35mm Summaron 2.8 vs C-biogon 2.8

[James6714]

Hi Tom,

What is your perspective on these 2 lenses ?

I am undecided on which one, currently the Summaron costs a bit more than the Biogon, my heart is leaning towards the Leica. Can you help me out ? BTY, I will mainly use it on M8.

Thanks,

[magicianhisoka]

I'd go with the zeiss unless you want the Leica brand or "character" filled look. Don't see why I'd pay more for a 50 year old lens when I can get a brand new one with better technical performance for less.

[horosu]

The C-Biogon is just perfect, flawless.

The Summaron is a much weaker Leica lens.

The rest is up to you.

Kind regards, Horea

[Johann Espiritu]

Two very different lenses, IMHO. The Summaron will give you a much lower contrast, vintage look; the Biogon has a much more modern rendition (and will deliver crisper colors). It all depends on what lens signature you'd like more, but if I were shooting on the M8, I may just choose the latter.

BTW, when you're shopping for a Summaron, make sure you get a copy that is haze-free. This lens tends to haze up quite a bit.

Good luck!

[nanthor]

I have to agree with Horosu, the Biogon is perfect. I don't know how to describe it, but it just seems every picture taken with it, whether BW or color, just comes out looking great, no flaws. I think if you're looking for a vintage look, you can spend a lot less than the cost of the Summaron but if you're looking for just great images, the Biogon wins.

[fbf]

C-biogon is the best zeiss lens i have ever used

[Dektol Dan]

I bought my Summaron in 1966 new, I've babied it and it still functions as new. It was removed from the body it was on less than half a dozen times and always sported a UV filter(s). I bought my Zeiss a couple of years ago.

If you are doing available light out doors, and street photography the Summaron is superior to the Zeiss. It is also wonderful for portrait work. It takes years off the ladies. It is far more ergonomic than the Zeiss. It tends to flare more, but the Zeiss can make for halation flare too. The Summaron is noticeably wider than the Zeiss, and yet has little distortion.

The Summaron has that National Geographic 1960's look, has contrast that lends itself to manipulation in Photoshop. There is a point where less contrast means greater ability to draw subtle tonal gradations. Take your pick, micro contrast is more useful where, in highlights or shadows? Ergo, you can take away or emphasize only what is recorded.

The Zeiss is wonderful too. It has that Biogon look, and is by far my favorite Zeiss lens. It's a bit clumsy to use, and I find myself using it more and more, but only because I value my Summaron so much I want to save it for more special occasions, and it would be very difficult to replace it. 50 years later and at a price of some $1200+ for used Summaron I would always recommend the Zeiss over the Summaron because it is the only pragmatic decision. I firmly believe that unless your lay out thousands, glass is no better today, just different in look, and my preferences for my favorite imagery still lie with the hits of the past (which thank God I still own).

The Zeiss is PLENTY good for the price and performance. You can't go wrong with it.

[semilog]

The 35 C-Biogon is my favorite lens, period. I like it even a bit more than my old 35 Summilux ASPH. Its only weakness is that it vignettes a bit when wide open. On film I think this looks fantastic but on digital it could be a nuisance.

Other than the vignetting, it has essentially no technical flaws, and its rendering is gorgeous. At a given aperture it seems to have a bit more OOF than one might expect for a 2.8, perhaps because of its great contrast at 2.8 and the way it renders the transition from critical focus to OOF. I have not seen any 35 with bokeh that I like better.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7037/6825426762_e55c978f6d_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/semilog/6825426762/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/semilog/6825426762/) by Semilog (http://www.flickr.com/people/semilog/), on Flickr


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7031/6818034515_7305f455e6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/semilog/6818034515/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/semilog/6818034515/) by Semilog (http://www.flickr.com/people/semilog/), on Flickr

[loneranger]

Summaron for digital, biogon for film.

[Sparrow]

If one can't take a decent photo with the Summaron switching to the Biogon probably isn't going to help I fear ...

