semi-ambivalent Posted January 8, 2014 Share #21 Posted January 8, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) In 1969 the 35 Summicron sold for about $195 USD According to Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics that is $1,245.00 today. Could you get that much for that lens today? If you could I'll shut up. But I still think presenting a fiscal argument for purchasing Leica lenses (and you see that a lot), is a disservice to that company. Money is not the be-all, it's merely a tool like any other tool. Spending and saving are equivalent in that regard. s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Hi semi-ambivalent, Take a look here Cron 35 asph vs Biogon 35/2. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
TomB_tx Posted January 8, 2014 Share #22 Posted January 8, 2014 According to Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics that is $1,245.00 today. Could you get that much for that lens today? If you could I'll shut up. But I still think presenting a fiscal argument for purchasing Leica lenses (and you see that a lot), is a disservice to that company. Money is not the be-all, it's merely a tool like any other tool. Spending and saving are equivalent in that regard. Agreed. Since I've never sold any Leica gear, the resale value is irrelevant to me. I evaluate on how much use and enjoyment I get for purchases. I bought new 50 & 35 Summicrons in 1969, and still happily use them. I consider that a good purchase. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted January 8, 2014 Share #23 Posted January 8, 2014 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. Probably none; the ZM 2/35 is a phenomenal, albeit larger lens. If you're going to get another 35, as mentioned above, the CV 35/1.2 is an excellent choice, giving you 1.5 stops you don't already have as well as a unique rendering style. Another distinct advantage of the CV is that it is one of the few RF lenses that seems to behave well on the Sony a7. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted January 9, 2014 Share #24 Posted January 9, 2014 In 1969 the 35 Summicron sold for about $195 USD I thought the list price was a bit more - like $250 or $295. But my memory is a bit hazy since I bought a M4, MR4 meter, 35 Summicron, 50 Summicron and 90 Tele-Elmarit at the same time. And I sold some gear to try to keep the cost to about 1 month's wages. A lot of gear. I picked up my early Leica kit when I was in college and worked part-time winters/full time summers for a camera shop that specialized in Leica. At that time sales reps could buy new equipment at a 50% discount if it was ordered directly from Leica. The process took about 2 months and everything needed to be pre-paid and approved by management. Kinda like "your first fix." But I was already hooked having purchased a M2-R with a 35 Summaron used for just under $200. Great 35 mm lens BTW. Another haze factor was discounts. It was the practice then to offer a 20% discount to most customers and the big boys in New York commonly offered 25% - 30% off of list price. Dealer net was 35% - 37% plus additional volume discounts. Today's dealer net is around 25% and few dealers offer any type of discount. And none will admit to ever offering discounts since they might loose their dealership. So, if the cost was $195, the actual cost to own is around $5 per year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted January 9, 2014 Share #25 Posted January 9, 2014 I thought the list price was a bit more - like $250 or $295. But my memory is a bit hazy since I bought a M4, MR4 meter, 35 Summicron, 50 Summicron and 90 Tele-Elmarit at the same time. And I sold some gear to try to keep the cost to about 1 month's wages. A lot of gear. I picked up my early Leica kit when I was in college and worked part-time winters/full time summers for a camera shop that specialized in Leica. At that time sales reps could buy new equipment at a 50% discount if it was ordered directly from Leica. The process took about 2 months and everything needed to be pre-paid and approved by management. Kinda like "your first fix." But I was already hooked having purchased a M2-R with a 35 Summaron used for just under $200. Great 35 mm lens BTW. Another haze factor was discounts. It was the practice then to offer a 20% discount to most customers and the big boys in New York commonly offered 25% - 30% off of list price. Dealer net was 35% - 37% plus additional volume discounts. Today's dealer net is around 25% and few dealers offer any type of discount. And none will admit to ever offering discounts since they might loose their dealership. That's basically my history as well. Bought my M4 with Tele-Elmarit in college in '68 while working part-time at the town's Leica dealer after using a borrowed M2. Bought the 50 & 35 Summicrons in '69 - the 35 from Altman's after graduating. Also traded my Canon gear towards an SL as I left college. Still have it all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-A-C Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share #26 Posted January 9, 2014 Well, now I've done it. I bought the 35 asph as well. It was just too sexy, couldn't resist. Anyways, as soon as i get my camera back from DAG, I'll report my preferences. I can say that the focus is buttery smooth, and the build quality is excellent. Will that be enough to displace the Zeiss? Time will tell. Good shooting! