What's the best 35mm companion for the Zeiss 50mm Planar ZM?

[bcapphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Digitally, I shoot with an M246 and MD262. Analog, I shoot with an M6. I also have a Leica Q. 

 

I mostly shoot portraits and weddings professionally (15+ years) and for fun, I document the everyday with our 3 kids (8, 5 and 3). For paid client work, I almost always use my Fuji kit so I probably wouldn't be looking to use my M kit (for now) with client work. 

 

I'm changing things up (it's what we do - right?) from my 35mm Summicron v3 and 50mm Summicron v3 to the 50mm Planar. Wondering what 35mm lens from Zeiss would be the best companion to the 50mm Planar? How is the rendering on the 35mm f/2.0 Biogon? Or should I go nuts and go for the Distagon? Any other thoughts or feedback? 

 

Or - convince me to NOT sell my 35/50 Summicrons LOL 🤷‍♂️

[gbealnz]

Don't sell them, regardless of what you buy (Zeiss or otherwise). It is a mistake I have constantly made, and regret afterwards.

Keep them both, get the Biogon and try it. If that doesn't work, then try the Distagon.

Gary

[Danner]

Your current Summicrons are pretty much the perfect M6 lenses.  I would hang on to them.

[crony]

Hi, I have both the Biogon and the Distagon. The Distagon is the better lens. Get it, if you do not mind the bulk and weight ...

The Biogon is also a good lens. It takes the same ZEISS lens hood as the Planar. If you want to save a little money ... 😉

My M mount 35s (Biogon 3rd from left, Distagon 4th) ... :

 

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 August 22, 2021 by crony
addition

[a.noctilux]

I'd go for the Summarit-M 2.5/35 (at left), underrate lens that became my favorite easy 35 lens,

even if I have many 'better' M 35mm lenses, more than I need.

[pedaes]

Unless you really need f2, the Zeiss 2.8 35mm is an outstanding lens.

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Funny history as old(er) lover of the so called 'KOB'.

 

More than one decade ago, when M lenses were cheaper than now, I had eight units to do some stastics, as I saw that the net results were different.

So I began to use the 8, one by one in real life to see that they are not different from each other more than I though.

So I sold at about same price paid, but now I would be rich ( ? what for ?) if I had kept them 🤢 to sell now.

Still use one 35 IV 'Germany' and keep one 'Canada 1913-1983' to go with the M4-P for fun (again!)

Edited August 22, 2021 by a.noctilux

[bcapphoto]

4 hours ago, crony said:

Hi, I have both the Biogon and the Distagon. The Distagon is the better lens. Get it, if you do not mind the bulk and weight ...

The Biogon is also a good lens. It takes the same ZEISS lens hood as the Planar. If you want to save a little money ... 😉

My M mount 35s (Biogon 3rd from left, Distagon 4th) ... :

 

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!

 

 

How do you find the Biogons stack up against your Summicron or Summarit?

[crony]

42 minutes ago, bcapphoto said:

How do you find the Biogons stack up against your Summicron or Summarit?

Well, I am a little biased here. The 35mm Summicron was my first Leica lens, bought in 1988. So, a kind of first love thing  😉... --- 

What I like about the two 35mm Leicas, is their compactness. The ZEISS Biogon is bigger, and the lens hood of the Biogon(s) is fiddly.

The bokeh of the 35mm Summicron is very nice, but difficult to distinguish from that of the Biogon in a blindfold test. The Summarit is slower, and has a greater MFD,

which shows in the bokeh ...

(The 50s are again difficult to tell apart in a blindfold test. I like the handling of the Summicron with its sliding hood best, but it is a little flare-prone.

The Summarit and the Biogon show very similar performance.)

So, this sounds a little like the Alice in Wonderland race everybody has won ...

Which speaks for all these lenses - at least in the hands of a hobbyist. -

 

 

Edited August 22, 2021 by crony
Typo

[Stuart Richardson]

I don't think you are going to see any drastic changes with the lenses you mention. Certainly not between the 50mm Planar and 50mm Summicron...they are very similar lenses. On the 35mm front, unless you go to a 1.4 lens or a 2.8 lens, or the APO Summicron, you are probably not going to see any vast differences. I think the "it's what we do, right?" is usually code for being antsy and impatient. I know that if I distract myself with making work, usually my desire to change something out dissipates. If you just can't shake it, then perhaps it is time to change, but if that is the case, I think you might want to change more dramatically than what you are proposing. Personally, I think if you are shooting with film or 24mp or less, then the lenses you have are likely very good for what you want to do. The main exception would be that if you do not like the performance of the 35mm wide open, you might want to get one of the more modern sharper versions in that range.

[Photon42]

15 hours ago, bcapphoto said:

Digitally, I shoot with an M246 and MD262. Analog, I shoot with an M6. I also have a Leica Q. 

 

I mostly shoot portraits and weddings professionally (15+ years) and for fun, I document the everyday with our 3 kids (8, 5 and 3). For paid client work, I almost always use my Fuji kit so I probably wouldn't be looking to use my M kit (for now) with client work. 

 

I'm changing things up (it's what we do - right?) from my 35mm Summicron v3 and 50mm Summicron v3 to the 50mm Planar. Wondering what 35mm lens from Zeiss would be the best companion to the 50mm Planar? How is the rendering on the 35mm f/2.0 Biogon? Or should I go nuts and go for the Distagon? Any other thoughts or feedback? 

 

Or - convince me to NOT sell my 35/50 Summicrons LOL 🤷‍♂️

What is your exception when getting the Planar?

[bcapphoto]

Just now, Photon42 said:

What is your exception when getting the Planar?

