Tried out three 35 Leica/Zeiss lenses today.

[Bosk]

Thanks to my local rangefinder dealer - Camera Exchange in Melbourne - I acquired a 3rd version 35/2 Summicron today, trading in the Voightlander 35/2.5 I was using in the process.

I snapped a roll with it and my 50 Summicron for comparision's sake but haven't yet had it processed, hopefully the results won't dissapoint. 😎


Interestingly, Dave at Camera Exchange (and extremely knowledgable chap of things Rangefinder) had some interesting things to say about the various 35's that they had in stock.
I was very surprised to hear that he actually prefers the new Zeiss 35/2 over the 4th version 35 Summicron. This was intersting given that the Zeiss 35 they had was AU$1200ish while the 4th 35 Summicron was $1600 (mint-ish in box). My 3rd 35 Summicron was a more modest $900, though I was told it's slightly soft wide-open - I may eventually upgrade to one of the other two if that proves to be so.

I was able to handle all three of the lenses mentioned above, and found the experience quite enlightening.

Surprisingly, I prefered the ergonomics of the 3rd Summicron best. It seemed to have the highest build quality (quite hefty for such a tiny lens) and the focusing tab is just about the perfect shape I reckon. The 4th Summicron on the other hand seemed slightly inferior in build (little in it though) and has a much lighter rounded focusing tab which seemed a little inadequate.
The Zeiss was far larger than either of the Leica 35's, but worse yet was the focusing tab, which resembles a large bump on the focusing ring. Focusing the lens, my finger would repeatedly slip off the focusing tab, something that could well cost a shot in any moving subject situation I imagine. It was this more than anything that put me off the Zeiss, but the tab aside I must say that the build was impressive though not quite up to Leica standards.

 

[venchka]

Thank you! Just the kind of information I find very valuable. Too bad there wasn't a C/V 35mm Ultron or Nockton in the mix.

 

[awilder]

It's a matter of taste. Optically, the Zeiss should equal or better the 3rd or 4th v. 'cron wide open and stopped down, it will beat them both by a small margin. However, the differences optically won't be enough to see but under strict lab comparisons except for maybe freedom from flare which is where the Zeiss excells. If tab ergonomics and compactness are equally important, you can't miss with the 3rd v. 'cron. Pricewise, the Leica lenses hold their value better than Zeiss from what I've seen in popular focal lengths. I think this speaks to the better construction of the Leica lenses even though optically they may be one generation behind.

 

[x-ray]

I was very surprised to hear that he actually prefers the new Zeiss 35/2 over the 4th version 35 Summicron. This was intersting given that the Zeiss 35 they had was AU$1200ish while the 4th 35 Summicron was $1600 (mint-ish in box).

I just purchased the 35 Biogon to replace my v4 35 summicron. I have to agree that I like the Biogon on all counts over the v4. I know this sounds strange but I have always disliked the small, too small, size of the v4. With the hood on it's hard to set aperture and very much dislike focusing tabs. I like a focusing ring i can get my fingers on. Second the Biogon has more even illumination at f2 than the v4 and is slightly sharper at f2. Contrast is superb at f2 and things only gets better as it's stopped down. Stop for stop I feel the Biogon has an edge on the v4. Mechanically my first impression is the Zeiss wins again although only time will tell. The Zeiss finish is excellent and the hood is real metal not plastic. Focus on both is like butter so it's an even draw there. It's not like there's a startling difference but it's there. I failed to mention that I've yet to make the Zeiss flare. I've shot into the shadows with direct sun hitting the front element and had absolutely no flare.

After using my v4 summicron for about twelve years I will say it's a very good lens but I feel it's joined that status and price level that that's not justified. I've yet to figure out why some lenses have such a cult following like this lens.

I'm headed out of town tomorrow morning for business and will try to post some images when I return next week.

 

[x-ray]

[QUOTE Pricewise, the Leica lenses hold their value better than Zeiss from what I've seen in popular focal lengths. I think this speaks to the better construction of the Leica lenses even though optically they may be one generation behind.[/QUOTE]

I think it's too early to tell how Zeiss will hold it's value compared to Leitz.

