35/2 biogon or 35 summarit?

[jlindstrom]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A dilemma. I've currently got a Zeiss 28/2.8 biogon, which whilst being a good lens just doesn't seem to work for me. Though I don't wear glasses, I dislike the framelines and also feel it's a bit too wide. The "whole vf" mentality of it somehow causes sloppy framing.. thus, enter 35. And it's definitely a personal thing, technically I have absolutely no complaints about the biogon.

 

I have the chance of getting brand new 35 biogon or slightly used summarit for the same price. And I'm a bit puzzled which to get.

 

Here are some pointers I've found in the web so far:

 

1) summarit coded, biogon not (naturally)

2) biogon no distortion, summarit some barrel

3) biogon hand coded, not fully corrected

4) summarit more ca, biogon has some coma

5) biogon slightly softer edges

6) biogon better ergonomics - summarit a bit small

7) biogon slightly faster

 

Feel absolutely free to add to the list or shoot down some pointers. Also personal expriences are welcome.

 

I know I can't really go wrong with either. And also it's pretty sure at some point I'll get the slux fle, but it'll take a while.

 

-- Juha

[Fgcm]

[quote name=

 

I know I can't really go wrong with either. And also it's pretty sure at some point I'll get the slux fle' date=' but it'll take a while.

 

-- Juha[/quote]

 

If you shoot also film, you need filters. Choose the lens with the same filter size of your other lenses. If you don't you have to buy new filters.

If you shoot digital, do not bother with filters and go for summarit: smal and coded.

 

Regards

 

Fgcm

[StephenPatterson]

You've been shooting with Zeiss glass, so I would ask the dealer if you could shoot with the Summarit for a day and see if you like the way it renders. There is much more to deciding on a lens than just looking at the specs and MTF charts.

[01af]

I don't have any experience with the Biogon 35 mm ZM lenses ... but on the German-language part of this forum there was a discussion the other day where those who know the Biogons from actually using them said, the Biogon 35 mm 1:2.8 ZM is clearly better, in terms of image quality, than the Biogon 35 mm 1:2 ZM. So both the Biogon 35 mm 1:2.8 ZM and the Summarit-M 35 mm 1:2.5 are to be preferred over the Biogon 35 mm 1:2 ZM.

 

Personally, I have the Summarit and I can highly recommend it. It's very sharp, has nice bokeh, and is extra-ordinarily flare-resistant. It has some barrel distortion which however has a benign shape so it a) is hardly objectionable to the eye, and can be removed easily in post-processing even without any specific lens profiles.

 

Here's an uncropped picture taken with the Summarit-M 35 mm on M9 at f/4 or f/4.8 (EXIF says, f/4.8, but often is wrong) with the distortion not corrected:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jlindstrom]

You've been shooting with Zeiss glass, so I would ask the dealer if you could shoot with the Summarit for a day and see if you like the way it renders. There is much more to deciding on a lens than just looking at the specs and MTF charts.

 

True, been going through Flickr quite a lot lately :-)

 

I'm actually leaning towards the Zeiss due to ergonomics, but the coma part especially bothers me. I've also gone through numerous reviews of both, but again.. they just don't seem to meet the real world. Despite saying so, these "real world reviews" end up with 100% crops of news papers or explanations how certain aspect of the lens come across.. but fex with the biogon they fail to comment on how often does one really see the coma. A bit like M9 + moire discussion. It's there but I can't remember when it has bothered me the last time.

 

So, I guess I'm hoping users of both or either lenses to comment how they've got along with their sample and what good/bad they've noticed in practical use. Besides the coma thing, I'm not really worried about IQ. It's more about the quirks of either one.

 

--Juha

[StephenPatterson]

I owned the Zeiss 35/2.8 Biogon C and never had a problem with coma or CA, but perhaps it's only an issue with the faster f/2 version of the lens.

 

I have never owned the 35 Summarit, so please see 01af's comments above, but if I had the choice of purchasing for the same price as the Zeiss that's the way I would go.

 

Of course you could just buy the 35 Summilux FLE and be set for life...

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Zeiss lenses have a crystal sharp, neutral, or clinical (I don' t use that term in the perjorative at all) rendering and very different colouring compared to the older, 'warm', organic rendering of the traditional Leica lenses such as the Summarit. The difference is very obvious.

 

I like both styles and own both Zeiss and Leica lenses but for most of my photography I personally still generally prefer the more modern rendering of the fast Leica APO and Zeiss lenses. I use the 35 Summarit, 1.5/50 ZM Sonnar (an exception to the Zeiss look) or the 1.0/50 Noctilux when I want that more traditional rendering.

 

Therefore you have already been given the best advice, which is to try the two lenses. You will find the Summarit photographs are very different to those made with the Zeiss.

I think that the look of your final photographs should be the prime determinant of which of these lenses to get...

or order a 1.4/35 Summilux FLE and wait...

[jlindstrom]

Of course you could just buy the 35 Summilux FLE and be set for life...

 

That's the intention, but can't afford it atm. It's at least a year away.. Also this enables me to make sure 35 is the right choice for me.

 

Also I'm currently waiting for 50 slux asph It might end up that I just stick with the 50mm 90% of the time and then not just bother with 35 at all and change it to something totally different.. All I know is that 28 wasn't it and 50 is definitely good. This is about interim solution + trying a new focal. Finding my lenses :-)

 

Currently 50 is my most used lens, but it gets a little narrow shooting inside or cityscapes (at times).

 

--Juha

[MarkP]

That's the intention, but can't afford it atm. It's at least a year away.. Also this enables me to make sure 35 is the right choice for me.

