ZI Biogon 35 or Summicron 35 ASPH

anhtu

anhtu

Member
Local time
3:07 AM
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
48
View My Gallery
Hi all, just wondering which one of these lenses would you choose and why? I have a chance to get one of these and wonder what others have to say about these two. Lens will mainly be used for street shooting, with color slides.

Thanks in advance.
anhtu
 
Anhtu,

There are quite a few posts o this pair and would suggest you do a search. I think you will find all the info you need is already here.

Rgds
 
Magus, I'm curious as to why the 1961 35 Summilux was a standout. I would've expect the 1979 'cron to do better than that optic with it's propensity for flare until stopped down a couple of stops. Speaking of the Japanese, I wound up replacing my 35 Summicron ASPH with the 35/2 Konica LTM UC Hexanon. Optically, it's performance was squarely between the v4 'cron and the ASPH 'cron but as small as the v4 'cron. Build quality of the Konica is simply magnificent. I've also read the later rf Canon 35/2 was a great performer about equal to the v4 'cron.
 
Last edited:
Ok this is a quite personal opinion here:

I have used both and for some reason the Leica 35 asph cron is just it for me, everything except the hood is just right for me. I like the clinical coldness of the lens, I like the dark tones and bright sparkling whites this lens produces in bw. I like the colors this lens produces, and the focusing tab is the first one that I will say I actually enjoy. For me this is the lens that I aspire to.

I really really tired hard to like the zeiss biogon but in the end I just dont think the images from it sparkle as much as the summicrons. Its just a different character if you ask me, but for me thats enough to choose one over the other. Sharpness is not a problem in either lens, so there isnt enough in it for the daily user to choose between that.
 
I own both the 35 asph Summicron and the Zeiss Biogon. Also owned the V1 summilux and v1 Summicron and V4 as well. Many of you know my feeling about these lenses but I'll chime in again. I
would'nt throw my money away on the over rated and over priced v1 Summilux. Flare and soft images at wider apertures kill the lens for me. The v1 Summicron is an improvement but still soft at f2 to 2.8. The v4 Summicron is very good but no match for the Zeiss. I also own the asph Summicron and like the lens overall but feel the Zeiss has the edge in a number of ways. The Summicron asph flares more easily particularly if you don't use the hood or have the classic retro round hood. It is much more clinical and harder looking in tonality. The Zeiss is almost impossible to make flare even with light sources in the lens. It has the smooth creamy tonality of the classic lenses with the sharpness of the modern. If anything it's a little sharper at f2 than the asph summicron. The Zeiss is sharp without being harsh. To me the Biogon is the ultimate balance of everything desirable in a lens. If I could own just one 35mm it would without question be the Zeiss.
 
You would not be disappointed with the 35 biogon, that is for sure. It is superb and I am very happy with mine. the 35 asph conr is evidently superb but not a lens I own. It si twice the price and that is likely to feature somewhere. After hearin from Leica fans how the Biogon was supposedly soft wide open, I was surprised to find that it was not. Not at all in fact. I agree with Xray about the tonality and Bokeh. It is very smooth and balanced, which when combnined with a high resolution and good contrast means the lens is, well, great.
 
anhtu said:
Hi all, just wondering which one of these lenses would you choose and why? I have a chance to get one of these and wonder what others have to say about these two. Lens will mainly be used for street shooting, with color slides.
Click to expand...

Faced with the same choice, I opted for the Zeiss. It's less than half as much as the Leica for a lens that's just as good. (Supposedly the Leica is slightly sharper, but since my Leica has never been on a tripod it was irrelevant to me.)
 
Seems like a unwinnable debate between these two lenses 🙂 Replies seemed quite polarised here.
Can't wait to see Raid's results and comments from the 35 shoot-up. Mucho gracias comrades!
 
anhtu said:
Seems like a unwinnable debate between these two lenses 🙂 Replies seemed quite polarised here.
Can't wait to see Raid's results and comments from the 35 shoot-up. Mucho gracias comrades!
Click to expand...

Will be interesting to read.

Thats because very few have used both and those that have are talking about their subjective preferences, which is fine, but they moight not mirror your needs. I think unless you have a particular image character requirement or cost factors you could go for whichever you fancy and will not be going wrong! For me, I think some people get too hung up on supposed characteristics of lenses, esp in mono. I am not talking about the gross differences bettween very flary old lenses and the most modern glass but some of the micro differences between fairly similar lenses that are simply dwarfed by the other image quality considerations. I bet quite a few guff away and then print their images using a glasless carrier on an enlarger that is not properly aligned and then there is the image material! LF is perhaps the best example: I use Schneider, Nikkor, Rodenstock, Kodak, Fuji and thay all do just fine if they are good examples of their kind. Neither a 35 Apsh nor 35 Biogon will stand between you and fantastic images. Neither have any nasty surprises up their sleeves. The differences between these lenses seem pretty well commonly acknowledged and I repeat what I see to be the perceived consensus (although many will disagree). This not my experience as I own only one:

Leica = smaller
Leica = sharper in centre at wide apertures
Zeiss = sharper in corners at wide apertures
Zeiss = bigger (worth considering a plus if you have big hands..many find the handling superb...many will see it as too big)
Zeiss = consensus seems to be slightly more flare resistant
Leica = smaller filters...tab (love or hate)
Leica = double the price.

