Summicron ASPH Color/Contrast vs C-Biogon

[blackdot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’m shooting more color film lately, and prefer very bold contrast and color “pop” on color to my older 70s/80s  lenses, which I prefer on b/w. Has anyone compared the Zeiss ZM C-Biogon 35/2.8 to the Summicron v5 Asph?

I’ve read that the v5 was contrastier and more saturated than the 35/2 ZM, but haven’t seen many direct comparisons to the 2.8 - probably since the speed is different.

Ignoring speed, price, focus shift, focus nub, etc, how do these compare strictly in terms of contrast and “wow” factor on color film? 

[Advertisement]

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

[Tessar.]

I found the 35mm Summicron ASPH I had flared unacceptably in bright overcast light (which happens a lot of times in the UK).  Neither of the Biogon types did this and both were great with film,

I really loved the f/2 version of the Biogon over the C, there's more to a lens than outright sharpness.  The pics from the f/2 had a certain quality I really liked, 

On my digital M-P and M-D I kind of preferred the Summarit to all three.

I don't have any of them now though as I prefer a 28mm lens, but I do have the 35mm Color Skopar VM II, which is very underrated and nice and small compared to the others.  I have the 8-element Summicron replica from LLL too which is really lovely.

Really, I would try all three (Summicron ASPH, f/2 Biogon and C-Biogon) and the Summarit.  You won't lose a great deal selling them on if you buy sensibly and the experience will improve your pics and help you to find what you really want,

 

[lct]

Not sure if i recall how they behave on film but both my Summicron 35/2 asph v1 and Biogon 35/2.8 take contrasty photos indeed. The Biogon has less CA and less distortion but more vignetting. None of my copies suffer from focus shift on digital so i guess it is not a problem on film either. Flare wise the Biogon is superior and its bokeh is smooth. Smooth bokeh with the Summicron too but at f/2 only. At f/2.8 i find it a bit harsh, reason why i bought a Summicron 35/2 asph v2 that i use almost exclusively now. The Biogon remains my favorite "slow" 35 with a better apparent quality and more sharpness on edges and corners than my Summarit 35/2.5. FWIW.

[blackdot]

On 7/19/2024 at 7:59 AM, Tessar. said:

I found the 35mm Summicron ASPH I had flared unacceptably in bright overcast light (which happens a lot of times in the UK).  Neither of the Biogon types did this and both were great with film,

 

I actually owned the v1 ASPH briefly before, but hated the rainbow flare enough to sell it. I don’t mind nice ghostly flare, but hard rainbows are just useless and weird. Other people don’t seem to always have that problem, so I may have just had a bad copy. It also had issues with critical focus, possibly due to shift. 

23 hours ago, lct said:

Not sure if i recall how they behave on film but both my Summicron 35/2 asph v1 and Biogon 35/2.8 take contrasty photos indeed.

I just developed a few color rolls with the Zeiss 2.8, and while everything is nice and sharp and technically perfect, it doesn’t quite pop like my converted Contax G 45mm. I suppose I’m looking for that look in a slightly wider lens, without buying another expensive conversion compromise.

[Tessar.]

Here are a couple of pics from the C-Biogon and my M2 using Kodak Ektar 100 film.  They "pop" pretty well I think, but the scans are bad minilab low res jpgs and are also downloaded from my Flickr so probably suffer from that too...

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 July 20, 2024 by Tessar.

[blackdot]

1 hour ago, Tessar. said:

Here are a couple of pics from the C-Biogon and my M2 using Kodak Ektar 100 film.  They "pop" pretty well I think, but the scans are bad minilab low res jpgs and are also downloaded from my Flickr so probably suffer from that too...

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!

Yeah, you are right. I went through my last few rolls again after a good night's sleep and they match the G Planar pretty well. I was looking too closely for too long.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, blackdot said:

I just developed a few color rolls with the Zeiss 2.8, and while everything is nice and sharp and technically perfect, it doesn’t quite pop like my converted Contax G 45mm [...].

That pop effect is a feature of all my Zeiss lenses, be it on film or digital. Here Biogon 35/2.8 on M240.

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!

 

[jaapv]

Well, given the contrast slider and curves tool in you postprocessing program, contrast is completely subjective too, assuming that you scan your film.
The C-Biogon is an all-time favourite on my M9M for its B&W rendering.

[lct]

22 minutes ago, _tc said:

[...] The c-biogon had poor performance at the edges/corners on digital [...]

Different experience here. When i need a 35 with sharp edges or corners i take preferably the Biogon 35/2.8 if i don't need a larger aperture than f/2.8. Vignetting is another story.