Biogon Versus Asph Cron....

[x-ray]

Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A.

True.

But as a former owner of a 35mm f/2 Biogon ZM, I can tell you that the "optical capability" of that lens is absolutely fantastic. Very "clinical", but it handles light and tonality beautifully.

The build quality, compared to a vII, vIII or vIV 35mm Summicron is better, but compared to, say, any 50mm Summilux pre-asph, it's a few notches down.

The design: I think here's where they dropped the ball. Overall its handling is fine, but it's just too big for a M rangefinder 35mm lens, for my taste. Main reason why I've stayed away from the 35mm Summilux ASPH, despite the wonderful images it makes.

The Biogon is an excellent lens, but built with "who cares about size" as an after-thought. Image-wise, I can't see any of the pre-asph Summicrons holding a candle to it. But I'd rather have a pre-asph Summicron than the Biogon for ergonomic reasons.

I find the character of the Biogon to be more classic and less harsh than the asph summicron. I think most people would describe them the same way. I describe the Biogon as organic and warm with a great deal of texture and full detailed shadows. I then describe the asph summicron as inorganic and hard in tone like a piece of cold stainless steel vs a nice tanned piece of leather. Just my observation but that's how I feel.

Ergonomics are personal preferences of the user. You either hate tabs or love them. I personally do not like tabs but like a serated focusing ring that I can grab a hold of like the Biogon.

Size, now lets not exagerate. Search for a thread I started "Let's be honest about size". In this thread I and others do a side by side comparison of a number of lenses including the asph summicron and the Biogon. I shot my images next to a 35mm film box and a summitar 50 f2. The Biogon is the same size as the Summitar and the 35mm film box. The Summitar and Biogon are the same size as the 50 summicron and I never hear of anyone complaining about the size of the 50 summicron. This in my book is not large or "huge" as some describe it. Search the thread and see for yourself.

[ray_g]

I only have one, the 35 ASPH Summicron, which I got before the Biogon came out. For me, the ergonomics are perfect, as the pre-asph was too fiddly for my paws. I love the tab (I also use a tabbed 50 cron, and DAG installed a tab on my pre-asph 50 summilux), which I find extremely helpful for the way I usually use my 35mm, just guess focusing by feeling the tab.

I probably would be in the same dilemma if I were to choose one 35mm lens now. But I was lucky enough to acquire my ASPH, used, at roughly the same price as a new Biogon.

[jja]

OT, but:

Ray--I'd love to see how a 50mm Summilux looks w/ a tab.
Gabriel--Did you transition out of a Biogon into??? I'd love to know!

[Gabriel M.A.]

OK, so it seems "clinical" is also subjective. I agree with xray that the Biogon has a "warmth" to it. Not color-wise, but how it renders light. In this respect, I'll miss the Biogon. It was just way too "sharp" for my taste, and the contrast, while low by today's standards, was too low for color, a tad high for B&W.

I'm not "exaggerating" on the Biogon's size, for I didn't say it's huge. It isn't huge, or *big*. It is about the size of a modern 50mm Summicron. The main difference between the Summicron and the Biogon is, of course, that the Biogon is 35mm. The framelines are invaded by the Biogon if you use it with a shade, and you need the shade, although it's not very effective (it is, but not *very*) for a lens which suffers from veiling glare in certain situations.

I "transitioned" to a 40mm M-Rokkor. That lens is fantastic: compact, small, smooth, great bokeh (some would find it barely acceptable, but I think it has a nice quality), it is both "sharp" and smooth, great in-focus/out-of-focus transition, just like the Biogon. But more importantly, smaller than either Biogon or any 35mm Summicron. The best of both worlds. And to top it off, it gives me that 50mm FOV in real life with virtually the same optical qualities as the 50mm Summicron, although I can still tell the 50mm Summicron and the 40mm f/2 M-Rokkor apart.

I also have the ugly duckling of fast 35mm lenses: the 35mm Summilux pre-asph. It has a "glow-shmow" quality I've grown to adapt to, accept and look for from the 50mm Summarit f/1.5. It has a very unique character. I'm still bummed out by the 0.9m minimum focus. I have got to find a way to make it focus closer. 0.75m would be just dandy, just like the 40mm Rokkor. The tab of the Biogon is just fine. The tab on the pre-asph Summicron is just better for me (I also had it installed on my 50mm pre-asph Summilux a long while ago)

Ray_g: a 35mm Summicron ASPH for the price of a new Biogon? Now, that's a deal. I would probably trade both my 40mm Rokkor *and* 35mm Summilux for one. I've seen the images, very close to the Biogon, without the bulkiness.