Take your pick. You wont be sorry ether way. I have boith Zeiss and Leica and the first thing I think of when I see the negs is, "what can I do in the dakroom to make the best of this...should make a good print..." I am happy, but could have been happy with other choices.
 
Last edited:
Haven't used the asph, but my new Biogon was noticeably better than any of the 35s I've used in the past (CV Ultron/Pancake, Canon RF 35/2(v2), and pre-asph Summicron). To me, anyway. Build quality is excellent as well, and it's true that there's no flare in shots that would exist in the prior lenses. Someone else said that after getting the Zeiss it was as though their lens hunt was over. I feel the same. Naturally, I'm now wanting the ZM 28...
 
lic4 said:
Haven't used the asph, but my new Biogon was noticeably better than any of the 35s I've used in the past (CV Ultron/Pancake, Canon RF 35/2(v2), and pre-asph Summicron). To me, anyway. Build quality is excellent as well, and it's true that there's no flare in shots that would exist in the prior lenses. Someone else said that after getting the Zeiss it was as though their lens hunt was over. I feel the same. Naturally, I'm now wanting the ZM 28...
Click to expand...

The 28 is a super lens too. I have not exactly tested mine fully but simply used it. It has not disappointed but performed to the standard set by the 50 planar and 35 biogon I own. The 25 is appealing but the need for a seperate finder (on a 0.72 leica) swayed me away towards the 28 and despite the rave comments on 25 resolution I have not found the 28 lacking, yet. Its also cheaper and smaller.
 
Anhtu,

Thanks for posting this thread. I'm in the exact same situation, considering either the ZM 35 Biogon or the 35 Summicron ASPH for my MP as a replacement for my damaged CV 35 Ultron. I just got the 35/f1.2 Nokton and love it. However, I don't intend this to be my regular 35 and definitely want something smaller for everyday use. I'll be watching this thread with great interest.

Personally I keep flipping back and forth on the lenses due to the issues of size and price. I like the fact that the Summicron is much smaller but geez... its more than twice the price.

A question about the Zeiss. I read that this lens is extremely resistant to flare and it quite usable without the optional hood. I'm the type that puts filters on all the lenses for protection. I use the B+W MRC filters mostly. Does anybody here use the 35 ZM with a filter but no hood? If so, any problems with flaring? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
x-ray said:
....... If anything it's a little sharper at f2 than the asph summicron. The Zeiss is sharp without being harsh. To me the Biogon is the ultimate balance of everything desirable in a lens. If I could own just one 35mm it would without question be the Zeiss.
Click to expand...

so well said; and spoken from reflected on experience that surpasses most of us.
 
Nando said:
Anhtu,

Thanks for posting this thread. I'm in the exact same situation, considering either the ZM 35 Biogon or the 35 Summicron ASPH for my MP as a replacement for my damaged CV 35 Ultron. I just got the 35/f1.2 Nokton and love it. However, I don't intend this to be my regular 35 and definitely want something smaller for everyday use. I'll be watching this thread with great interest.

Personally I keep flipping back and forth on the lenses due to the issues of size and price. I like the fact that the Summicron is much smaller but geez... its more than twice the price.

A question about the Zeiss. I read that this lens is extremely resistant to flare and it quite usable without the optional hood. I'm the type that puts filters on all the lenses for protection. I use the B+W MRC filters mostly. Does anybody here use the 35 ZM with a filter but no hood? If so, any problems with flaring? Thanks.
Click to expand...


The Biogon is certainly usable without the hood. I do use the hood and have a B&W MRC filter on it because I hate the front lens cap and just leave the hood on with no front cap in one of the compartments of my case. I would'nt hesitate to shoot without a hood on the 35, 50 or 25. I don't have the 28 or 21 but guess they're just as flare resistant. I've shot with the sun hitting the front element directly and never had a problem with any flare at all.

On the other hand my asph summicron is the retro design with the old style round hood. I shot some with it and discovered a strong tendancy tword flare with light sources just outside the frame. I purchased the rectangular hood and the problem was solved. No way would I use this lens without the hood.

Like you I also have the 35 1.2 Nokton and find it a superb lens. I only carry it when I know I will need the speed which is becoming more foten. I also have found the Nokton more flare resistant than the asph summicron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
A day out with the SL2-S
Replies
7
Views
652
Archiver
A
Velorum
TLR owner once again! Yashica 'A'
Replies
10
Views
974
Retro-Grouch
Retro-Grouch
J
  • Article Article
Weird & Wonderful Scale Focusing 35mm cameras: 11 cool models of bygone era that are still fun user-collectibles!
Replies
10
Views
766
Muggins
Muggins
S
Need help to check filter size
Replies
5
Views
716
Rayt
Rayt
TenEleven
Lomography x Zenit Mercury-2 Lens 35mm f2
Replies
6
Views
489
TenEleven
TenEleven
Back
Top Bottom