JohnFilmore
Member
This is my first post here so hello everyone! I'm looking for the first lens that will go with my recently acquired leica M2. After few days spend on reading about two lenses mentioned in the topic I have a hard time to decide which will suit my needs better.
I love the look of b&w landscape photos of Dave Hill:
http://www.davehillphoto.com/gallery/landscape
I also like the look of that photo for example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/iain225/3138067131/
but I know that the second one looks quite different
I heard that Biogon is more contrasty, sharper and has flat curve that is good for landscapes but I also heard only good things about Summaron too. Summaron is smaller and probably better build. Here in Germany they cost nearly the same used. I would probably like to go with Leitz lens but my worries are that Summaron is too slow, and has not enough contrast for photos like that from Dave Hill website. I'm not limiting myself to landscapes, hovewer this is my priority.
I know it's more about the photograph than his camera and lens but I would really appreciate your advice here.
I love the look of b&w landscape photos of Dave Hill:
http://www.davehillphoto.com/gallery/landscape
I also like the look of that photo for example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/iain225/3138067131/
but I know that the second one looks quite different
I heard that Biogon is more contrasty, sharper and has flat curve that is good for landscapes but I also heard only good things about Summaron too. Summaron is smaller and probably better build. Here in Germany they cost nearly the same used. I would probably like to go with Leitz lens but my worries are that Summaron is too slow, and has not enough contrast for photos like that from Dave Hill website. I'm not limiting myself to landscapes, hovewer this is my priority.
I know it's more about the photograph than his camera and lens but I would really appreciate your advice here.
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Hi John,
These are great photos, but I wouldn't attribute their quality to the lens.
I recommend to pick either lens depending on your needs for speed. Both are very sharp in particular when stopped down. Then look for the right light/exposure/film/development process. To me, what sticks out from Dave's photo is grain more than contrast.
Note that you could also go for the much cheaper 35/2.5 Color Skopar PII, that also has a flat focus field, and is sharp corner 2 corner. It's smaller, too.
Welcome.
Roland.
These are great photos, but I wouldn't attribute their quality to the lens.
I recommend to pick either lens depending on your needs for speed. Both are very sharp in particular when stopped down. Then look for the right light/exposure/film/development process. To me, what sticks out from Dave's photo is grain more than contrast.
Note that you could also go for the much cheaper 35/2.5 Color Skopar PII, that also has a flat focus field, and is sharp corner 2 corner. It's smaller, too.
Welcome.
Roland.
maddoc
... likes film again.
If your preference is landscape you will most probably shoot with a stopped down lens (about f/8.0 or so), where all 35mm lenses have their sweet spot. If you prefer BW and and also develop your own BW films, the Summaron would be my choice. For C-41 or E6 films I would prefer a more Modern lens like the Biogon or Color Skopar.
MCTuomey
Veteran
either lens will give more than adequate flat field performance once you stop down. either lens could give you the look in the pics you posted.
for me, the sharpness, contrast, and color rendition of the zeiss 35/2 are very pleasing, while some think it's a bit harsh, too "modern.". i own one actually. i'd do a bit more searching on flickr, comparing pics taken with each, if i were you, to get a broader feel of how these two lenses render.
for me, the sharpness, contrast, and color rendition of the zeiss 35/2 are very pleasing, while some think it's a bit harsh, too "modern.". i own one actually. i'd do a bit more searching on flickr, comparing pics taken with each, if i were you, to get a broader feel of how these two lenses render.
David_Manning
Well-known
Hi John,
Please don't take the connotation "modern lens" to be a negative. For myself only, I want my Leica images to be top-quality, not antique-looking. That Zeiss Biogon is extremely flare-resistant, has nine elements, very sharp, has crisp contrast, and allows for one-third stop exposure adjustments.
Please take a look at my Leica images on my website... www.davidmanningimages.com and click on Portfolio. They're listed under Leica. All these images were shot with the ZM Biogon 35/f2. I'm very satisfied.
---David.
Please don't take the connotation "modern lens" to be a negative. For myself only, I want my Leica images to be top-quality, not antique-looking. That Zeiss Biogon is extremely flare-resistant, has nine elements, very sharp, has crisp contrast, and allows for one-third stop exposure adjustments.