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/169/3515264707_048404f75d_b.jpg (http://farm1.staticflickr.com/169/3515264707_048404f75d_b.jpg)

[Tom A]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3400/5756894293_541c7858b0_z.jpg

I think that the C Biogon is the perfect 35 medium speed. Incredible sharp, nice tonality. I have the 35f2.8 Summaron too - but I admit it gets little use since I got the C Biogon 35!
This is a sculpture that was part of the Vancouver Bienale Arts display. Of course, once this was over - it was removed from the Steveston park.

[Tom A]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3228/2396902603_aa6a18b014_z.jpg

For many years the Summaron 35mm f2.8 was my "walk about" lens - usually on a M4 or M2. It is very good for a lens that is 50+ years old. It also has the advantage of being better at close focus than the Summicron 35 vI/vII. It is one of those cases that if you have nice clean sample of a 35f2.8 Summicron - you probably dont need the C Biogon 35 - but if you are buying one of these now - go for the C Biogon.
One of the italian cafe's on Vancouver's Commercial Drive - a bit of Rome on the West Coast.
TriX in PCK developer.

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Please note that the Biogon has a different filterthread than the Leitz lenses, 39mm or 46mm doesn't fit, also the less common 40,5mm used by older Zeiss and FSU lenses doesn't fit. I believe the Biogon has 43 x 0.75mm filter thread and the Summaron has plain 39mm. Not important perhaps but for some a consideration..

If you go for sharpness, than your choice seems easy > only the Biogon would count, already tack sharp in the center wide open


once I went only for these summarons (on the Barnacks and on the M-Leica's):-)
I guess I always found their barrel design one of the most attractive ever made (like the summicron 1st type)
http://kpmg0072.home.xs4all.nl/summaron/Kopie%20van%20IMG_4727.JPG

btw over the years Leitz gave them different coatings (from left to right - 1960 blue, 1962 yellow-brown, 1968 purple)
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5275/5894376387_eb477761eb_z.jpg

[Matus]

You may want to consider also the new Summarit 35/2.5 - I have seen some results from this lens on Flickr - and Steve Huff has some interesting articles about it too (see here (http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/26/one-more-time-zeiss-35-biogon-and-leica-35-summarit-comparison/), here (http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/24/quick-comparison-leica-35-summarit-vs-zeiss-zm-35-biogon/) and here (http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/23/the-leica-35-summarit-lens-review/))

[Ron (Netherlands)]

You may want to consider also the new Summarit 35/2.5 - I have seen some results from this lens on Flickr - and Steve Huff has some interesting articles about it too (see here (http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/26/one-more-time-zeiss-35-biogon-and-leica-35-summarit-comparison/), here (http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/24/quick-comparison-leica-35-summarit-vs-zeiss-zm-35-biogon/) and here (http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/23/the-leica-35-summarit-lens-review/))

probably all comparisons against the 2.0 Biogon and not with the 2.8 C Biogon which is claimed to be sharper
but indeed a Summarit is a nice lens which is (second hand price wise) comparable to the Biogon and Summaron

[redisburning]

it's a minor difference but if you have a perfect sample of each the f2 biogon is a bit sharper; both in that it hits a higher maximum cycles (nearly 90cycles MTF40 at f4) and that it's MTFs stay above the c-biogon's for most of the field.

I don't think you should base your purchase decision on that, but I would consider all of the potential factors involved in any claim that the c-biogon is sharper.

[helenhill]

whats Not to Love about either...Tough Choice
here is the summaron
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2507/4054478554_c917cafd9e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/helenartemishill/4054478554/)

[helenhill]

Summaron Again... classic Old Leica Glass at its BEST
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4065/4409933740_fbda72d413_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/erichill418/4409933740/)

[helenhill]

C Biogon Modern Magic...
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6099/6356160557_6ba20f45c8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/helenartemishill/6356160557/)

[helenhill]

C Biogon best bang for the Buck...
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6104/6360534303_cd3c7e402d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/helenartemishill/6360534303/)

[ChrisLivsey]

Its only weakness is that it vignettes a bit when wide open.

