Cron 35 asph vs Biogon 35/2

[B-A-C]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

 

For my M6 I have always wanted a real Leica lens. I have been shooting with the ZM 35/2, and considering the 'cron.

 

After comparing I can't see much of a reason to get the 'cron. Would those who have tried both give me an advantage of the 'cron over the ZM?

 

- Distortion - advantage ZM

- Resolution - advantage ZM

- Flare resistance - advantage ZM

- Bokeh - advantage ZM - spherical + 10 blades vs 8 (I'm a newbie but is there an advantage having 8 blades vs 10?)

- Size - advantage 'cron - it's smaller but also heavier

- Elements - 9/6 vs 7/5 - advantage ZM

- Price - $1k vs $3k - advantage ZM

- Build Quality - ?; my ZM is really good, have also heard good things about the cron

- Aperture - 2/22 vs 2/16 and Zeiss has 1/3 stops

 

My lust for a Leica lens may not be logical. For those who have used both - what advantages does the 35mm asph cron have over my ZM? Should I just keep my lens?

 

Best Regards,

 

BC

[Guest Marc G.]

you're basically doing a spec sheet comparison when looking at your judgement.

 

bokeh does sometimes depend on the number of aperture blades and whether there's an aspheric element. but these are factors that only contribute to the final bokeh. you have to look at an image and judge the bokeh according to what you see, not whats written on a spec sheet..

 

lens element wise the summicron is at an advantage. less elements means less glass-air-transitions which still today gives a little edge (one has to look at the final construction to give judgement though)

 

whether or not you need half or 1/3rd stops is also questionable and depends on the user. different not better/worse. usually at f/16 and f/22 the resolution drops are quite significant. if the aperture is not usable, why put it there in the first place? diffraction can rarely be beaten

 

resolution would also need a serious proof. I don't think the biogon is better wide open and slightly stopped down. but I'll let the 35mm guys take over this point

 

build quality-wise the summicron is definitely the better lens

 

these kind of logical explanations tend to be rather useless. if you want it you will get it. simple as that. and the way you write tells me that you want it. this is just the approach to justify a deal you already did. you just dont know yet

[TomB_tx]

I've always loved the small size of the Summicron v2 I bought in 1969, and it has served me well through the film years. With the M9 I tried the CV 35 f1.4, and was amazed to find it better at f2 than my trusty Summicron. So I next got the Zeiss 35 f2, which has been great (after a focus calibration), but it sure seems big compared to the 35s I was used to.

Some months back I stumbled onto a used 35 Summarit, which has the tiny size I love, and images at least as good as the Zeiss. (With lenses as good as either I see no need to rate one better - both are as good as I'll ever need.) So don't overlook the Summarit - it is a gem.

[B-A-C]

Thanks to Marc and Tom. I was looking for a reason to buy the cron and sell the Zeiss. In the end I don't see a reason to do so. Best of luck and enjoy the pictures!

[tobey bilek]

Leica lenses come coded ready to use.

[otto.f]

you're basically doing a spec sheet comparison when looking at your

 

+1

Besides, I really do not see the idea behind f16 or f22 on a 35mm.

Btw, I have never become an avid admirer of the cron 35 asph. After several trials, I find it quite identity-less and it could be that the Zeiss shows more soul. But I just can't get over Zeiss's idea of hoods. It's just unbelievable how Zeiss conceives lenses for compact rangefinders

[pieterpronk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Personally I prefer the Zeiss Biogon over the Summicron on practically all fronts except size and build quality (though my Biogon seems a better build and smoother focus than any of my Leica lenses).

[B-A-C]

With the 35 cron asph being one of Leica's oldest lenses in the current lineup - when does it get upgraded? Anyone see a new version on the horizon?

[gjames9142]

Sean Reid tested a bunch of 35's and, if I recall correctly, found the 35 Biogon C 2.8 to be the best technical performer of the bunch. It's very very sharp and good at infinity, but on the M9 has a nasty habit of producing artifacts because of its ridiculous resolution. Truth is, all these lenses are better than most of the photographers using them, and it mainly comes down to one's subjective taste in how a lens "draws" and its inherent micro-contrast. As we have seen with the Apo 50, the upgrade usually results in a very expensive piece of equipment and, in this instance , a mysterious veiling flare in some situations. Go figure.

[Einst_Stein]

I have ZM 25mm.2.8 and 35mm.2. I like them all very much.

Of course, the price is my consideration when choosing ZM.

 

There is one thing very annoying. Both ZM have this "Christmas Light" effect that there are a lot of color fringing. All are very minor, but I can tell. I don't see this in any Leica lenses, including Tri-Elmar MATE that I've sold.

 

Also, there is no matching 6-bit coding for these lenses. I use Leica 28mm for ZM 25 and Leica 35mm for ZM 35mm. They are acceptable, but I found the lack of that also limited the performance.

[dewilde]

I don't know if you are still reading this post, but I was browsing the forums and I thought I'd chime in.

 

Although I don't like to say this (as I've not had any issue with the ZM build quality), it's clear that in the case of the 35 Summicron-asph it's probably one of the best built Leica lenses out there. And I don't always like Leica's build.

 

With that said, the 35 ZM is a clear winner in my books, it's leagues better IQ wise for HOW I LIKE IMAGES TO LOOK, this is a non-scientific opinion.

 

I had the 35/2 ZM for quite a few years over multiple M9 camera bodies. And a few APSC bodies.. Really liked it. Bought the 35Cron-asph on a whim and really just couldn't love it. I also couldn't justify the price over the ZM so I sold it after 3-4 months of forced use. It was one nice looking lens, and fit beautifully M bodies.. I would say the only lens that fit better was the 28 Elmarit-asph.

 

However, a lot of my friends, and other Leica users swear by it. I'm really not a 35FL type of guy, although I have no bad things to say about the 35 Summilux-asph non-FLE.

The FLE suffers from being not what I like in a lens.

 

End result, keep the 35/2 ZM, unless you absolutely prefer Leica's rendering over Zeiss' rendering.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I just LOVE the Cron ASPH. Wonderful lens. Gives you so much to work with. Probably one of the best lenses I have used ever.

[Printmaker]

Personally I prefer the Zeiss Biogon over the Summicron on practically all fronts except size and build quality (though my Biogon seems a better build and smoother focus than any of my Leica lenses).

 

I've had exactly the opposite experience. The Biogons that I've used have become loose and shakey while the focus felt almost gritty with time. I was not impressed with the construction. On the other hand, I've owned several Summicrons over the last 45 years and they have all functioned perfectly. Currently my oldest Summicron was built in 1969 and it is a little gem.

 

Your milage may vary and that is fine. Not everybody keeps their gear forever. But as an example, the 1969 cron - while relatively expensive new - cost about $10 per year to own and could be sold for several times its original purchase price.

 

It is often hard to justify spending three times as much money on a lens that on specs is not any better, especially optically, but buying Leica gear is a lifetime investment.

[jaapv]

And the cron comes with a Summi for free….

[Printmaker]

And the cron comes with a Summi for free….

 

Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron...

 

I ran out of chalk teacher. Can I go home now?

Edited January 7, 2014 by Printmaker
typo

[pop]

It's Summicron, not Summircon.

[jaapv]

Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron, Summicron, Summicron, Summircon, Summicron...

 

I ran out of chalk teacher. Can I go home now?

And sin no more..

[pop]

[semi-ambivalent]

could be sold for several times its original purchase price.

 

What was it's original selling price? Can you tell me that?

 

Thanks,

s-a

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[TomB_tx]

What was it's original selling price? Can you tell me that?

In 1969 the 35 Summicron sold for about $195 USD