Please take a look at my Leica images on my website... www.davidmanningimages.com and click on Portfolio. They're listed under Leica. All these images were shot with the ZM Biogon 35/f2. I'm very satisfied.
---David.
jmcd
Well-known
Just to add to what has been said above (I have a 35/2.5 Skopar and a 35/2 ZM Biogon), I love the Biogon. I shoot only b&w, and the Zeiss is by far my favorite lens of all my lenses, because it makes really great looking pictures that I like—something about that lens—somehow a smoothness to the sharpness!
Last edited:
Turtle
Veteran
Personally I would get the biogon for landscapes as it is so incredibly good in the corners. also consider a CV pancake II. It performs extremely well a stop or so down and at landscape apertures will be every bit as sharp as anything else. Tiny too.
JohnFilmore
Member
Thank you all for help and fast answers, I'm amazed how helpful people are here. After your responses I'm leaning toward Biogon. The drawback is it's bigger than the Summaron. Is there big difference between f2 and f2.8? And what about build quality?
David, great photos!
After watching some photos on flickr I have to say that Fuji Acros looks amazing for me.
David, great photos!
After watching some photos on flickr I have to say that Fuji Acros looks amazing for me.
ferider
Veteran
BTW, John, 35mm is often too wide for landscapes. If you look at Dave Hill's example above, I am guessing he used a 50mm lens. Consider the following two examples:
Both shot with a Leica and a relatively modern 50mm stopped down to f8 or so, and contrast/rendering is mostly determined by film and developer.
Best,
Roland.
Both shot with a Leica and a relatively modern 50mm stopped down to f8 or so, and contrast/rendering is mostly determined by film and developer.
Best,
Roland.
Paul T.
Veteran
Roland, is that your area?
The first show looks like the West Country. They're both lovely, of course.
The first show looks like the West Country. They're both lovely, of course.
JohnFilmore
Member
Ferider, the first photo is just fantastic! I've been thinking about 50mm vs 35mm earlier and decided to go with 35mm. I can always make step forward if the frame is too big I suppose. Many people recommended me 35mm as the first lens. I'm big Ansel Adams fan and he didn't like 50mm at all, hovewer I don't know if difference between 35mm and 50mm is the same on large and small format. I'm a little confused now.
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Thanks, both ! The first shot is in the hills close to Stanford/Palo Alto, 2nd down the coast close to Santa Cruz, Paul.
John, Ansel Adams used 80mm and longer (up to 250) on his Hasselblad quite a lot, which is equivalent to 50mm on 35mm format. But, you're right, 35 is a great start. Maybe later you can add a 90 ...
Best,
Roland.
John, Ansel Adams used 80mm and longer (up to 250) on his Hasselblad quite a lot, which is equivalent to 50mm on 35mm format. But, you're right, 35 is a great start. Maybe later you can add a 90 ...
Best,
Roland.
Last edited:
JohnFilmore
Member
I thought about it again and although 50mm is great lens and idea of Summicron DR was tempting, I decided to go with 35mm as my first lens, but thanks, really appreciate your help.
Jaans
Well-known
I owned and sold a Biogon and I was very disappointed with its handling. I purchased the lens new and after a few months it developed the wobbly focus problem. I had that fixed then paint inside the barrel started to flake and then had to get that removed. Just before I sold it I lost the lens cap which topped of the experience. Of the two problems that I mentioned, only one was covered by warranty due to a time parameter. Not to mention the money spent on the other repair and postage and handling for both.
I have observed that many users rate this lens as an excellent performer. Well sure, if you want that brutally sharp characterless look with extreme contrast. However, image reproduction is not the only feature to consider when purchasing new optics. Handling is also the other attribute that has to be considered. I will say that focusing this lens is rather like trying to open an expired jar of pickles. It is not smooth and it feels plastic in its movement. Also, I could never come to grips with the fact that it protruded so far from the body, especially with the hood. My little Rokkor 40mm runs rings around the Biogon - nice and sharp, but with a subtle transition from blacks to whites. This is especially obvious when shot at F2 and 2.8. There seems to be a brutal transition also from focus areas to out of focus areas with this lens.
