wolan Posted October 13, 2020 Share #1 Posted October 13, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi, do you agree with the results of this test, that the Leica Summicron is superior in terms of sharpness up until f8 and that at f11 the Biogon is better? https://www.bonnescape.info/35mm-summicron-m-vs-zeiss-biogon-zm/ The article is German, however you can jump to the section "Summicron vs Biogon" and have a look at the jpegs. I am asking because I was planning to buy the Biogon but the Summicron seems to be better. Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 Hi wolan, Take a look here Zeiss ZM 35mm f2 vs Leica Summicron 35mm f2. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jankap Posted October 13, 2020 Share #2 Posted October 13, 2020 What is better? I don't see very much difference. I would prefer no shadowing of the M viewfinder. But otherwise... Brickstone test... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted October 13, 2020 Share #3 Posted October 13, 2020 1 hour ago, wolan said: do you agree with the results of this test, that the Leica Summicron is superior in terms of sharpness up until f8 and that at f11 the Biogon is better? "Sharpness" is a subjective quantity that has no form of measurement and will therefore vary as a result of the viewer's eyesight, the distance between viewer and image, and the effectiveness of the viewer's spectacles etc. It's better to refer to what is commonly termed "sharpness" in terms of acutance, contrast and resolution. Otherwise a comparison will be largely meaningless. Pete. 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erato Posted October 13, 2020 Share #4 Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, wolan said: Hi, do you agree with the results of this test, that the Leica Summicron is superior in terms of sharpness up until f8 and that at f11 the Biogon is better? https://www.bonnescape.info/35mm-summicron-m-vs-zeiss-biogon-zm/ The article is German, however you can jump to the section "Summicron vs Biogon" and have a look at the jpegs. I am asking because I was planning to buy the Biogon but the Summicron seems to be better. Thank you. Hi Wolan, F2 is sharp enough if the light quality is good enough. And if I were you, I would consider more about the color rendering and tonality of BW to maximize the usage of the selected lens, just for your reference. For instance, the following images was taken by M10-P plus Leica Summicron-M 35 f/2 Vers. IV, Chrome, 11311. EXIF for Picture 31: ƒ/2.0 35.0 mm 1/250 Sec ISO 200. You may tapping on the #2 and #3 for further details and EXIF shared on the Flickr. Warm regards, Raymond 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! Edited October 13, 2020 by Erato adding more messages and reference images 1 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/314183-zeiss-zm-35mm-f2-vs-leica-summicron-35mm-f2/?do=findComment&comment=4062097'>More sharing options...
Jean-Michel Posted October 13, 2020 Share #5 Posted October 13, 2020 I happen to have two Summicron. A version 1 and version 5. Both are excellent. The Biogon is likely also an excellent lens. At f/8 differences between lenses get to be almost inconsequential. A definite difference is the price, the Biogon is less than half the price of a Summicron. Online views of tests are not that usefull: the same test images look very different when viewed on a smartphone, tablet, run of the mill computer screen or a professional monitor. Whatever you opt for will surely serve you well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrostl Posted October 13, 2020 Share #6 Posted October 13, 2020 DigLloyd (very technical take on reviews) famously dogged the Summicron in his 6-way shootout (paid content): "For the photographer who will be stopping down to the f/8 range, the Zeiss ZM 35mm f/2 Biogon is the next best choice [to the ZEISS ZM 35/1.4], developing similarly high grade results at a bargain price. The Leica 35/2 Summicron is a disappointing and grossly overpriced lens that ought to be retired forthwith." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted October 13, 2020 Share #7 Posted October 13, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) 1 hour ago, astrostl said: " ... The Leica 35/2 Summicron is a disappointing and grossly overpriced lens that ought to be retired forthwith." My vote is to keep the 35/2 Summicron and retire the reviewer. Pete. 6 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedaes Posted October 13, 2020 Share #8 Posted October 13, 2020 1 hour ago, astrostl said: who will be stopping down to the f/8 range, If you don't need f2, the Zeiss f2.8/35mm is a great lens. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_parker Posted October 13, 2020 Share #9 Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) A lot of interesting points made above - the other relevant factor is how often you are likely to be working at f8 and above - shooting general purpose photography around UK and street largely in the evening, as well as looking for some out of focus effects and signature of the lens, mine pretty much never see f8 or above anyway...