Summicron 35 f2 vs Zeiss 35 f1.4 Distagon

[Sharphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Summicron 35 f2 vs Zeiss 35 f1.4 Distagon. Would like opinions before I purchase. Thank you.

[Advertisement]

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

[Ko.Fe.]

Where are plenty of 35 f2 Crons versions. 

Which version of Cron and for which camera?

[Daniel C.1975]

Hi, 

 

I just moved from the Zeiss Distagon to the latest Summicron: My main reason was the size of the Distagon, which I still have but will sell as soon as I have time to place the offer. 

That said: The Distagon is optically the best 1.4 35mm out there for the m - period. Least field curvature, no focus problems, no flair problem, ridiculous sharp from 1.4 onward ... and, and, and. 

The small but: Higher contrast and poppy colours (taste) and very large (easily as large as my 90mm Elmarit).

 

As a start I've of course made some quick comparison shots in my kitchen to compare sharpness and DoF and I have also used the Summicron on several occasion so that I got a very good feeling for it. My main points:

- Obvious: It is much smaller and lighter (I have the silver version with my silver m10)

- The lenshood is way too large. I like the new hoods, but I hate the one on the 35mm Summicron as it nearly doubles the size of the lens. Don't know what like has thought here. Nearly same with the 28mm Elmarit, but the 35mm Summicron is even larger.

- Handling of focus and aperture is just lovely. Compared to the Zeiss it has half-stop clicks, which I prefer much more as it is in line with the shutter speed dial. Two clicks are one f-stop - very important when changing speed and aperture during e.g. a book reading or so. Focus is not as much damped as the one from Zeiss. The Zeiss feels lovely and high quality, but is a bit on the stiff side when you want to move fast

- Build quality: Equal. The Zeiss is after two years of use still perfectly fine and I dare to say on Leica level

Now comes the fun part:

- The Zeiss has less depth of field at f2 compared to the Summicron. The Reason is simple: The FoV is different. If have to estimate, I would say that the Zeiss is more a 37mm lens and the Summicron more towards a 34mm lens. It's a considerable difference. Maybe the reason is that I compared the two lenses in a range of 1 to 2m focus distance and as the Zeiss has an internal Focus mechanism this had an impact - but usually the focal length decreases with internal focus system in near distance focus ... so don't know. I my shots the Zeiss was more narrow then the Leica

- Bokeh in principle is different, but I have no clear favorite her. In some areas it is indistinguishable in other areas there is a slight difference. Most obvious: The blurred foreground is a bit more buttery on the Summicron, the Zeiss has a higher contrast in these regions. But overall, that would not be decisive factor for me. 

- Sharpness: Both lenses are plenty sharp. Focus has more impact than anything else. If at all, the Zeiss might be slightly sharper, but this can also just be the higher contrast, which leads me to the next point:

- Contrast / Colours etc.: Out of the cam, the Summicron pictures are more pleasant. Especially with portraits and people. Let's say they are more silent. I can still get them "loud" in LR, if I want, but I have no chance to get the Zeiss towards the Summicron appearance. That's interesting and was a surprise for me as I whole heartily love the optical quality of the Zeiss. 

 

Summary: Both are great lenses, while the Zeiss is so also literally 

If you can live with the Zeiss-size, it is one perfect lens. I thought I could, as in the beginning (coming from another system) it still seemed to be very compact and small. Now, two years later, I often had the situation that wanted to move light with one lens, preferred the 35mm, but everytime hesitated as didn't want to take the Zeiss because of its size. Therefore after a long decision period I went for the Summicron. 

BTW: The Zeiss is also perfect for landscape and I still want to make short landscape comparison to see if the Summicron can keep up with the Zeiss in this discipline.

Plus: I am now searching for good substitute for the lens hood - wholy moly, what has Leica thought here ... 

 

 

Cheers

Daniel

 

 

 

[B-A-C]

I have the Cron ASPH V1 and the hood is not too obtrusive.  There has to be a better solution for V2.  I shoot sometimes sans hood, but the lens will flare. 

Edited January 16, 2019 by B-A-C

[glacierparkmagazine]

I have the Zeiss, can't speak to the 'cron. My only complaint is the focus ring is much stiffer than my Leica lenses, but for $3-plus grand compared to the 35 lux FLE, I can live with it for now. The Zeiss is way sharp wide open. Best lens in my bag.

[astrostl]

Leica folks, esp. film, will say that the 35/2 is good. Bench testers will say that it is mediocre.

Everyone agrees that the ZM 35/1.4 is an optical gem, and everyone also agrees that it is big and heavy.

I am used to the size of the ZM 35/1.4, but I still actively dislike that aspect of it. But, it is so damned good.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If the Zeiss had less rangefinder intrusion I'd be using it now.

[henning]

On 1/16/2019 at 4:38 AM, Daniel C.1975 said:

- The Zeiss has less depth of field at f2 compared to the Summicron. The Reason is simple: The FoV is different. If have to estimate, I would say that the Zeiss is more a 37mm lens and the Summicron more towards a 34mm lens. It's a considerable difference. Maybe the reason is that I compared the two lenses in a range of 1 to 2m focus distance and as the Zeiss has an internal Focus mechanism this had an impact - but usually the focal length decreases with internal focus system in near distance focus ... so don't know. I my shots the Zeiss was more narrow then the Leica

Generally, on telephoto lenses the internal focussing is used in part to keep the lens from extending. In that case, the focal length is reduced while essentially keeping the lens in the same position, effectively having a shorter focal length at the same distance from the sensor plane which will produce closer focus.