I have used a friends 2.8 summaron and the experience was wonderful. I have also seen his prints from said lens and I was absolutely blown away by the rendering of highlights. There was something special happening there - I won't go as far as saying glow. But yeah, it glowed beautifully. The highlights from the summaron had something special about them, even more than my Rokkor, I & IV summicron that I had the pleasure of using.
Bottom line - Don't buy the Biogon. You said that you want to use it for landscape - well I think the Summaron will fit the bill wonderfully. I have always promised to get myself one when I get the funds together. I just don't think that the Biogon is good under high contrast lighting as things can get very strong very quickly.
I have observed that many users rate this lens as an excellent performer. Well sure, if you want that brutally sharp characterless look with extreme contrast. However, image reproduction is not the only feature to consider when purchasing new optics. Handling is also the other attribute that has to be considered. I will say that focusing this lens is rather like trying to open an expired jar of pickles. It is not smooth and it feels plastic in its movement. Also, I could never come to grips with the fact that it protruded so far from the body, especially with the hood. My little Rokkor 40mm runs rings around the Biogon - nice and sharp, but with a subtle transition from blacks to whites. This is especially obvious when shot at F2 and 2.8. There seems to be a brutal transition also from focus areas to out of focus areas with this lens.
I have used a friends 2.8 summaron and the experience was wonderful. I have also seen his prints from said lens and I was absolutely blown away by the rendering of highlights. There was something special happening there - I won't go as far as saying glow. But yeah, it glowed beautifully. The highlights from the summaron had something special about them, even more than my Rokkor, I & IV summicron that I had the pleasure of using.
Bottom line - Don't buy the Biogon. You said that you want to use it for landscape - well I think the Summaron will fit the bill wonderfully. I have always promised to get myself one when I get the funds together. I just don't think that the Biogon is good under high contrast lighting as things can get very strong very quickly.
Jaans
Well-known
I owned and sold a Biogon and I was very disappointed with its handling. I purchased the lens new and after a few months it developed the wobbly focus problem. I had that fixed then paint inside the barrel started to flake and then had to get that removed. Just before I sold it I lost the lens cap which topped of the experience. Of the two problems that I mentioned, only one was covered by warranty due to a time parameter. Not to mention the money spent on the other repair and postage and handling for both.
I have observed that many users rate this lens as an excellent performer. Well sure, if you want that brutally sharp characterless look with extreme contrast. However, image reproduction is not the only feature to consider when purchasing new optics. Handling is also the other attribute that has to be considered. I will say that focusing this lens is rather like trying to open an expired jar of pickles. It is not smooth and it feels plastic in its movement. Also, I could never come to grips with the fact that it protruded so far from the body, especially with the hood. My little Rokkor 40mm runs rings around the Biogon - nice and sharp, but with a subtle transition from blacks to whites. This is especially obvious when shot at F2 and 2.8. There seems to be a brutal transition also from focus areas to out of focus areas with this lens.
I have used a friends 2.8 summaron and the experience was wonderful. I have also seen his prints from said lens and I was absolutely blown away by the rendering of highlights. There was something special happening there - I won't go as far as saying glow. But yeah, it glowed beautifully. The highlights from the summaron had something special about them, even more than my Rokkor, I & IV summicron that I had the pleasure of using.
Bottom line - Don't buy the Biogon. You said that you want to use it for landscape - well I think the Summaron will fit the bill wonderfully. I have always promised to get myself one when I get the funds together. I just don't think that the Biogon is good under high contrast lighting as things can get very strong very quickly.
Also, consider that excellent advice of a 50mm. I think the DR or rigid would be a wonderful addition.
I have observed that many users rate this lens as an excellent performer. Well sure, if you want that brutally sharp characterless look with extreme contrast. However, image reproduction is not the only feature to consider when purchasing new optics. Handling is also the other attribute that has to be considered. I will say that focusing this lens is rather like trying to open an expired jar of pickles. It is not smooth and it feels plastic in its movement. Also, I could never come to grips with the fact that it protruded so far from the body, especially with the hood. My little Rokkor 40mm runs rings around the Biogon - nice and sharp, but with a subtle transition from blacks to whites. This is especially obvious when shot at F2 and 2.8. There seems to be a brutal transition also from focus areas to out of focus areas with this lens.