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vipan Posted January 9, 2014 Share #27 Posted January 9, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) i dont have the zeiss 35/2, but i wasnt able to focus accurately with the zeiss 21/2.8, 35/2.8 or 50/1.5 through the rangefinder. i had to focus with the lcd monitor or evf. so basically i had to use my m240 like my sony a7r. didnt you guys have this problem? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted January 9, 2014 Share #28 Posted January 9, 2014 I thought the list price was a bit more - like $250 or $295. But my memory is a bit hazy since I bought a M4, MR4 meter, 35 Summicron, 50 Summicron and 90 Tele-Elmarit at the same time. And I sold some gear to try to keep the cost to about 1 month's wages. A lot of gear. I picked up my early Leica kit when I was in college and worked part-time winters/full time summers for a camera shop that specialized in Leica. At that time sales reps could buy new equipment at a 50% discount if it was ordered directly from Leica. The process took about 2 months and everything needed to be pre-paid and approved by management. Kinda like "your first fix." But I was already hooked having purchased a M2-R with a 35 Summaron used for just under $200. Great 35 mm lens BTW. Another haze factor was discounts. It was the practice then to offer a 20% discount to most customers and the big boys in New York commonly offered 25% - 30% off of list price. Dealer net was 35% - 37% plus additional volume discounts. Today's dealer net is around 25% and few dealers offer any type of discount. And none will admit to ever offering discounts since they might loose their dealership. So, if the cost was $195, the actual cost to own is around $5 per year. Again, you must factor in inflation or it's an invalid comparison. On the other hand there is value in all the years you have the lens. Don't know how you would calculate $ numbers for that. So just enjoy it, rather than looking at it as an equity purchase. As for discounts, in about 1972 or so a 200mm f/4 Nikkor Auto had an MSRP of US$199.50 but I bought one from my local camera store for $163.00. And a friend of my boss, just back from Viet Nam showed me a Pacex catalog that listed the same lens for $90.00. I don't think that was a "discounted" price so much as a subsidy from the US Government. (That guy was pouring everything he had into stereo equipment and selling it stateside for a tidy income.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougg Posted January 10, 2014 Share #29 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Congratulations on your new Summicron ASPH! Hope you will enjoy it. It appears there are several geezers here with similar 1960's experiences with Leica gear... Me too! I had worked in a camera shop in Rapid City SD that was not a Leica dealer, then moved to Seattle where I got a used button-rewind M2 with a brand new v.1 Summicron 35mm. The camera body was $150 and the lens (I assume at list price) was $164.50... this was 1967. The next year when I could afford it I added a 90 Tele-Elmarit for $196 from the same downtown Seattle camera shop. Still have this kit... I now have the goggled f/2.8 Summaron too and both ZM 35 Biogons, so it's gotten more complicated! Edited January 10, 2014 by Dougg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 31, 2020 Share #30 Posted January 31, 2020 On 1/7/2014 at 10:50 PM, Printmaker said: 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? No.You'll stand in the corner with a D hat on. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted February 1, 2020 Share #31 Posted February 1, 2020 4 hours ago, jaapv said: No.You'll stand in the corner with a D hat on. So true... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpomatic Posted February 1, 2020 Share #32 Posted February 1, 2020 I’m usually all for Leica alternatives especially when they are very high quality, but how is it possible that nobody here has mentioned the fact that the ZM Biogon 35mm F2 is never seriously sharp in the corners and the coma wide open is horrendous? I never shot the Summicron, but the Biogon found its way out of my collection pretty quickly due to that. First few night shots with a few points of light un the outer area got me cringing, and day shots closed down never sharpened up completely in the corners - so no all-rounder at all in my opinion! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpomatic Posted February 1, 2020 Share #33 Posted February 1, 2020 This is jus a couple of test shots that I took after trying a frame with those lights in...that's simply horrid to me. First shot wide open, second at F8 - which is absolutely fine. But I want to be able to use F2 at night! 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/217098-cron-35-asph-vs-biogon-352/?do=findComment&comment=3903957'>More sharing options...