I think I'm just a little bit underwhelmed with the 50mm Summicron v3 when moving to digital. It's nice, don't get me wrong, but for whatever reason, it doesn't blow me away digitally.

[Photon42]

If you're after sharpness, did you try the Voigtlander APO Lanthar 50 f2?

 

[crony]

4 minutes ago, Photon42 said:

If you're after sharpness, did you try the Voigtlander APO Lanthar 50 f2?

 

I have it. This is the 50 I would currently recommend (but I do not have the Apo-Summicron 50) . However, it is heavy and bulky ...

[Narsuitus]

15 hours ago, bcapphoto said:

I'm changing things up (it's what we do - right?) from my 35mm Summicron v3 and 50mm Summicron v3 to the 50mm Planar. Wondering what 35mm lens from Zeiss would be the best companion to the 50mm Planar? How is the rendering on the 35mm f/2.0 Biogon? Or should I go nuts and go for the Distagon? Any other thoughts or feedback? 

 

Or - convince me to NOT sell my 35/50 Summicrons LOL 🤷‍♂️

First, if I had purchased a 35mm Summicron v3 and a 50mm Summicron v3, I would not sell them.

On the other hand, when I bought my M6, the first lens I purchased for it was a 35mm f/1.4 Distagon. I now shoot my Distagon with my M6 and an M10.Love the Distagon so much that I have never felt the need for a 35mm Summicron or a 50mm Summicron.

 

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!

[TomB_tx]

I’ve had 50 & 35 Summicrons for decades. After getting a digital M (9) I started experimenting and got a 50 Planar & 35 f2 Biogon, also a v5 Summicron 50. The Planar & Biogon are well matched, high contrast lenses. Both very flare resistant. Tactile very similar in use. The Biogon is sharper than my old Summicron, but I missed the tiny Summicron size (v2). So I added a 35 Summarit 2.5 - as sharp as the Biogon, and handling I prefer. So also added a 50 Summarit 2.5 with identical handling. Now both my most used on M10.

On film 50 was most used, but on digital it’s 35 by far. Since the Biogon felt too big to me I wouldn’t consider the Distagon regardless of performance.

I could be happy with either the Leica or Zeiss as results are quite close, but prefer handling of Leica.

[haikos]

I have a biogon 2/35. The lens hood is not fiddly at all like someone previously said it was. In fact it’s my Leica hood with tabs that is fiddly as heck. I wish Leica copied the zeiss hood bayonet system. It is simple, robust, and brilliant in use.

Second, if you are looking for a 35 to go with your 2/50 Planar, the 2/35 Biogon seems like a natural and complementary match because it has similar traits: bitingly sharp, high contrast, no curvature/distortion, highly flare resistant, crazy sharp sun stars (if you like that sort of thing). If the Planar is described as clinical, so is the Biogon. Even on film it is very very sharp. Pure Zeiss.

Ergonomics and feel would be the same as well, and both are f2 and use identical hood.

I feel like there are too many positives to go a different route but good luck in your decision!

[Photon42]

I used the 35 Biogon for years on the M8 and M9. No complaints other than without hood it is as long as the Summicron ASPH 35 with hood. The Biogon in my eyes does not need a hood for optical reasons. Physical protection is a different matter, of course. I finally sold it with another 35 to get my grail 35 lens: the present version of the 35 Summilux.

All Zeiss lenses have this 1/3 stop aperture clicks. That may or may not confuse you when mixing with lenses from the manufacturers.

[Harpomatic]

On 8/23/2021 at 6:14 AM, haikos said:

I have a biogon 2/35. The lens hood is not fiddly at all like someone previously said it was. In fact it’s my Leica hood with tabs that is fiddly as heck. I wish Leica copied the zeiss hood bayonet system. It is simple, robust, and brilliant in use.

Second, if you are looking for a 35 to go with your 2/50 Planar, the 2/35 Biogon seems like a natural and complementary match because it has similar traits: bitingly sharp, high contrast, no curvature/distortion, highly flare resistant, crazy sharp sun stars (if you like that sort of thing). If the Planar is described as clinical, so is the Biogon. Even on film it is very very sharp. Pure Zeiss.

Ergonomics and feel would be the same as well, and both are f2 and use identical hood.

I feel like there are too many positives to go a different route but good luck in your decision!

I completely agree.

 

On 8/22/2021 at 12:38 AM, bcapphoto said:

Wondering what 35mm lens from Zeiss would be the best companion to the 50mm Planar?

Direct answer: the 35mm F2 Biogon. Same image rendering, great lens, consistent handling, same hood…you can’t go wrong there

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[crony]

On 8/23/2021 at 7:14 AM, haikos said:

I have a biogon 2/35. The lens hood is not fiddly at all like someone previously said it was. In fact it’s my Leica hood with tabs that is fiddly as heck. I wish Leica copied the zeiss hood bayonet system. It is simple, robust, and brilliant in use.

Second, if you are looking for a 35 to go with your 2/50 Planar, the 2/35 Biogon seems like a natural and complementary match because it has similar traits: bitingly sharp, high contrast, no curvature/distortion, highly flare resistant, crazy sharp sun stars (if you like that sort of thing). If the Planar is described as clinical, so is the Biogon. Even on film it is very very sharp. Pure Zeiss.

Ergonomics and feel would be the same as well, and both are f2 and use identical hood.

I feel like there are too many positives to go a different route but good luck in your decision!

Hi, sorry, I should have been more explicit. - The ZEISS lens cap is difficult to fit when the ZEISS lens hood is fitted. (This problem goes away if you use only one component ...

But if everybody else is happy with this, so much the better.)