help me choose

[tifh21]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was suppose to get the Q to avoid this problem:) but got a great deal on an m240 so now my problem is which lens for my one lens kit (for now)

 

I want a 35mm summicron but it's a bit too expensive (i think) than what i was planning to spend. although i have a great offer from my seller

 

i found a zeiss biogon 35mm f2 at a good price too.

 

what do i do?

 

1.) go with the summicron even if it's more expensive

2.) go with the zeiss for now (but there might be a chance ill end up selling it to get a summicron in the future so i might end up losing money)

 

anyone has any experience owning both?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Robert E]

I currently own the Zeiss 35mm f3 lens and it is a beauty, used it on my M240 and it was as sharp as a tack. The colors were fantastic and every shot I took with it was neat perfect.  Plan on using it with my new Leica SL since I sold the M240. You won't go wrong with one.

[tifh21]

awesome:) thank you. not much flares or anything?

[darylgo]

The 35mm is my only Zeiss, imaging is beautiful. It is larger than the Leica offering but not too large for the body.

[Frase]

If you think you will be buying a Summicron in the future I would just go for that, what kind of 35mm summicron are you thinking of?

[tifh21]

is the blocking in the frame of the vf that bothersome when using the zeiss?

 

i was thinking of the summicron asph version

but it will cost me double of the price of the zeiss offered to me

[tifh21]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

considering that i only want 1-2 lenses in general but just 1 for now i was thinking of splurging on a leica lens... but then again i can just save the money if the zeiss is good enough

[TomB_tx]

The Zeiss 35 f2 is a good choice, with little real reason to leave it for a Leica lens as far as results are concerned. I used a Summicron 35 for decades, and loved the tiny size, but on digital I wanted to try something different. First got the Voigtlander 35 f1.4 as it was faster and still very small. Got some great results, and it seemed as sharp as my old Summicron at f2.0 with less vignetting, and great build and handling. But I tended to focus behind subjects a bit in bright light due to focus shift.

So I got the Zeiss f2, and after getting the focus calibrated by DAG it has been great, but missed the small size. So I ended up with a 35 Summarit f2.5, which gives small size and great handling with results as good as the Zeiss. I still have the Voigtlander 1.4 for dim light, but otherwise use the Summarit. (and the Summarit and Voigtlander together cost less than a faster Leica lens!)

On digital a 35 is ideal on Leica, while on film I still prefer 50.

[jlindstrom]

cv 35/1.2 v2 would be great as well.. again it's larger, but the for only lens the faster speed might be nice to have. Or how about the excellent Leica 28mm f2.8 asph Elmarit? Would be same focal as the Q you were thinking about earlier.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[wda]

Why not consider the 35mm Summarit; modern, 6-bit coded, great performer, less expensive than the slightly faster Summicron?

[Big_g]

I have the summarit and summicron and to be honest find it hard to tell the difference. Maybe the summicron is a little bit more contrasty but thats easily fixed. The main difference is with the hood. The summarit hood screws on perfectly and is really nice, on the summicron it is held on with some stupid plastic clips that simply don't work. The tiniest knock and it is on the floor. It puts me off using the lens a lot of the time. 

 

So my advice would be go for the summicron

[earleygallery]

If you had planned to buy the Q then presumably you wanted a 28mn lens?

 

Get a 28mm Elmarit.

[indergaard]

awesome:) thank you. not much flares or anything?

The Zeiss ZM lenses are much more flare resistant than the equivalent Leica lenses. The Summicron 35 asph flares easily. The Biogon 35 f2 isn't nearly as prone to flare. The same is valid for the Planar 50mm and the Summicron 50mm. The Planar has much better flare resistance.

 

Also, the Zeiss lenses doesn't have focus shift. Something that the Summicrons do have, and it's especially noticeable on the 50mm unless you spend $8000 on the APO-Summicron 50mm... Just make sure that the Zeiss lens is optimized for digital if you are buying a used one.

 

The only advantage that the Leica lenses has is that they are generally smaller (but not lighter, they are actually heavier). And they can be coded for digital (the Zeiss ZM 35 and 50 doesn't require any corrections though, but lens and focal length won't be recorded in the Exif tag).

[tifh21]

first of all thanks to everyone that replied:) i really appreciate it.

- After a couple of days or so of reading posts and checking sample photos I've narrowed down my decision to either the zeiss or the summicron and i couldnt decide between them that's why I made this thread. I dont want the faster ones or the slower ones. I just want to decide between the 2 and in our country i cant rent lenses like that.

 

- wanted the Q bec I was just supposed to be dipping my toes in trying out Leica and not jumping in the whole way, i have 2 other systems and I dont want to keep/use 3 interchangeable lens systems:) so I was leaning towards the Q to avoid having to decide on which lens and whatnot.

 

I prefer the 35mm but was willing to sacrifice that for the Q

since I now have a choice with the m240 I'll stick to 35mm

[lct]

Problem with ZM 35/2 is soft corners at f/2 i've been told but i don't have experience with it. Best compromise to me is Summicron 35/2 asph which is the least flare prone 35/2 as far as Leica M & R lenses are concerned. 

[tifh21]

the summicron thread about the flares made me hesitate on going that way... is it really that bad or were those exaggerated versions (i mean images that were shot to actually create the flares)

[lct]

Mostly parrotings and pixel peepings if you ask me with no disrespect towards anybody. I won't repeat myself ad nauseam but i can get any lens to flare at will. It is just a matter of compromise as suggested above. If you want the least flare prone 35 don't go for it. My favorite is the ZM 35/2.8 from this viewpoint. The Summarit 35/2.5 is also excellent there. But if you need a f/2 lens i could not advise any other one than the 35/2 asph personally. YMMV.

[Jeffry Abt]

if you need a f/2 lens i could not advise any other one than the 35/2 asph personally. YMMV.

The 35/2 asph may be the best lens I have ever used. I enjoy it far above the 50mm APO and that is high praise in my estimation.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tifh21]

ohh ok:) thanks guys. yea the sample shots in flickr looks awesome

[seratti]

If I could go back in time to the 15 year old me and give myself one piece of advice, it would be: 'Buy once, cry once'. I've spent too much money trying to get 'almost as good' when in the end I always end up selling the first item and buying the more expensive item later, thereby spending more than if I had just bought the more expensive item first. That's my first piece of advice. Be honest with yourself, and if you think you'll probably end up buying the summicron at some point in the future, just buy it now and take the hit, then enjoy it.

 

That being said, your issue is slightly more complicated because the Zeiss lenses are so terribly good. I can't comment on the 35 f/2 but I have the 35 f/2.8 from Zeiss and in addition to being small, it's image quality is stunning...And then like an idiot I bought the 35mm summicron ASPH which is also stunning. In the end I'm happy with the summicron as I prefer the focusing tab, the f/2, and I like that it is coded. I don't notice any flaring (and I have a filter on it) and I haven't noticed any focus shift (though I don't pixel peep much either). 

 

Both lenses render slightly differently but both are excellent.