Summarit v. Biogon - setting aside price diff.

[kxl]

A rhetorical question, but I'm curious. At B&H, the 35/2.5 Summarit-M sells for $1495, while the 35/2 ZM Biogon sells for $877.

If pricing was the same:

1) @ $877, which one would you buy? Why?
2) @ $1495, which one would you buy? Why?

[hans voralberg]

Summarit is tiny. Those who like pocketable, lightweight would be drawn to it. The Biogon is rather large and heavy, but faster. And ultimately each one has a different signature, it's not much down to price tbh.

For the sake of answering:
@877: Summarit, well it's cheaper and I like small lens
@1495: Summarit, I still like smaller lens

[erikhaugsby]

I'd buy the Biogon even if it was more expensive than the Summarit.

[elude]

summarit : WAY smaller, better handling, as good if not better. go Leica.

[mr_phillip]

What hans voralberg said -- despite both being 35mm rf optics we're not really comparing like with like. I guess the toe-to-toe comparison would be Summarit-M 2.5 or Biogon-C 2.8.

[tripod]

Size matters! Small RF lenses are good.

[Tom A]

If you want performance and an extra 1/2 stop - go for the Biogon 35f2.
If size and "portability" is important - go for the Summarit 35f2.5. If you want a really small compact (and very good lens) look closely at the Color Skopar 35f2.5 II. Its performance is similar to a Summicron 35f2 IV version.
I have not seen any direct comparisons between the Summarit 35 and the VC 35mm f2.5 II - anybody has both?
In that pricerange (Biogon 35/2) you can also find the Summaron 35mm f2.8 used. One of the really good vintage Leica lenses, particularly in close.
It is a bit unfortunate that the $/Euro screwed up the price of the Summarit series of lenses. They looked so promising initially, but with $500+ over Zeiss and much more than that over the VC lenses (incuding the 35mm f1,4 Nokton) I find them a bit overpriced for what they deliver.
I did borrow a 75f2.5 Summarit and liked it, but not enough to spend $1500 on one (apart from having the VC/Summicron/Summilux already!). I suspect that the 35f2.5 would fall into the same category - very good, but you can get classic Summicrons used for less and Zeiss/VC new for less.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by hans voralberg

Summarit is tiny. Those who like pocketable, lightweight would be drawn to it. The Biogon is rather large and heavy, but faster. And ultimately each one has a different signature, it's not much down to price tbh.

For the sake of answering:
@877: Summarit, well it's cheaper and I like small lens
@1495: Summarit, I still like smaller lens

The weight is rather similar I believe, but the boigon is about 12mm or so longer when mounted. I agree that this is not like vs like as teh biogon is 2/3 stops faster and to some this is important. The biogon C 2.8 is about the same size as the summarit I think. I reckon it comes down to the following:

Handling/size
Speed
Image character

I own the biogon and not the summarit, but from what I have read the summarit appears to be a lower contrast lens, which some will prefer. I shoot mono and all my lenses are contrasty, so I can downrate the film a touch and then reduce development so lens contrast is not such an issue. Digital shooters who shoot in strong sunlight might appreciate the lower contrast of the summarit. Personally, I think $1500 is rather a lot for a 2.5 lens when the pancake 2 is $320 and has such a fine reputation. It is also much smaller still, has a tab for interchangeable use with small leica lenses etc. I like the idea of a moderately compact summarit but cannot get that extra $1k out of my head compared to the pancake. In terms of outright performance, I bet the pancake runs it bloody close too. Certainly if the tests I have read of both 35 2.5 CVs are at all accurate A head to head of the summarit and CV would be interesting....

So I would buy the biogon. I did, although the summarit was not about. I could have found a used Cron asph for about that money and at almost double the biogon price at the time there was no contest. The 35 bopgon f2 might be bigger than some but it is no bigger than the summicron which nobody seems to whinge about too much.

[Johann Espiritu]

Both have a different "character" and it boils down to personal taste. I personally prefer the Zeiss look - contrasty, more graphic - than CV and Leica lenses.

[J. Borger]

I had and have a lot of 35's ... but ....since i got the summarit i sold my cron IV and the cron asph. I like the summarit that much!!
Finaly a new leica offering with an "older" look to the files ... very creamy ... wonderful for B&W ... the lesser contrast is a blessing on the M8 and R-D1: it handles extreme lighting situations very well ... i could even drop my older canon 35/2,8 and summaron 35/3,5 LTM, which i used untill now on sunny days...

