pdemme Posted February 22, 2011 Share #1 Posted February 22, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I plan to purchase the M9+35mm glass soon (currently own M8 and two original 24mm and 50mm Leica lenses). I'm considering the latest Summicron 35mm f/2 or Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2. The price difference is 1000 euro between these two. Is it really justified? According to diglloyd the Biogon is at least not worse lens compare to cron diglloyd - Lenses for Leica M8, Leica M9, M* - Zeiss ZM 35mm f/2 Biogon T* The biogon's distortion is even better, but he also mentions that there are some abberations seen with biogon at wider apertures. Please share you experience with me if you tried both lenses on M9/M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Hi pdemme, Take a look here 35mm f/2 lens: summicron vs zeiss biogon. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
horosu Posted February 22, 2011 Share #2 Posted February 22, 2011 I had both (several times). I even compared them with some side-by-side shots. The following was true for my copies of the lenses: the Biogon is higher resolution, lower in contrast, lower distortion and much more resistant to flare than Leica's lens. The Summicron is smaller. Furthermore, the Summicron exhibits focus shift, which, although smaller than the one from its bigger sibling, the Summilux, was nevertheless more apparent than Biogon's. I don't wish to post crappy side-by-side shots of wine bottles over here, but that was my result on my M9. I had the great luck to be able to pick up a Summilux 35/1.4 ASPHERICAL for a nice price ("nice" price for this lens meaning it was approximately the same as the actual 35/1.4 FLE) and I must tell you, this lens simply rocks! The newer design (the FLE) (of which I had one and sold, and tested another one) doesn't reach the resolution of the ASPHERICAL. And, just to add another heretical statement, the ASPHERICAL doesn't exhibit focus shift. Anyway, to return to the original question, such is my satisfaction with the Biogon that I kept it even after buying the ASPHERICAL. Hope this was of some help to you. Regards, Horea Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted February 22, 2011 Share #3 Posted February 22, 2011 Brick wall shots might show some differences... The ZM is big physically you may like that. All my ZM lenses have slack in the focus ring, this annoys some people intensly, note my CV lenses dont have this. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldhrads Posted February 22, 2011 Share #4 Posted February 22, 2011 35 cron was stuck to my m8 Not so much on the m9 but I never had issues with the 35 cron, it was always spot on. I've the Zeiss 25 and 28/2.8 and they are great lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
freusen Posted February 22, 2011 Share #5 Posted February 22, 2011 ............35mm f/2 lens: summicron vs zeiss biogon, the price difference is 1000 euro between these two............ If you use the search function of the forum, you will find the information you want. Finally it's only you who can answer the question: 'is it worth the money'. Please, don't ask the same question over and over again. ------------ FrankR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 22, 2011 Share #6 Posted February 22, 2011 The question is incomplete, used Leica lenses should be considered as well. Digiloyd does not seem to me to be the most reliable source for Leica lens comparisons btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted February 22, 2011 Share #7 Posted February 22, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) See also Erwin Puts' comparisons of Biogon and Summicron. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidrc Posted February 22, 2011 Share #8 Posted February 22, 2011 I plan to purchase the M9+35mm glass soon (currently own M8 and two original 24mm and 50mm Leica lenses). I'm considering the latest Summicron 35mm f/2 or Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2. The price difference is 1000 euro between these two. Is it really justified? According to diglloyd the Biogon is at least not worse lens compare to cron diglloyd - Lenses for Leica M8, Leica M9, M* - Zeiss ZM 35mm f/2 Biogon T* The biogon's distortion is even better, but he also mentions that there are some abberations seen with biogon at wider apertures. Please share you experience with me if you tried both lenses on M9/M8. Try Steve Huff website, he has made similar comparisons...for what it's worth , I don't think there is too much between them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted February 22, 2011 Share #9 Posted February 22, 2011 You all probably know already, but aberations go away on stopping down. Distortion does not. Further the shot is made to exaggerate aberations , Generally, at f 2.0 the subject is in the central area and the corners are dark and out of focus. I just don`t like CV making Zeiss lenses. But then Leica is not the same quality as it used to be either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted February 22, 2011 Share #10 Posted February 22, 2011 Hi I believe Cosina make eq for Ja def forces, do you think Leica can compete? When they make cameras e.g. for Nikon, it is cause they can make them cheaper for the same build standard, and Nikons QA requirements. Zeiss still make some of the ZM lenses in Germany. Why do you think Zeiss get Cosina to make the lenes, other that Zeiss make more profit thereby, (sic - for the same lens). They have better management and better robots and better girls, but they also have free access to the Ja patents, even when the lens is for Zeiss... Do you think it shows in the photos, or is it only the Ge on the lens nameplate? Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted February 23, 2011 Share #11 Posted February 23, 2011 After experience with more than one example of Summicron v4 and current ASPH, I tried the smaller Zeiss 35ZM f2.8. The more I use it, the more I am satisfied – it's a 'keeper' and the reduced widest aperture is of no concern to me. Colours are good, no distortion and pleasing ergonomics. Five stars! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 23, 2011 Share #12 Posted February 23, 2011 You all probably know already, but aberations go away on stopping down. Distortion does not. Correct, and important. Further the shot is made to exaggerate aberations , Generally, at f 2.0 the subject is in the central area and the corners are dark and out of focus. The Biogon has an advantage in that sharpness/fidelity remains excellent from center to near edge from about F2 to F8, then diffraction takes away. Incidentally, the Biogon is unique in that coverage at the film plane does not increase as the lens is stopped down, while most other lenses do. I just don`t like CV making Zeiss lenses. But then Leica is not the same quality as it used to be either. Sounds like a personal problem, not a technical one. How do you account for Leica making worse lenses than earlier. (I will admit I abhor the OOF of ASPH lenses for 35mm.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.