35mm Summicron v3 vs Zeiss Biogon f2 vs C-Biogon f2.8

[28framelines]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey folks! I’m really struggling here to decide the best option. I recognize one is essentially 50 years old, but I really love the classic rendering to the 35mm Summicron v3, since it renders similarly to the Steel Rim reissue that, to be honest, is my grail lens (from what I can tell). It has a certain “pop” to the images. I also am a huge fan of Ray Barbee and Josef Koudelka, who both seem to shoot with this lens.

That being said, I really love the pop that both the Biogon and C-Biogon have, which are both more modern, and can be picked up for less than half the cost of the Summicron. The Biogon is appealing because it seems to “suffer” from the same glow that the Summicron does wide open, but has a pleasing look to the images as well.

The C-Biogon is appealing because it’s super compact, and seems to have something of a cult following. It also has that Zeiss pop.

Here are some reference images I like from each lens:

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!

Biogon f2: 

 

C-Biogon: 

Please help! Haha

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

Never seen any glow out of the C-Biogon 35/2.8 so far (no experience with Biogon 35/2) and the Summicron 35/2 v3 has less contrast so i suspect your v3 pic has been adjusted contrast wise in PP.

Edited July 7, 2024 by lct

[spydrxx]

If those are all your pictures (since there is no attribution to others), then you already own or have access to all three. Are you shooting film, digital or both? Whatever your medium, you should be comparing their rendering on that medium. Scientifically it should also be the same scene shot at the same aperture on all three. Let us know how it turns out.

[28framelines]

16 minutes ago, spydrxx said:

If those are all your pictures (since there is no attribution to others), then you already own or have access to all three. Are you shooting film, digital or both? Whatever your medium, you should be comparing their rendering on that medium. Scientifically it should also be the same scene shot at the same aperture on all three. Let us know how it turns out.

Oh weird, I’m not sure why they don’t take you to Flickr Profiles I linked to. Sorry about that! No, I don’t have access to any of them! But also, I will only be shooting film with them!

[28framelines]

36 minutes ago, lct said:

Never seen any glow out of the C-Biogon 35/2.8 so far (no experience with Biogon 35/2) and the Summicron 35/2 v3 has less contrast so i suspect your v3 pic has been adjusted contrast wise in PP.

How do you like the C-Biogon?

[lct]

1 minute ago, 28framelines said:

How do you like the C-Biogon?

My favorite "slow" 35 ever but i like contrasty lenses.

[BWColor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have both 35mm Biogons and never use the f/2.0.  The compact f/2.8 is sharp from wide open and has the Zeiss micro-contrast.  No contest here.

I’m currently vacationing and expected 35mm to be permanently affixed to my M11 Monochrom, but this hasn’t been the case.  Another small Biogon with a red filter has been my go to lens.  This is the 21mm f/4.5 Biogon C.

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!

[JTLeica]

Would you consider the Ultron F2 or Ultron F1.7 (slightly older and larger but optically a little better) instead?

I have not shot the 35 Cron, I didn’t like the Biogon 2.8 at all, very high contrast and I think my copy was soft compare to others. The F2 is a lovely lens but not critically sharp outside of the centre if that matters. From your photos maybe it won’t if often a central subject or people related

[lct]

1 hour ago, JTLeica said:

Would you consider the Ultron F2 [...] I have not shot the 35 Cron, I didn’t like the Biogon 2.8 at all, very high contrast [...]

If you mean the current Ultron 35/2 asph it is a very sharp lens with high contrast too. I have those 3 lenses and the better compromise, if you like modern rendition, is the Summicron 35/2 asph v2 but it is a subjective matter, as you know, so better try the lens in person if you can.

[28framelines]

2 hours ago, lct said:

If you mean the current Ultron 35/2 asph it is a very sharp lens with high contrast too. I have those 3 lenses and the better compromise, if you like modern rendition, is the Summicron 35/2 asph v2 but it is a subjective matter, as you know, so better try the lens in person if you can.

 

4 hours ago, JTLeica said:

Would you consider the Ultron F2 or Ultron F1.7 (slightly older and larger but optically a little better) instead?

I have not shot the 35 Cron, I didn’t like the Biogon 2.8 at all, very high contrast and I think my copy was soft compare to others. The F2 is a lovely lens but not critically sharp outside of the centre if that matters. From your photos maybe it won’t if often a central subject or people related

I really enjoyed the Leica 28mm Elmarit ASPH II that I had, but now shoot the Voigtlander 28 Color Skopar, which is also a contrasty lens. So I have no issues with contrasty lenses. That being said, I’m not particularly interested in the Ultron II because of the close focus (I only shoot film M and my brain can’t handle the rangefinder decoupling) and the older version seems too large.

EDIT: I just looked it up: that lens also close focuses, so it’s a no go for me unfortunately.

Edited July 8, 2024 by 28framelines

[lct]

The CV 28/2.8 asph v1's MFD is 0.7m AFAIK. I have no experience with it though.

[28framelines]

11 hours ago, lct said:

The CV 28/2.8 asph v1's MFD is 0.7m AFAIK. I have no experience with it though.

It’s fantastic!