[NickTrop]

Or - you can save yourself a ton of dough and get a tiny 35/f1.8 lens that's attached to a pretty good camera, the Yashica Electro CC. Paid $36 for mine, prices have gone up now though, a good sample might set you back $100? Or - you can get "one of the best semi-wide optics we've ever tested" (Popular Photograph) the 38/1.8 on the Konica Auto S3. No real difference btw 38 and 35mm from a practical standpoint. My fully CLA'd sample cost $100.

[pgmj]

The biogon has less distortion than the summarit, which isn't entirely unimportant.

Perhaps the new 35/2.8 biogon would be something to consider if smaller size is important?

[tomasis]

better save and buy summicron new or used summicron looks pretty small and you get still excellent shoots from small package compared to biogon.

I'm praising Leica more because better handling of lenses. Not optical quality. We still get same pictures on grainy films from all CV, Zeiss, Leica anyway. 120lpi ehhh how about 5 lpi?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by tomasis

better save and buy summicron new or used summicron looks pretty small and you get still excellent shoots from small package compared to biogon.

I'm praising Leica more because better handling of lenses. Not optical quality. We still get same pictures on grainy films from all CV, Zeiss, Leica anyway. 120lpi ehhh how about 5 lpi?

Its a good point. Some go on and on about resolution on 35mm and then mention that they shoot TriX or HP5+ all the time!

For me, to finally answer the question, all things being equal I would get the biogon because it is 2/3 stop faster and I have no other faster 35mm lenses. In an ideal world I would have a more compact 35mm as well, but when I do, it will prob be the pancake 2. In compact street mode most shots would be on 400 film and shots from f5.6-11. In this area most lenses perform superbly and 400 film does not allow any to really show what they can do. Shooting the biogon in Afghanistan, often twds the sun, I have not one single frame with flare. I believe the summarit is also excellent in this regard but the biogon has proven it to me.

[tomasis]

Turtle, yeah I agree. It is good that we have alternatives from three manufacturers for M mount lenses so we can choose one for own preferences.

Instead of two lenses, one large & fast and one compact & slow, I settled with summilux preasph instead. I got features in the single lens what I wanted. It is compactness, very good perfomance at f5.6 and ability to use f1.4. I often go half stop down for f1.7 if I want sharp image without "glow".

I think that your dual lens setup sounds good. I have another LTM lens for fun sake. It is russian copy from zeiss old biogon f2.8. It was quite good surprise for me. This delivers very sharp pictures at mid. apertures though across all apertures it is still low contrast. I really liked the signature of this lens and don't mind aperture ring inside the barell. One thing surprised me that summilux preasph is even smaller than jupiter12 with it's f2.8 Slightly!

Summarit prices suck much due low dollar I remember one time when Summicron 50mm did cost 800$ as new, yikes!





I like really Summaron pictures above! it shows quite of what old Leica lens delivers.

[Tim Gray]

Just to revive this thread, I wanted to post a picture from last weekend that shows just how much of a monster the biogon is when it comes to flare.

The light in the frame is a movie light. While it is only 150W, its a very efficient 150W, much more so than your standard fresnel - to give you and idea, the actor is lit from the front by about 800W of fresnel lighting, about 12 feet away - you can see how much brighter his rim lighting is. I was sitting directly in the beam. Oh, and no hood - not that it would have helped in this situation.

The thing about the biogon, while it might not be the absolute sharpest in the center, or the fastest, it is such a solid performer. I feel like you could throw just about anything at it and you'd get a decent capture. I do sometimes wish it was 1.4 though...

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by kxl

If pricing was the same:

1) @ $877, which one would you buy? Why?
2) @ $1495, which one would you buy? Why?

1) Summarit. Because it'd be cheaper than the 35 Summicron
2) Summarit. Because it'd be smaller than the 35 Biogon

Of course, I overruled myself and own a 35 Biogon. Why? It was under $877 and the Summarit is about 2/3 of a stop slower at almost twice as much. And the images are wonderful.

But your question was solely based on price(s).

[tomasis]

I remember when I checked for Summarit signature in some articles in Leica website. I liked this look of summarit. This reminded me more of rather old elmar than new, Not bittingly sharp, contrast looks more medium than high. The most important part is of course mechanics. I liked the idea of one of smallest 50mm for M-mount (at extended mode or not against competitors).
Well it will take some time before it appears used summarits at good prices :P 5 years? For now it pays more to buy used summicron than new summarit if one is not compromised by size and weight of lens. Who are gonna sell summarits? M8 first buyers?