I would have to disagree with the statement about build quality. In nearly 4 decades of shooting M's I never had any issues with my 50's-70's lenses but from that point forward I've had 3 lenses that have mechanical issues, namely focusing helix problems. I believe Leica cut major corners in construction in the 80's and up. I'm certain there will be some that would disagree but I've shot a great deal of film in that time and had roughly thirty lenses. Even my new 90 AA had to go back for binding focus problems. Time will tell about the ZM but my first imoression is they are better built than the leitz.

 

[Crasis]

I just purchased the 35 Biogon to replace my v4 35 summicron. I have to agree that I like the Biogon on all counts over the v4. I know this sounds strange but I have always disliked the small, too small, size of the v4.

After using my v4 summicron for about twelve years I will say it's a very good lens but I feel it's joined that status and price level that that's not justified. I've yet to figure out why some lenses have such a cult following like this lens.

Well that's interesting. It seems like quite a few people on this forum think the 35/2 v4 is too small! Blame it on Leica for designing a lens that's too small 🙂

Anyways, what does it matter to you what the price of the v4 is? You've had it for 12 years! It's taken Zeiss 26 years to equal the v4 cron, but they still have to catch up to the asph 🙂

In all seriousness though, the Zeiss is quite expensive! I thought it would be cheaper 😱

 

[awilder]

When I refer to Leica lenses holding their price, I refering to the price of used verses what that lens cost when new. In many cases, a used 2nd, 3rd or 4th v. 35 'cron will sell for the same if not much more than what it was when new. The exception is a used current generation lens of any type selling for a little less than a brand new one depending on condition. Back in the mid eighties, I bought a fourth version 35/2 'cron for about $300 new in box. If I still had it and sold in nice condition, I could probably sell it for $900 easily. Go figure. It maybe tied into the lens' unique combination of excellent sharpness and bokeh which has made this lens a favorite among it's followers. I do agree though that v. 4's build quality is somewhat lacking compared to earlier lenses or even the current asph. version due to the more liberal use of cement to hold parts together rather than screws and retaining rings.

 

[x-ray]

Anyways, what does it matter to you what the price of the v4 is? You've had it for 12 years! It's taken Zeiss 26 years to equal the v4 cron, but they still have to catch up to the asph 🙂

😱

Like most people I want to get the max out of my equipment when I sell it. Look at what vintage Zeiss lenses in contax mount like the 21 biogon sell for. I think most of the old Contax RF lenses bring high prices if they're in clean condition.

I wouldn't say it's taken Zeiss 26 years to catch up. They've been making lenses for their SLR's for many years and just now adapting them to M mount. I would guess the leica pattens have run out and that's why we're seeing other brands come into the market.

 

[jaapv]

Like most people I want to get the max out of my equipment when I sell it. Look at what vintage Zeiss lenses in contax mount like the 21 biogon sell for. I think most of the old Contax RF lenses bring high prices if they're in clean condition.

I wouldn't say it's taken Zeiss 26 years to catch up. They've been making lenses for their SLR's for many years and just now adapting them to M mount. I would guess the leica pattens have run out and that's why we're seeing other brands come into the market.

Not really, designing a lens is not just a matter of patents, but more of having talented designers. After all the optical laws are the same for every one. It takes the same level of mind as a grand master of chess has to create the basic design of any lens. It will be worked out by underlings and computers afterwards. Anyway, Zeiss has never been far behind Leica in lens design, if at all. Leica has used several Zeiss designs for their own lenses in the past.

 

[back alley]

i think the m mount is not protected anymore, copyright is over?
or something like that.

 

[jaapv]

That is correct Joe, and a number of lens mounts are getting pretty old by now. The Canon one should be near the point of running out as well. And the Leica R mount.

 

[x-ray]

i think the m mount is not protected anymore, copyright is over?
or something like that.

That's what i was referring to, lens mount.

I'ts good for us as consumers to have these choices. Leica has had some great glass and still does but there is no shortage of great lenses made by other makers.

I'm looking forward to seeing the 85 sommar. I shoot close and wide apertures and will likely replace my 90 AA with one if it performs as expected. The internal focus should be very nice.

 

[back alley]

the new 85 might be great but it will not be in the budget for me.