😊📸🪐 In essence we're talking about two stops at the extreme bright / high DoF end of the lens' performance range and the question would be how often would you need to be in that zone Edited October 13, 2020 by robert_parker 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeheartny Posted October 14, 2020 Share #10 Posted October 14, 2020 13 hours ago, wolan said: Hi, do you agree with the results of this test, that the Leica Summicron is superior in terms of sharpness up until f8 and that at f11 the Biogon is better? https://www.bonnescape.info/35mm-summicron-m-vs-zeiss-biogon-zm/ The article is German, however you can jump to the section "Summicron vs Biogon" and have a look at the jpegs. I am asking because I was planning to buy the Biogon but the Summicron seems to be better. Thank you. This is kinda funny. Saying "at f11 the Biogon is better" is like saying "well, in the parking lot my Toyota Camry does better than an F1 car! whaddya think of that, boys? Camry beats an F1 open wheel car!" 3 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TG14 Posted October 14, 2020 Share #11 Posted October 14, 2020 26 minutes ago, eyeheartny said: This is kinda funny. Saying "at f11 the Biogon is better" is like saying "well, in the parking lot my Toyota Camry does better than an F1 car! whaddya think of that, boys? Camry beats an F1 open wheel car!" Funny but the OP might need f11 for certain shots. Landscapes or archi perhaps. In that case side to side sharpness prob important. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erato Posted October 14, 2020 Share #12 Posted October 14, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, eyeheartny said: This is kinda funny. Saying "at f11 the Biogon is better" is like saying "well, in the parking lot my Toyota Camry does better than an F1 car! whaddya think of that, boys? Camry beats an F1 open wheel car!" When all vehicles take a brief stop at a red-light, they look pretty the same. But each of them is very different in terms of the targeted market sector. Their design and function are quite similar logically. And for the 35mm Summicron, the QoE, build quality, ergonomic, optical elements, and relevant benchmark are reflected on the price tag already. 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! This photo was taken by M10-P plus Leica Summicron-M Noctilux-M 1:1/50 @F2., does it looks a bit "Three-dimensional"? Remark: Unique, all the vehicles are different brands in this image. Edited October 14, 2020 by Erato Remark notes revised. 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! This photo was taken by M10-P plus Leica Summicron-M Noctilux-M 1:1/50 @F2., does it looks a bit "Three-dimensional"? Remark: Unique, all the vehicles are different brands in this image. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/314183-zeiss-zm-35mm-f2-vs-leica-summicron-35mm-f2/?do=findComment&comment=4062405'>More sharing options...
eyeheartny Posted October 14, 2020 Share #13 Posted October 14, 2020 10 minutes ago, Erato said: When all vehicles take a brief stop at a red-light, they look pretty the same. But each of them is very different in terms of the targeted market sector. Their design and function are quite similar logically. And for the 35mm Summicron, the QoE, build quality, ergonomic, optical elements, and relevant benchmark are reflected on the price tag already. 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! This photo was taken by M10-P plus Leica Summicron-M Noctilux-M 1:1/50 @F2., does it looks a bit "Three-dimensional"? Remark: Unique, all the vehicles are different brands in this image. Could not disagree more. When vehicles are stopped at a light they don’t look the same at all. That analogy doesn’t really make sense to me. My point is that many lenses do well from f8-f16. That the Biogon only beats the Summicron at f8 is not a mark of distinction for the Biogon, but rather an example of how good the Summicron is at wider apertures before stopping down to f8. It reminds me of the reviews of the TTArtisan/7Artisan lenses. They get better as they stop down a bit, and the difference between a $10k+ Noctilux is the critical performance at the wider apertures. I’m not saying there is no place for the TTa/7a lenses or no place for the Biogon. Quite the contrary. But we need to be realistic that if we only start seeing improvements over the Summicron at f8, that outside of specific use cases like architecture or landscapes, the Summicron is a better performer. 