Snakepottery Posted September 7, 2009 Share #1 Posted September 7, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi all, I am in a quandary! I'd like a 35mm lens for my M6 and would really like the Summicron F2 however it's just a bit too pricey. I could get the Zeiss 35mm F2 but will I be disappointed? The other alternative would be to wait until I have the money for the leica lens but at nearly 3 times the cost... Secondhand silver Leica's are like gold dust too and hold there price, I presume due to being the standard lens for the M8. Oh to win the lottery! What do those that own the Zeiss think? Cheers Andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 7, 2009 Posted September 7, 2009 Hi Snakepottery, Take a look here Zeiss Biogon 35mm?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Double Negative Posted September 7, 2009 Share #2 Posted September 7, 2009 Some say it's a touch soft wide open but sharpens up quickly by f/2.8. I would say it's perhaps not as sharp as some other ZMs wide open, but I wouldn't call it "soft" by any stretch of the imagination. I'd say you'd probably be very happy with it. It's distortion and vignette free, very hard to flare (even without hood) and at your typical apertures of f/4 and f/5.6 is very sharp and lively. It has a nice 3D "pop" from f/2-2.8. Definitely a Zeiss lens, if you know what I mean. Go for it! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RITskellar Posted September 7, 2009 Share #3 Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) I am in a quandary! I'd like a 35mm lens for my M6 and would really like the Summicron F2 however it's just a bit too pricey... at nearly 3 times the cost. Secondhand silver Leica's are like gold dust too and hold there price. The 5 different versions of Summicron 35's vary greatly in cost. You can find a very nice version 2 or 3 for about $800 +/-. Every bit as good as the first, that you might be referring to (if not better, depending on your point of reference). It has a nice 3D "pop" from f/2-2.8. Definitely a Zeiss lens, if you know what I mean. I suspect he (OP) doesn't know what you mean, since he asked. Neither do I, come to think of it. Never used anything but a Leica lens on my M bodies, which might explain my lack of 3D pop. Edited September 7, 2009 by RITskellar Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakepottery Posted September 8, 2009 Author Share #4 Posted September 8, 2009 You're right, I don't know what he meant!! My problem is knowing what the different versions were/are and actually finding one that is silver too! Loads of black lenses but I think they look strange on a silver body. Silly I know but.... In the original post I was comparing the latest 35mm Asph lens with the Zeiss, hadn't thought abut earlier 35mm Leica lenses. I already have a 50mm Summicron which is a beauty. Not sure what you mean by 3D pop, could someone enlighten me? And the different versions of 35mm lenses? That would be most useful! Cheers all Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted September 8, 2009 Share #5 Posted September 8, 2009 Personally, I'd bite the bullet and buy the lens in black. If I was budget conscious I would look for later model 35Summicron, which are pre ASPH. If you dont understand the differences between Summilux, Summicron, Elmarit, it refers to widest aperture. The price variations tend to reflect the cost of developing and delivering what Leica determine satisfactory optics, rather than one or the other lens being inherently better, with the wider Summiux being a lot more expensive. They all write differently because of the f/stop v optics, and it will take a fair amount of learning to get the most out of a lens. There have been plenty of examples posted in the picture forum when the 'best optic' for a particular film, subject, context and light environment was a now cheap as chips nineteen fifties lens or earlier. If you need to understand the behavior of a lens type or model, reviews might help you. But you should respect that if the reviewer is in a different light environment to you there will be sometimes not subtle differences between what the reviewer concludes and you find in practice. Often you have to make compromises based on budget and availability. Nothing wrong with Zeiss, but I would say you are doing yourself a disservice if you compromise on the basis of the colour of the paint on the lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasw_ Posted September 9, 2009 Share #6 Posted September 9, 2009 I agree with Rob about the colour of the lenses. The only functional difference I find between silver and black lenses is the ease of reading the distance and aperature numbers; as a rule I prefer the white numbers on the black lens for their clarity. But others have told me they find the opposite to be the case. If you can afford the ZM 35/2 Biogon for ~800 bucks, then for sure you can find a used third version summicron 35/2 in that range. It is smaller and more compact and has quite pleasant OOF areas in its drawing, almost as nice as the more pricey v4 summicron 35/2. For me compact size is important in a RF lens and the ZM 35/2 is quite bulky for a f2 35; it is a bit bigger than the summilux asph 35/1,4 when compared without their hoods! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakepottery Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share #7 Posted September 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks gents. I think you may be right, I'll hang on and get a Summicron as opposed to the Zeiss. Regarding the differences I was aware of the Summilux, elmarit etc but was referring to the differences between the 5 versions of Summicron;) I'm not sure which is the best of even if there is any differences between them. As to colour, of course you are right, it would be daft to buy a lens just because of it's colour! I think I wasn't clear enough on that point, what I was trying to say was that given two Summicron 35mm lenses, one black and one silver I would prefer silver, however there is a lot less of them around second hand. So I shall leave the money in Paypal and see what comes up over the next few weeks! Perhaps I shoud be saving for the M9!!! Shortly followed by divorce! Cheers! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
