Zeiss Biogon 35 v Leica Summicron 35

[lamemoria]

Hello,

I need y'all's opinion. I have a Leica 50 Elmarit and am looking to get a good 35mm.
I find that the Leica 50 Elmar creates too many dark areas in black and white , and I have to play with aperture too much to get good contrasts. So I was thinking about a 35mm or 28mm. I am working on a doc projects. Which would you all get, a Zeiss 35mm or the Leica Summicron. I can buy the Zeiss now but would have to save a bit more for the Leica. The question is should I wait and would I really be able to tell a difference. Note: I have a Voigtlander R3a, a Leica M7.

Thanks

JM :dance:

 

[einolu]

I don't think so?

I have heard the Zeiss is fantastic, both in image quality and in build quality.

linkdump:

http://www.photoethnography.com/blog/archives/2005/04/link_carl_zeis.html
http://www.photoethnography.com/blog/archives/2005/06/photos_disabili.html
http://www.photoethnography.com/blog/archives/2005/06/photos_japan_di.html
http://www.photoethnography.com/blog/archives/2004/12/zeissikon_cosin_1.html

 

[Avotius]

personaly I would get the cron because for some reason I just dont like the colors that come out of the zeiss glass, the blues in particuar. In terms of build quailty you cant go wrong either way so its up to you if you want to shell out the extra money for the cron, but I think the cron is also smaller then the zeiss

 

[wyk_penguin]

The general opinion seem to say Zeiss, and for a fraction of the price, why not go for it?
(Sorry Leicaphiles...)