ibramr Posted February 1, 2020 Share #34 Posted February 1, 2020 6 hours ago, Harpomatic said: This is jus a couple of test shots that I took after trying a frame with those lights in...that's simply horrid to me. First shot wide open, second at F8 - which is absolutely fine. But I want to be able to use F2 at night! ......[edited]. Greetings. The coma concerns you discuss above have been subject of attention in some earlier reviews of the Biogon. For example, see here. The same review (towards its end) highlights that coma is better controlled at f2.8. Regards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpomatic Posted February 2, 2020 Share #35 Posted February 2, 2020 2 hours ago, ibramr said: Greetings. The coma concerns you discuss above have been subject of attention in some earlier reviews of the Biogon. For example, see here. The same review (towards its end) highlights that coma is better controlled at f2.8. Regards. I know it’s in some reviews, but the way people on this forum are nitpicking about the tiniest nuances of rendition of every lens, it seems to me that the lack of mention of this every time the Biogon is discussed (and hailed as a stunner) is quite surprising! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RexGig0 Posted February 2, 2020 Share #36 Posted February 2, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Harpomatic said: I know it’s in some reviews, but the way people on this forum are nitpicking about the tiniest nuances of rendition of every lens, it seems to me that the lack of mention of this every time the Biogon is discussed (and hailed as a stunner) is quite surprising! Well, the original subject being the Summicron ASPH versus the Zeiss Planar ZM, it is important to know how the Summicron ASPH performs, in relation to the Planar ZM, in the corners, and with coma. If neither performs well, in these two ways, then edge, corner, and coma performance will not be determining factors, in answering the original question(s). I have neither lens, and am defending neither lens. (In my case, I bought a Summaron-M 3.5cm f/3.5, mostly for its tiny size, and a Zeiss Distagon 1,4/35mm ZM, with low-light shooting a significant goal.) Looking at charts and sample images, and seeing some commentary from a reviewer, it appears that the Zeiss Planar 50mm ZM has a very noticeably flatter field than the Leica-M Summicron 50mm ASPH, so the shooter should determine which visual signature he prefers. The field curvature of the Summicron can be used artistically, so the flatter field of the Planar is not an automatic “win.” Edited February 2, 2020 by RexGig0 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisberg Posted February 2, 2020 Share #37 Posted February 2, 2020 The latest Summicron 35mm ASPH shows some coma effects as well, maybe not quite as strong as the Biogon, but still noticeable. See attached photo. -Thomas 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! 2 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/217098-cron-35-asph-vs-biogon-352/?do=findComment&comment=3904334'>More sharing options...
RexGig0 Posted February 2, 2020 Share #38 Posted February 2, 2020 (edited) Thanks, trisberg. As I suspected, the Summicron ASPH is no angel, itself, in its correction of coma. Until recently, I had not really concerned myself with coma, with Leica M-mount lenses, as I have mostly use DSLRs for low-light shooting, but the M10 Monochrom has shown the potential of an M camera to, perhaps, become a serious night-shooting tool, in my future. Edited February 2, 2020 by RexGig0 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpomatic Posted February 2, 2020 Share #39 Posted February 2, 2020 16 hours ago, trisberg said: The latest Summicron 35mm ASPH shows some coma effects as well, maybe not quite as strong as the Biogon, but still noticeable. See attached photo. -Thomas 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! It looks a lot less...offensive to me! 😉 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpomatic Posted February 2, 2020 Share #40 Posted February 2, 2020 17 hours ago, RexGig0 said: Well, the original subject being the Summicron ASPH versus the Zeiss Planar ZM, it is important to know how the Summicron ASPH performs, in relation to the Planar ZM, in the corners, and with coma. If neither performs well, in these two ways, then edge, corner, and coma performance will not be determining factors, in answering the original question(s). I have neither lens, and am defending neither lens. (In my case, I bought a Summaron-M 3.5cm f/3.5, mostly for its tiny size, and a Zeiss Distagon 1,4/35mm ZM, with low-light shooting a significant goal.) Looking at charts and sample images, and seeing some commentary from a reviewer, it appears that the Zeiss Planar 50mm ZM has a very noticeably flatter field than the Leica-M Summicron 50mm ASPH, so the shooter should determine which visual signature he prefers. The field curvature of the Summicron can be used artistically, so the flatter field of the Planar is not an automatic “win.” I was under the impression we were talking about the Biogon 35mm F2 compared to the Summicron 35mm Asph: where does the Planar ZM come into the equation? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now