I have used a friends 2.8 summaron and the experience was wonderful. I have also seen his prints from said lens and I was absolutely blown away by the rendering of highlights. There was something special happening there - I won't go as far as saying glow. But yeah, it glowed beautifully. The highlights from the summaron had something special about them, even more than my Rokkor, I & IV summicron that I had the pleasure of using.
Bottom line - Don't buy the Biogon. You said that you want to use it for landscape - well I think the Summaron will fit the bill wonderfully. I have always promised to get myself one when I get the funds together. I just don't think that the Biogon is good under high contrast lighting as things can get very strong very quickly.
Also, consider that excellent advice of a 50mm. I think the DR or rigid would be a wonderful addition.
Turtle
Veteran
One more comment would be about flare resistance. If you generally dont shoot into the sun, the summaron's flare resistance will be fine. If you do, it won't. Even with a hood. The ZM 35 is spectacularly flare reistant. (I own both lenses and the increased flare resistance of the ZM is dramatic)
If you are shooting B&W film, the high contrast of the ZM is easily managed in exposure and development. There is nothing harsh about the rendering at all, it fact is records a wonderful array of tones by virtue of the lens' high flare resistance.
If you can afford a used 35 2.5 Summarit, this is well worth considering as a superb all rounder. Smaller than the ZM, but very good flare resistance and super performance. Its my favourite 35.
I love my summaron too (tiny, beautiful build etc), but IMHO there is nothing special going on in the highlights, just more flare and less separation. It has an older world look which you might like, but for general use I would take something more modern.
If you are shooting B&W film, the high contrast of the ZM is easily managed in exposure and development. There is nothing harsh about the rendering at all, it fact is records a wonderful array of tones by virtue of the lens' high flare resistance.
If you can afford a used 35 2.5 Summarit, this is well worth considering as a superb all rounder. Smaller than the ZM, but very good flare resistance and super performance. Its my favourite 35.
I love my summaron too (tiny, beautiful build etc), but IMHO there is nothing special going on in the highlights, just more flare and less separation. It has an older world look which you might like, but for general use I would take something more modern.
fotomeow
name under my name
I couldnt help but notice the comments on the Biogon build quality above. My 2 cents: Ive had the 28mm Biogon for 4 years: there is now a very slight wobble with the focus ring and is a hair or two off at infinity--> I havent noticed this affect focal performance. The thing that bothered me though is the less-than-hardy black paint job. I had this lens in a camera bag for a night stroll with my M6 and a Cron 50mm without any protection padding b/w them. The M6 and black paint Cron 50mm were unfathomed, but the Biogon paint had readily flaked off revealing a gold colored (brass?) surface underneath. Of course this is cosmetics and doesnt affect IQ, but was a little disappointed nonetheless in terms of paying a grand for it and having the resale value depreciate unnecessarily. But, the 28mm Biogon still retains the reputation it has for its 35mm and 50mm brothers: modern, sharp, contrasty with genrerally nice boke.
JohnFilmore
Member
Thank you for all your answers. I decided to buy Summaron. Build quality is important to me and Summaron is smaller so it's another advantage over Biogon. If I don't like it I will sell it and buy Biogon.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
The Summaron is one of my favorite and sharpest lenses I own. It's not a very contrasty lens, but it makes up for that with amazing resolution if you ask me. The only issue with it, is that it is "flaretastic" and with a decent amount of coma, not a good night lens as point light sources will dovetail or mushroom out towards the edges. For a landscape lens, it would be hard to beat while still using the 35mm format. It's size is great too. It's a lens one can pack along as an extra and it takes up almost no extra space since it is so tiny.
Bingley
Veteran
JohnFilmore -- Thanks for starting this thread, and welcome to RFF. I'm afraid I can't add anything to the Biogon v. Summaron discussion (and it sounds in any event like you've made a sensible decision in going after the Summaron), but I want to thank you for the link to the Dave Hill website. Those are splendid landscapes! I was not familiar w/ his work. But I've book marked his site now.
That said, I do agree w/ Roland's comments about 50 and landscapes.
That said, I do agree w/ Roland's comments about 50 and landscapes.