Tae Young Lee Posted January 23, 2017 Share #1 Posted January 23, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) It might be a little silly question. I am wondering if anyone has ever compared a Zeiss-opton Biogon 35mm f/2.8 with a Summicron 35mm 8 elements (or Summaron 35mm f/2.8) Except for the price, which lens is better? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 Hi Tae Young Lee, Take a look here Biogon vs Summicron (or Summaron). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
fstop Posted January 23, 2017 Share #2 Posted January 23, 2017 Not necessarily a silly question, but perhaps somewhat meaningless. "Better" for what? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpittal Posted January 23, 2017 Share #3 Posted January 23, 2017 I have those (along with the Biogon 35/2) and find the Biogon 2.8 very sharp and contrasty (the 35/2 almost the same wide open, and certainly similar sharp/contrasty and similar to 35/2.8 after a stop or two down). The Summicron 35/2 8 element is my favorite 35 lens as it has a very nice draw; very sharp in center wide open and softer at edges along with nice glow. At 5.6, very nice and consistent across almost all of the field and sharp: at least 2 lenses in one. My Summaron 35/2.8 (with eyes) was purchased recently for an M3 and is off getting CLAd. My initial film tests with it were very encouraging (but didn't like loss of contrast in viewfinder with the eyes, but necessary for 35 on M3). The Leica Pocketbook 8th edition indicates that it may be better at 2.8 then the summicron at 2.0 (I guess not surprising) and maybe a tad better at 5.6. It is a much less costly lens than the 8 element. Again, quite a range of characters with these lenses; depends on what you want. Again, I like the 8 element for the variety in the one lens and traditional Leica character. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
horosu Posted January 23, 2017 Share #4 Posted January 23, 2017 I had the two Biogons and the Summaron. The C-Biogon is very sharp at all apertures and with high contrast. The Biogon is somewhat softer (but not by much wide open), and just as sharp from 2.8 onwards. Its contrast is lower than the C-Biogon, which draws very beautifully on a digital body. My biggest surprise was the Summaron: a lens from 1965 that is just as sharp as both lenses from wide open, but with a lower contrast, and thus the most pleasing lens to use on my M246. I also used it on the M240 and the colors were superb. I sold both Biogons and kept the Summaron. I think that it is one of the best kept secrets of Leica lenses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 24, 2017 Share #5 Posted January 24, 2017 I think that the original question is about the OLD Biogon 35 2,8 (originally for Contax), which indeed was marked also as Zeiss-Opton: to say, not the present C Biogon Zeiss/Cosina. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tae Young Lee Posted January 24, 2017 Author Share #6 Posted January 24, 2017 I think that the original question is about the OLD Biogon 35 2,8 (originally for Contax), which indeed was marked also as Zeiss-Opton: to say, not the present C Biogon Zeiss/Cosina. That's what I meant. The reputation of two lenses is so great, so I was wondering what would be better (sharpness, contrast, rendering, etc..) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tae Young Lee Posted July 2, 2017 Author Share #7 Posted July 2, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is there anyone who know the differences? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.