behhl Posted September 10, 2009 Share #8 Posted September 10, 2009 Thanks gents. I think you may be right, I'll hang on and get a Summicron as opposed to the Zeiss. Regarding the differences I was aware of the Summilux, elmarit etc but was referring to the differences between the 5 versions of Summicron;) I'm not sure which is the best of even if there is any differences between them. As to colour, of course you are right, it would be daft to buy a lens just because of it's colour! I think I wasn't clear enough on that point, what I was trying to say was that given two Summicron 35mm lenses, one black and one silver I would prefer silver, however there is a lot less of them around second hand. So I shall leave the money in Paypal and see what comes up over the next few weeks! Perhaps I shoud be saving for the M9!!! Shortly followed by divorce! Cheers! You might find this RFF thread interesting enough to read then 35mm Summicron thread ... trusting that the mods think its ok to lead people astray into RFF ... ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted September 10, 2009 Share #9 Posted September 10, 2009 Consider a $35 subsctiption to Reid Reviews as he has lots of info on 35mm lenses for M. The biogon is a superb lens, but slightly larger than the leica 35s. It has unsurpassed sharpness in the outer field, virtually no distortion, super resistant to flare and great image sharpeness (and IMHO nice bokeh). In most, but not all, tests the cron asph is sharper on centre wide open, but things are pretty well equal a stop down, although the biogon retains superior corner performance (not that the differences are huge). The biogon has quite a modern look in terms of high contrast and ímage clarity' but quite gentle tones (as long as you handle the contrast in E&D). There is definitely a long smooth greyscale to these lenses and more classic bokeh. There are some build issues with the biogons as some (not all) develop the wobbles and need a locking ring tightening up, but this is a very quick fix in most cases. If you do not need f2, but could live with 2.5, have you considered the 35 Summarit or CV 35 Skopar or Pancake II? The pancake 2 performs superbly, particularly a stop or two down, when vignetting is more controlled. A v3 cron will set you back about $800-900 and V4 about $1000-1200, so vastly more than a Pancake II, at $320 new, or $370 with hood. Used biogons tend to go for about $550-650 and in terms of raw performance (look being subjective) are very good value. Most users agree that in terms of performance the Biogon is stronger than the older Crons, but the look may or may not be to your liking. By 'Zeiss like', previous posts were referring to high resolution, low distortion, exceptional image clarity due to low veiling flare, and a 'clean look'. The clean look tends to apply only with slow films, with the differences between lenses narrowing somewhat when you put TriX or HP5 in the camera! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakepottery Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted September 10, 2009 Thanks for the explanation of the Zeiss, most enlightening and definitely food for thought. I read through the 35mm Summicron thread and particularly liked the comment about a lenses quality being 95% in the photographers head and 5% in the lens! So, I shall watch Flea Bay and count my pennies!! Thanks By the way, as a newbie to the forum, it's great!! Andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Manning Posted September 11, 2009 Share #11 Posted September 11, 2009 I find the Zeiss T* Biogon 35/2 very sharp, and highly-resistant to flare. I didn't think I was settling. My rig: 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted September 11, 2009 Share #12 Posted September 11, 2009 David, very impressive images. Are these scanned negs (drum scanned) or B&W conversions from chrome film? If these are negative scans, how are you sharpening. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Manning Posted September 12, 2009 Share #13 Posted September 12, 2009 Jeff, Thanks for the complements. Those images are actually Kodak BW400CN shots, developed at Walgreens (of all places) and scanned by their Noritsu. I think they did a bang-up job. The prints they did were a bit thin, but once the black level was brought down, I think the scans look great, don't you think? Another (neighbor in his pool): Another of my M6 classic and Zeiss T* Biogon 35/f2: 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubenkok Posted September 12, 2009 Share #14 Posted September 12, 2009 Hi David, Stunning images, love the shallow depth of field well seen and execuited Great camera & lens! Kind regards Ruben Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted September 12, 2009 Share #15 Posted September 12, 2009 Cheers David. The fact it is C41 explains the sharpening without grain augmentation so often experienced with silver halide based B&W film. I am most impressed with the processing/scanning job. The blacks are nice and rich. Again, great shots and post-processing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Manning Posted September 13, 2009 Share #16 Posted September 13, 2009 Thanks guys. C-41 b&w sometimes gets a bad rep because mini-labs mess up the printing. The problem I have with Kodak C-41 is it is not good for optical enlarging on b&w paper (lacks good contrast)...it's really meant for machine printing. The answer for ease is Ilford XP2, which will print better in a traditional darkroom. Of course, there were test rolls...I like shooting Tri-X and printing traditionally, but it's hard to get a good scan. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernmelder Posted September 13, 2009 Share #17 Posted September 13, 2009 I use a ZM Biogon 35/2, too. Some examples, scanned from negative with Epson's V500: Shots are on APX100 and Tri-X 400. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glacier Posted September 19, 2009 Share #18 Posted September 19, 2009 The Zeiss 35mm Biogon is an exceptional lens. I own both the Summicron and Biogon and having shot with both for more than a year, can offer some comparative commentary. The 'cron delivers images with high contrast, outstanding shadow detail and great resolution. The Biogon offers all this with perhaps a tad bit less contrast. Where the Biogon scores over the Cron is that the images just appear...cleaner. Perhaps it is due to the less complicated design of the lens, but pictures made by the Biogon just appear more natural. You really can't go wrong with either lens, but IMHO the Biogon will create more memorable pictures. Anand 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted September 19, 2009 Share #19 Posted September 19, 2009 T... Where the Biogon scores over the Cron is that the images just appear...cleaner. .You really can't go wrong with either lens, but IMHO the Biogon will create more memorable pictures. Anand I think this is probably something to do with the coatings. The ZM 35 f2 is a very low flare lens and images do appear to have great clarity. Some say clinical, some say smooth, some refer to clarity, but I think they are all talking about the same thing. FWIW this quality is common to all the ZM lenses I own. I think the very nautral bokeh, which I find smooth, has something to do with this as well. Images just look natural. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pipeclayed Posted November 26, 2009 Share #20 Posted November 26, 2009 Couple of shots with a Biogon on an M6TTL from my first roll. The grain's because the HP5 was pushed to 800. Initially I was torn between getting the Biogon and saving for the Summicron, but I'm genuinely glad I went with the Zeiss. In short: I love this lens! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.