 2.8. Oops, I think I strayed from my original idea!!

 

[Krosya]

I have M-Hexanon 35/2. Used to have UC-hex as well. Never tried the other two lenses, so cant compare to them. Did have CV 35/2.5 (all 3 versions), CV Ultron 35/1.7 and still have CV 35/1.2. Based on my experience, other reviews and pics I have seen - m-hexanon 35 draws very similar to Leica 35/1.4 asph at the same f-stops. I think it's sharp with very smooth bokeh - consitant with other M-hexanon lenses. I dont use it as much as CV 35/1.2 though. Here is a pic from mine (posted this before in other threads0:

 

[Sparrow]

I think at f8 they all look more or less the same ... and when did photography become a competitive thing anyway?

 

[RichardB]

I didn't vote but will make two comments.

You have left the realm of photography and entered the realm of the enthusiast where the technical aspects whether perceived or real have substituted for photography.

Second comment. Based on reading your Post and the subjective information you acquired, there is no basis for any objective comparison.-Dick

 

[Jaans]

I didn't vote but will make two comments.

You have left the realm of photography and entered the realm of the enthusiast where the technical aspects whether perceived or real have substituted for photography.

Second comment. Based on reading your Post and the subjective information you acquired, there is no basis for any objective comparison.-Dick

Your right - objectivity particularly with lenses is difficult to ascertain as they all draw differently or have a diverse character. I should worded my original post: what is your favorite lens of the three and why.

But having said that, I don't think that it takes much common sense to understand the essence of my original post. Basically, if you have used any or all of them, how do you think they compare, what is your favorite and why. Without being pedantic I was just trying to initiate discussion on those particular lens.

I hope now that this is now easier to understand...

 

[Jaans]

I have M-Hexanon 35/2. Used to have UC-hex as well. Never tried the other two lenses, so cant compare to them. Did have CV 35/2.5 (all 3 versions), CV Ultron 35/1.7 and still have CV 35/1.2. Based on my experience, other reviews and pics I have seen - m-hexanon 35 draws very similar to Leica 35/1.4 asph at the same f-stops. I think it's sharp with very smooth bokeh - consitant with other M-hexanon lenses. I dont use it as much as CV 35/1.2 though. Here is a pic from mine (posted this before in other threads0:

I really enjoy this photograph and how the out of focus areas are rendered. Considering that the Hex is cheaper than the ASPH, it certainly represents great value to its Leica rival. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Sparrow]

Your right - objectivity particularly with lenses is difficult to ascertain as they all draw differently or have a diverse character. I should worded my original post: what is your favorite lens of the three and why.

But having said that, I don't think that it takes much common sense to understand the essence of my original post. Basically, if you have used any or all of them, how do you think they compare, what is your favorite and why. Without being pedantic I was just trying to initiate discussion on those particular lens.

I hope now that this is now easier to understand...

What if one has none of those? yet still has a favourite 35mm lens, is that lens necessarily inferior by your definition?

 

[thomasw_]

What if one has none of those? yet still has a favourite 35mm lens, is that lens necessarily inferior by your definition?

No, as he wrote wanting to know our favourite "of the three" lenses listed, not about others. This does not mean the listed ones are necessarily inferior or superior to another 35 lens.

I have owned all 3. The cv is a specialty lens, it is too big for me to lug around. The zm is big for a f2 -- the same size as the lux asph w/o their respective hoods -- and it added a gloss to my images that i did not like. The summicron asph is a killer high contrast lens...but it comes with a higher price. I think it is worth it, though you'd have to reason that out for yourself

 

[wintoid]

I've owned all 3 as well, and the summicron was my choice of these three. I'd choose the cv 1.2 if size was no problem, and I'd choose the UC hexanon if it focused closer.

In the end, I now have the summicron iv and am very happy with it.

 

[Jaans]

wintoid: Thanks for contributing. I was torn between the Biogon ZM and the ASHP myself, but just couldn't justify spending the extra money keeping the ASPH as you get stellar performance for a lot less.

JSU: I think in terms of an allround performer. Cost, wieght, handling, character and performance would all have to come into play. For me the Biogon just beats the ASPH when factoring in all of these.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

I own a 35 Summicron-M Asph and carefully compared it to a 35 Biogon, which I owned and sold. Wide open, the Summicron Asph outperforms the Biogon—the Summicron Asph showed a significantly better ability to render points of light as points of light (less chromatic aberration?) and delivered higher acutance.

Wide open or close to wide open is where the 35 Summicron Asph distinguishes itself from the 35 Biogon. If you shoot only at f/8, don't spend the extra money on the Summicron Asph.

 

[Jaans]

I own a 35 Summicron-M Asph and carefully compared it to a 35 Biogon, which I owned and sold. Wide open, the Summicron Asph outperforms the Biogon—the Summicron Asph showed a significantly better ability to render points of light as points of light (less chromatic aberration?) and delivered higher acutance.

Wide open or close to wide open is where the 35 Summicron Asph distinguishes itself from the 35 Biogon. If you shoot only at f/8, don't spend the extra money on the Summicron Asph.

I think your last sentence really does summarise the difference between the two perfectly. I found the ASPH's contrast a little too strong, but its rendering was better. Cheers.

 

[gavinlg]

I'd buy the leica if I was looking for the ultimate 35mm

 

[johannielscom]

I own the L-Hexanon 35/2.0. It's a Nikkor 35/1.8 clone, but 30 years younger.

This is the exact same lens that is on the Hexar AF cameras, but in screw mount for Leica LTM.

Black Leica M3 with Hexanon 35mmf20 by buzzardkid, on Flickr

070609-E100G-27 by buzzardkid, on Flickr

Underexposed shot on Kodak E100G and shown before on this forum, sorry 'bout that...

 

[robklurfield]

what?!? no canon 35/2???

 

[ampguy]

same?

same?

I thought it was the UC Hexanon that was similar or the same the the HAF lens?

In any case, they'll never be 100% the same, the HAF lens has AF and a leaf shutter in it, and can dial out focus shift with programming and the AF. Coatings might be different as well.

I think the non UC Hexanon 35/2s might be like summicrons.

I own the L-Hexanon 35/2.0. It's a Nikkor 35/1.8 clone, but 30 years younger.

This is the exact same lens that is on the Hexar AF cameras, but in screw mount for Leica LTM.


Underexposed shot on Kodak E100G and shown before on this forum, sorry 'bout that...