Zeiss Biogon 35/2ZM versus Pre-Asph Summilux 35/1.4

[raid]

I received yesterday in the mail a Biogon 35/2, and I have been using since a few years a pre-asph Summilux 35/1.4. With time and use, I will find out the diferences between these two lenses.

I can "see" the following points without having used the Biogon:
1. Biogon is larger in size than the Lux.
2. Biogon is a newer lens. Maybe it will have better lens coating and lens design.
3. Biogon is by Zeiss while the Lux is by Leica. Whatever this means!
4. The Lux has a larger max opening.

They may have different minimum focus distances?
The Biogon may display less flaring when pointing lens at strongand direct source of light?
The colors may be more brilliant with the Biogon while the Lux may offer pastel rendering, which can be very beautiful?
I will use these two lenses mainly on M9/M8 bodies.


What have your experiences been with these two lenses?
Thanks for your feedback.

 

[Bille]

The Pre Asph lux is poetry.

 

[raid]

Poetry it is!
What is then the Biogon? Mathematics? Perfectly designed but hard to understand?

 

[David_Manning]

The Biogon is sharp and crisp. It was made to maximize IQ on slide film...which is why it has 1/3 stop clicks. It offers great flare resistance and tends to be a bit contrasty (read: modern look). Images made with it have that "Zeiss" glow 😉

It's a wonderful lens, and the price is more reasonable for the wallet.

 

[raid]

Hi David,
Would you say that the Biogon is "similar" to the Planar 45/2 for the G cameras?

 

[David_Manning]

Raid,

I don't have any experience with the G lenses...never shot the Contax RFs. But I suspect the Zeiss Planar 50/2 M-mount is a very similar lens. (I have that one too...fantastic 50mm lens...same characteristics).

 

[raid]

I have the 45/2 and I have seen comments online in which users of the 50/2 said that the two lenses are similar (45/2 and 50/2). I have a 45/2 in G mount and in M mount too.
I used to shoot exclusively with slide film for over 20 years, so having 1/3 increments makes a lot of sense. The 45/2 has a very modern look to its images. This is good to know, so I have then a Lux for different rendition than what I will get with the Biogon.

45/2

A less harsh looking image can be taken in soft light. I may habe been too close to the person for sharp focus.

 

[x-ray]

Hi David,
Would you say that the Biogon is "similar" to the Planar 45/2 for the G cameras?

I have no experience with the 45 Planar but own the 50 Planar M and the Biogon and owned the 35 Summilux pre asph in the 60's and 70's. I used it as a PJ in those days and don't feel that romantic attraction like many do.

First about the Biogon vs Planar. I previously owned a Biogon f2 and Planar and foolishly sold them. I since have purchased new M Leica asph glass and sold it and retuned to the Zeiss Biogon and Planar which I feel are much more natural looking and pleasant. The Asph leica glass IMO is too hard and artificial looking for my taste. Neiw asph leica glass IMO makes images look plastic and unnatural in my opinion.

The Zeiss glass is smooth and clean without looking artificial. It's extremely hard to make it flare and it's ready to deliver top quality at f2. I'm completely comfortable shooting wide open and know I can enlarge my negatives without and issues. Both the Biogon f2 and the Planar M are a perfect match. Both have the same image qualities in terms of smoothness, resolution at any aperture and flare control.

The Zeiss glass has sharpness out to the corners from f2 down without looking artificial and has that beautiful smoothness of more vintage glass. They produce beautiful tonality and are for my taste the right balance of contrast, sharpness, flare control and tonality.

The 35 Summilux is a good lens stopped down but can quickly get out of control wide open. Shooting under flat light at 1.4 isn't a big deal if you can accept the softness (glow). On the other hand if you shoot at 1.4 and have a point source of light in the frame under contrasty conditions you're looking for problems caused by the excessive coma in this lens. Flare can overwhelm the entire image at 1.4 under these conditions. As a PJ I lost several parts of shoots due to the flare / coma issue. In addition to the coma the lens under contrasty night light with a hard harsh light source in or near the frame can cause secondary ghost images. this happened on a number of occasions.

I'll try to scan and post a couple of examples today if I have a chance.

Stopped down as I mentioned the Summilux is a good lens but why spend the money for a 1.4 if you have to shoot it at f2 or 2.8?

 

[raid]

This is very helpful. Thanks. So the Lux following is more about nontechnical aspects and morte about special rendering that differs from the more "super sharp- high contrast" rendering of modern lenses? I can see that both of you love your 50/2 and 35/2 lenses. I may have done the right thing by choosing to buy a Biogon to complement what I have. I were only less attached to my lenses, I should sell a few off next.

This may the story: "The Zeiss glass is smooth and clean without looking artificial."

 

[uhoh7]

My experience with the ZM 35/2

Gets very sharp at f/4. WO is not at the level of the 35/2 asph Leica. However from f/4 it may be superior, as it has no "mid-zone dip". Great all the way to F/11. The price of beautiful even sharpness from center to edge is the deep corners. Less distortion than any other 35. I think.

Here is my basic test shot with the lens on M9 at F/8:

L1020950 by unoh7, on Flickr
You can see the corner softness on the upper right, if you go to the full, above.

Below, around f/4:
Artist by unoh7, on Flickr

The Contax 45...well I don't think they are that close. The Biogon is sometimes critiqued for bokeh, which can be unruly WO, but it's not so edgy as the 45, I don't think.

Here is extreme bokeh example, the lens is WO on a Sony A7.mod, with close focus adapter, so I am well under .7 meters:

DSC01842 by Elle Liv, on Flickr

Compared to pre-A 35 lux? Nothing whatever in common LOL I'd like one of those too please 🙂

In general M9 loves the ZM35 🙂

 

[raid]

Thanks for the comparisons and the information.

Does the use of one camera over the other have any impact on the bokeh, or not really. I mean, would the 45/2 look the same when used with a M9? is it the Planar design that results in a harsh bokeh?

It is good to know that the "M9 loves the ZM35".

I use the 45/2 also as a portrait lens on M 4/3 cameras:

 

[uhoh7]

Well the A7 series makes it creamier than M9, for sure. But general character remains intact 🙂

As you know, that 45/2 is often converted to M, because it is just crazy sharp. But the downside is the sometimes edgy bokeh: this can be managed if some one really knows the lens. The planar 50/2 is a totally different lens.

Here is why I bought the biogon:


Whitebarks near Sunset by unoh7, M9 35/2

It might be the best landscape 35 available for M even today. But that 45/2 would beat it, at least up to F/8. F/11 performance, critical if you like landscape, varies wildly between lenses. Some are great at F/8 and doggy at F/11. ZM 35/2 is very good there, but 28 cron better yet.

Here is the 45/2 I would like:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-Zeiss...d-correctly-/301718069209?hash=item463fcc5fd9

 

[raid]

So you favor ltm over M mount for the 45/2? I have it in M.
I am glad that I bought the Biogon 35/2.

 

[uhoh7]

So you favor ltm over M mount for the 45/2? I have it in M.
I am glad that I bought the Biogon 35/2.

My link is to an M-mount (he calls it LM), this is conversion by Miyazaki, the master. You are very lucky to have the lens in M 🙂

 

[raid]

I got one from Jim Buchanan. He did a couple of lenses only, sold one to me, and then he said he will not do it again. It is too time consuming.