The OP is looking to use the lens on an M8 (but he will soon graduate up to film I hope :D) on which the crop will remove that vignette. It does, of course, change the look of many lenses that have softer corners you may or may not see that as an advantage.

[jsrockit]

If you are doing available light out doors, and street photography the Summaron is superior to the Zeiss.

How so? :eek:

[semilog]

it's a minor difference but if you have a perfect sample of each the f2 biogon is a bit sharper; both in that it hits a higher maximum cycles (nearly 90cycles MTF40 at f4)

You mean 90% (=0.9) modulation transfer at 40 cyc, not 90 cycles.

And even that is not correct. Both the 2.0 [Zeiss MTF at Rockwell's site (http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zm/35mm-f2.htm)] and the 2.8 [Zeiss MTF at Rockwell's site (http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zm/35mm-f28.htm)] peak at about 80% MTF at 10 cyc, not 40 cyc. 40 cyc is the bottom pair of lines in each set, not the top.

The 2.8 lens is a bit sharper on center and holds its MTF a bit further into the corners. But the differences are minor. Both are terrific lenses.

[semilog]

How so? :eek:

Some people think veiling flare improves their photographs.

[redisburning]

You mean 90% (=0.9) modulation transfer at 40 cyc, not 90 cycles.

And even that is not correct. Both the 2.0 [Zeiss MTF at Rockwell's site (http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zm/35mm-f2.htm)] and the 2.8 [Zeiss MTF at Rockwell's site (http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zm/35mm-f28.htm)] peak at about 80% MTF at 10 cyc, not 40 cyc. 40 cyc is the bottom pair of lines in each set, not the top.

The 2.8 lens is a bit sharper on center and holds its MTF a bit further into the corners. But the differences are minor. Both are terrific lenses.

I guess the graph I was looking at was a bit cramped. I had assumed the scale was correct, I got this from Denoir over at FM:

http://i39.tinypic.com/hvbf2b.jpg

[helenhill]

Some people think veiling flare improves their photographs.

Oh Dear I'm One of those :eek:
sometimes Flare can add Atmosphere & can be Coool ... :)
though I much prefer Vignetting , in particular with the 21 Super Angulon :D

[semilog]

That's a useful comparo, thanks for posting it. My assessments were just by eyeballing the MTF charts.

[jsrockit]

Oh Dear I'm One of those :eek:
sometimes Flare can add Atmosphere & can be Coool ... :)
though I much prefer Vignetting , in particular with the 21 Super Angulon :D

Helen, I agree with you 99% of the time. It's rare that I think the flare ruined my photo. I also add vignetting often after the fact.

[James6714]

Thank you all for your inputs and lovely pictures.

Very helpful comments from: Tom (always), Semilog, Dektol Dan, and last but not least helen hill (I love your pictures).

I will definitely go for the Biogon.

Regards,
James

[froyd]

I'm a huge fan of the Zeiss look: punchy colors, crisp contrast, no distortions... the reason why I cannot get rid of of the Contax G. However, I'm head over heels for teh Summaron 2.8, especially shot on XP2 at 320. There's so much tonal gradation in the negatives this combo produces that you could mistake it for a bigger format. Simply superb. Sharp enough without the razor's hedge.

I posted some images from this combo here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118984&highlight=summaron

[Shade]

Inthink both lenses are great, but wasnt there an article discussing about how sharp the sumaron is wide open? Im not sure if I rember correctly but I think one does exist somewhere. But disregarding the fact I believe the summaron has a certain character and so does the biogon. It would be best to try both out and see which one you like better for your style of shooting.

[BobYIL]

For B&W film, Summaron tones I like more, as if more gradations from black to white. C-Biogon's contrast is striking, similar to Summicron 35 Asph. Both have almost no distortion, bokeh by the Biogon is buttery smooth. Center sharpness of Summaron and the C-Biogon is almost the same, f2.8 and f5.6 tested; a tiny tad to Summaron's favor. The C-Biogon is superior in the edges/corners. For color and digital the C-Biogon is an outstanding lens.

Not to undermine; Summaron's center sharpness was better than any 35mm lens I have tested including the Summicron Asph and Summicron v1.