In wideangle lenses, the focussing with floating elements is not 'internal focus' per se, but is used to correct aberrations as the lens is focused closer. In this case the focal length often becomes longer, but can be shorter as well. In retro focus lenses, an increase in focal length is more common. The lens will usually become longer the closer the lens is focussed, as that doesn't matter as much with wide-angle lenses. In any case, what effect the floating correction group or groups have on focal length is not consistent.

Edited January 18, 2019 by henning

[budjames]

I used to shoot Zeiss primes years ago when I shot Canon pro DSLRs. They were amazingly better than my Canon L zooms at that time. Four years ago, I sold my Canon gear and moved to Fuji X. I immediately purchased the Zeiss 32 and 12mm primes for Fuji. They were nice lenses, but the Zeiss look was missing. I eventually sold them as Fuji XF primes became available.

I still use my Fuji X system which includes the most current bodies, the XH1 and XT3, along with excellent Fuji WR primes and zooms. It's a great versatile system with excellent IQ and durability. The lesser size, weight and cost as compared to the Canon system I owned is great too.

In December of 2017, I purchased my first Leica, the M10, and a few Leica primes. The Leica glass is excellent and the images I produce have the sharpness, micro contrast and IQ that is worthy of the mystic and expense of the Leica system. Because I bought into the Leica system for the Leica lenses, I have not tried Zeiss lens on my M10 and I probably won't.

Regards,
Bud James

Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.

[Ko.Fe.]

On January 18, 2019 at 4:36 AM, budjames said:

I used to shoot Zeiss primes years ago when I shot Canon pro DSLRs. They were amazingly better than my Canon L zooms at that time. Four years ago, I sold my Canon gear and moved to Fuji X. I immediately purchased the Zeiss 32 and 12mm primes for Fuji. They were nice lenses, but the Zeiss look was missing. I eventually sold them as Fuji XF primes became available.

I still use my Fuji X system which includes the most current bodies, the XH1 and XT3, along with excellent Fuji WR primes and zooms. It's a great versatile system with excellent IQ and durability. The lesser size, weight and cost as compared to the Canon system I owned is great too.

In December of 2017, I purchased my first Leica, the M10, and a few Leica primes. The Leica glass is excellent and the images I produce have the sharpness, micro contrast and IQ that is worthy of the mystic and expense of the Leica system. Because I bought into the Leica system for the Leica lenses, I have not tried Zeiss lens on my M10 and I probably won't.

Regards,
Bud James

Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.

It is hard to beat Canon L glass, even with Leica made glass. Every time I look at pictures taken with Canon and L I'm realizing it.

So, Canon with Canon, Fuji to Fuji, Leica to Leica. Each pair is good :).

 

[Narsuitus]

On 1/15/2019 at 3:40 PM, Sharphoto said:

Would like opinions before I purchase.

Since I liked the images produced by my Zeiss lenses on my Contax and Nikon cameras, when I looked for a 35mm lens for my Leica M6, I was immediately drawn to the 35mm f/1.4 Distagon for its lens speed, image quality, and reasonable price.

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!

Leica M6 by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Mr.Q]

On 1/18/2019 at 3:50 AM, keithlaban.co.uk said:

If the Zeiss had less rangefinder intrusion I'd be using it now.

This.

[budjames]

7 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

It is hard to beat Canon L glass, even with Leica made glass. Every time I look at pictures taken with Canon and L I'm realizing it.

So, Canon with Canon, Fuji to Fuji, Leica to Leica. Each pair is good :).

 

I agree! Using the best of any these camera system can produce excellent, pro-grade images. At this level, the capabilities of these system are greater than the talent of most amateur photographers, IMHO.

We live in great times for photography gear and photography enthusiasts.

Regards,
Bud James

Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.

[Daniel C.1975]

Am 18.1.2019 um 01:12 schrieb henning:

Generally, on telephoto lenses the internal focussing is used in part to keep the lens from extending. In that case, the focal length is reduced while essentially keeping the lens in the same position, effectively having a shorter focal length at the same distance from the sensor plane which will produce closer focus.

In wideangle lenses, the focussing with floating elements is not 'internal focus' per se, but is used to correct aberrations as the lens is focused closer. In this case the focal length often becomes longer, but can be shorter as well. In retro focus lenses, an increase in focal length is more common. The lens will usually become longer the closer the lens is focussed, as that doesn't matter as much with wide-angle lenses. In any case, what effect the floating correction group or groups have on focal length is not consistent.

Thanks. And to make it complete:

 

At infinity both lenses show practically the exact same field of view. So this is a proof of your statement.  At close focusing distance the Zeiss gets slightly longer.

 

Cheers

Daniel

[Trivette]

If I needed a practically perfect 35mm lens, I would choose the Distagon without hesitation. Viewfinder intrusion is just a slightly annoying inconvenience, a fact of life when using certain lenses with a rangefinder camera..

[jonnyboy]

Literally just deciding these days which one of those 2 lens I should get (I'm a 35mm person!). I found a nice Zeiss for a very good price...but I'm still tempted to get a Summicron (that Leica feeling). I would use it on a Monochrom M1 and M6.

[tommonego@gmail.com]

Since I don't like really contrasty lenses, how does a Zeiss Biogon f2 work in here, specifically against the Summicron?

[TomB_tx]

The Biogon f2 gives nice images. Slightly weak at f2, with coma near the edges, but still very usable wide open. Stopped down the coma is better controlled and it is very good. It was quite an improvement over my 1970 Summicron, but the current Asph Summicron is hard to beat. 
The Biogon f2 is still larger than I like, which is why I now use a Summarit 2.5 on my M10. On my M9 where a faster lens is handy I like the Nokton 1.4 v2.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tommonego@gmail.com]

I have a preasph Summilux Canada that is fairly beat up, was thinking of upgrading. Thanks