 

Also I'm currently waiting for 50 slux asph It might end up that I just stick with the 50mm 90% of the time and then not just bother with 35 at all and change it to something totally different.. All I know is that 28 wasn't it and 50 is definitely good. This is about interim solution + trying a new focal. Finding my lenses :-)

 

Currently 50 is my most used lens, but it gets a little narrow shooting inside or cityscapes (at times).

 

--Juha

 

A 35 & 50 two-lens combo is quite reasonable even if the 50 is used most of the time (or you could go wider to a 21 or 24 instead of the 35).

 

I think that you may find the 35 Zeiss may be a more compatible look and cheaper partner to the 50 Summilux if you can't get a 35 Summilux FLE at the moment.

[01af]

This is about interim solution + trying a new focal. Finding my lenses :-)

Interim solutions sometimes aren't.

 

I got my Summarit-M 35 mm used from eBay as a temporary stop-gap while waiting for the Summilux-M 35 Asph—I expected to wait, say, six months or so but ended up waiting for 15 (fifteen! ) months. While waiting, I fell in love with the way the Summarit renders and with its outstanding flare resistance. After the Summilux finally arrived, I wasn't able to let the Summarit go so I now have, and use, two 35 mm M lenses ...

 

Regarding the combination with 50 mm—I often switch between 35 mm and 50 mm. I feel they are rather different focal lengths, and would not want to be without any of the two. A 28 mm lens I have not.

[StephenPatterson]

Regarding the combination with 50 mm—I often switch between 35 mm and 50 mm. I feel they are rather different focal lengths, and would not want to be without any of the two. A 28 mm lens I have not.

 

+1

 

I also don't own a 28, and often switch between my 35 and 50. When I want wide I prefer the 21

[richfx]

I owned the Zeiss 35/2.8 Biogon C and never had a problem with coma or CA, but perhaps it's only an issue with the faster f/2 version of the lens.

 

I have never owned the 35 Summarit, so please see 01af's comments above, but if I had the choice of purchasing for the same price as the Zeiss that's the way I would go.

 

Of course you could just buy the 35 Summilux FLE and be set for life...

 

I own the Zeiss Biogon 35mm 2.8 and the Summilux 35mm ASPH FLE. Haven't shot with the Zeiss Biogon 35mm 2.0. The Zeiss 2.8 is an absolutely stellar lens, especially for landscapes and street shooting in decent light. Virtually no CA or distortion. Sean Reid has a great review on it, the Biogon 2.0 and a number of other 35mm lenses, which I would strongly encourage you to read. When the light gets dim or I'm shooting indoors, the Lux shines. When things are bright / well-lit, however, I usually prefer the Biogon 2.8. It is quite small and light and has the 3D pop often mentioned with Zeiss glass that is very appealing to me.

Rich

[microview]

Having owned both from new, I finally rejected the Summarit in favour of the Zeiss 35 2.8. The Zeiss resolution is perceptibly finer. Quite frankly I found the colour rendering indistinguishable (pace earlier post), setting the camera on a tripod at various stop settings and alternating lenses when I had both to hand. The fact is, you needed to check the data to identify which image was from which lens!

 

I did have to sacrifice the Summarit's focus tab for a less user-friendly contoured focus ring. But focus is smooth and less stiff than Leica lenses present. Neither really needs the extra cost for the hood. One thing you'll see on the forum is that Zeiss recommends (M9) manual coding as any of the Leica 28mm lenses and none of the 35s! Again with the M9 it's better to use manual balance setting rather than AWB, eg using the Expodisc (which is hardly any trouble).

[algrove]

I own more 35's than I like to admit including the Zeiss 35/2.0 and it has always been a stellar lens. The 35 I like most- the Leica 1.4 FLE. I also very much like the results from my old 6 bit coded Summicron-M 35/2.0 (V3) with 12524 hood.

[skinnfell]

Although I have never shot with either lens, I have handled them both. I would choose summarit solely because of handling and size - I prefer my M lenses to be as small as possible. That is after all why I like the M system in the small size.

 

Also, the summarit 35 is probably the best "bang for the buck" in the entire Leica lineup right now. (perhaps only matched by Cron 50)

 

If you DO decide to get a FLE later on, I would think a summarit35 would be a lot easier to move than the biogon.

[LeicaPassion]

+1

 

I also don't own a 28, and often switch between my 35 and 50. When I want wide I prefer the 21

+1

[Double Negative]

I've recently more or less "gone Leica" on lenses, but I love my ZMs. Optically, they're just fantastic lenses. Consistent look and feel, nice bokeh, sharpness, colors...

[jlindstrom]

Well, I'm starting to lean more and more towards the Zeiss. Just got off the phone with the dealer and looks like there is more room to negotiate with Zeiss than Leica.. What initially was less than 200€ price difference in sticker price has now turned into 500€ difference.

 

As the Zeiss seems to be very capable performer, I can't really justify the difference for Summarit. And also considering the Zeiss ergonomics are in any case better for me. Generally lenses are the wrong place to go cheap, but here the difference in quality is tiny at most. And also, that 500€ will be a lot towards the ultimate goal which atm is the 35 FLE Summilux.

 

I'll try and go see the lenses tomorrow.. let's see what the result is after that.

 

//Juha

[jlindstrom]

In the end I went for the Zeiss as predicted in the previous post. Did a couple of quick'n'dirty tests around the house and it looks really promising :-)

 

On the same note I ended up changing my 90 as well, in the spur of the moment.. I had the 90/4 rokkor and now have the 90/2.8 elmarit with built-in hood & 6-bit coded..

 

Wasn't really planning for it but in the end resistance was futile.. much thanks to all of you lot telling everybody how good it is. And you and your reviews double neg..

 

--Juha

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Double Negative]

Quite welcome, Juha!

 

Glad you got that sorted out. The 2/35 and 2,8/90 are excellent lenses.