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolan Posted October 14, 2020 Author Share #14 Posted October 14, 2020 (edited) Hi, thanks everybody for your answers. I should have provided a bit of background to my question. I recently bought the Zeiss ZM Planar 50mm f2 lens and I am absolutely shocked by how good this lens is and how it renders the scenes, especially landscapes. Since I am looking for a RF 35mm, I thought I am going to buy the Zeiss ZM 35mm f2, expecting a similar quality and rendering. Now, I know one cannot compare a 35mm and 50mm but all I am looking for is that crispness and clarity of rendering, and not the best sharpness in absolute terms. What do you think? Should I go for it? (by the way, I found a guy here in Switzerland selling an almost new one for some $700...) Thanks. Edited October 14, 2020 by wolan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedaes Posted October 14, 2020 Share #15 Posted October 14, 2020 21 hours ago, wolan said: I was planning to buy If you want a proper detailed comparison of these two lenses I would recommend you look here https://www.reidreviews.com/articleindextable.html It is a subscription site but you could save the subscription in not making the wrong decision. You can also check the Zeiss f2 and f2.8 comparison. With the latter you are in 'lux territory excepting aperture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted October 14, 2020 Share #16 Posted October 14, 2020 vor 6 Stunden schrieb Erato: Unique, all the vehicles are different brands in this image. No, they are not. I can spot two Mercedes cars (a GLC SUV and an A class sedan). Turning back on topic, both Leica and Zeiss make great lenses. If you are happy with the Zeiss Planar 50, I suspect you will be equally happy with the Zeiss 2/35. And for roughly $ 700, I would give the Zeiss 35 a go if I were you. In case you don't like it (which I doubt), you could always sell it for about the same price. The only thing I don't like about the Zeiss 2/35 is its size, as it is quite a bit bulkier than the Summicron 2/35asph. But if size doesn't matter (no pun intended), I am sure you will be happy with the Zeiss lens. Cheers, Andy 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted October 14, 2020 Share #17 Posted October 14, 2020 Agreed - for $700 the ZM f2 would be a bargain, and would be a good match to your Planar. I have both lenses (as well as 35 & 50 Summicrons and others), and consider the Biogon among the best - except that I prefer smaller lenses. So on M10 my normal lens is a 35 Summarit f2.5. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted October 14, 2020 Share #18 Posted October 14, 2020 3 hours ago, wolan said: Since I am looking for a RF 35mm, I thought I am going to buy the Zeiss ZM 35mm f2, expecting a similar quality and rendering. The Zeiss 50/2 is a Planar design meaning that it is a fully symmetrical Double Gauss design, which controls geometric distortion and other aberrations very well and produces a very flat field of curvature (Planar), with high acutance, high contrast images of the object. Early versions were prone to flare but Zeiss solved that with different element coatings The Zeiss 35/2 on the other hand will be either a Distagon or a Biogon. The Biogon (similar in meaning to Planar) is a semi-symmetrical Double Gauss wide-angle compact design that produces high contrast and resolution across the image plane but suffers from vignetting and colour shifts owing to the short distance between the rear element and sensor caused by its compactness. The bane of wide-angle lenses is bending the wide arc of incoming light onto a small flat surface (film or sensor) so it faithfully reproduces the object. The Distagon is a much larger design that pushes the rear element away from the film or sensor so that the angle is more forgiving and easier for designers to work with to produce high quality images and as a result spherical aberration and vignetting are less pronounced than in the Biogon but curvature of field is poorer and it suffers from some coma. This is why a Zeiss 35/2 will not produce the same performance that you've seen from your 50/2 Planar across the frame. Pete. 6 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted October 14, 2020 Share #19 Posted October 14, 2020 vor 1 Stunde schrieb farnz: This is why a Zeiss 35/2 will not produce the same performance that you've seen from your 50/2 Planar across the frame. While this may well be true (I have never owned a Zeiss 35/2) I am still pretty sure that the Zeiss 35/2 is no slouch either. Its performance should be in the Summicron 35/2 league for all practical purposes and intents. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tritentrue Posted October 14, 2020 Share #20 Posted October 14, 2020 M240/Zeiss ZM 2/35 . . . These "versus" threads make for some lively debate and interesting reading. But for my purposes, either of the two "combatants" cited in this thread would do the job nicely. . . . and what Pete @farnz said in posts #3 and #7 . . . 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! 5 1 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/314183-zeiss-zm-35mm-f2-vs-leica-summicron-35mm-f2/?do=findComment&comment=4062608'>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