[ray_g]

Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A.

Ray_g: a 35mm Summicron ASPH for the price of a new Biogon? Now, that's a deal. I would probably trade both my 40mm Rokkor *and* 35mm Summilux for one. I've seen the images, very close to the Biogon, without the bulkiness.

I was actually looking for a 35mm pre-ASPH, but found the newer ASPH for even less. No brainer for me at that time.

jja, the lens looks no different, just with a tab. It just so happened I just used it, and it is right here beside me, so here's a quick snap.

[jja]

Ray, very nice. I like tabs, and maybe I should try that w/ my Summilux. Gabriel, sounds like you've found happiness w/ the Rokkor.

So did the OP make us his mind?

[espressogeek]

I sold my 35/2 biogon to someone on this board a while back when I was clearing out my kit. I had to many lenses in similar objectives. I will tell you I never had ANY problem getting a 3d look out of it and the tones and resolution were amazing. It really added something special to simple family snapshots.

[jjovin]

"...and the contrast, while low by today's standards, was too low for color, a tad high for B&W."

Gabriel, I am curious under which conditions/fstop you find Biogon's contrast too low for color. I have that lens and have somewhat different opinion but that is subjective.
Contrast on B&W film can be adjusted to one's liking through a developing process.

Zoran

[kipkeston]

I'd love to compare them, but I'm in love with my biogon as it is. Considering the 28 or 50 now.

[gregg]

I currently own the ZM Biogon 35mm previously known as Gabriel M.A.'s.

I had the 35mm ASPH Cron for a long time too but never got along with the contrast. The Biogon is much nicer in this regard for my shooting.

All the recent B&W on my Flickr and gallery are with this lens.

Love it.

[Alex Shishin]

I use the Summicron 35/2ASPH. practically every day. But I've been tempted to get the Biogon for when I shoot film and digital. I like 35. Wonder what the Biogon would be like on the M8. It might be a great combination--Summicron on the M7 and the Biogon on the M8.

[Dektol Dan]

If you can't snap it shut in a traditional eveready case it's too damn big.
You can compare a Biogon to anything you want in size, and it may be close, but it ain't close enough. And, it's big enough to attract attention if you like being discreet.

At 60 years old and jumping rocks to cross creeks, mountain biking, climbing down embankments, or passing through crowds a back pack or shoulder bag is just to damn big.

I LOVE the traditional lower contrast image of the Biogons. Folks on this site keep saying how high contrast the Biogon is, well it ain't. In black and white it makes most B&W look like very-chrome pan or pany-tomic X.

Today's high contrast images look like charcoal or conte crayon drawings. They're great for production imgages and even posting to the net but they make ladies look like hags, kids like little old men, and landscapes devoid of any information in the shadows. All the rocks in the world are jagged. Mountains are torn paper. They great for 'in your face' shots but so what?

If you are shopping for a new lens Biogons are the only game in town, but they are far from perfect.

[aizan]

it fits under both leica and hexar rf neverready cases...are you talking about the old, old brown leather leica cases?

[northpole]

But I've been tempted to get the Biogon for when I shoot film and digital.

Alex, Sorry for the smug observation, but what medium do you use with the Summicron?!! I couldn't resist & no offence intended by this pun!

Peter

[Roger Hicks]

Another poll

1 I have used and compared both lenses

2 I own (or have tried) one of them and want to persuade myself I have made the right choice

3 I have used neither and am relying on worthless speculation and second-hand reports

I'm (sort of) in category 2 in that I've tried (but not owned) the Zeiss lens for an extended period (and liked it) but never tried a Summicron ASPH.

Ergonomics and 'signature' are all-important. Either lens can take better pictures than 99.99% of photographers who can afford them, and 99.9999999999999% of fantasists who can't, so why worry?

Also, how many people who have used either/both have had anyone pay good money for their pictures? And among those who have had pics published, how many give a toss about which is 'sharper' or 'contrastier' or has 'better bokeh'?

Cheers,

R.

[kipkeston]

Sorry, but when does one take better pictures than the lens? I don't quite understand that part.

[kevin m]

Sorry, but when does one take better pictures than the lens? I don't quite understand that part.

Straight answer: When one is a photographer. (Not that I'm there, yet, mind you. )

The "superiority" of Leica lenses is measurable, in many cases. But so what? We're talking about a camera system that's intended for discreet, handheld photography. Leica's hitting notes only a dog can hear with their lenses, in too many cases; the benefits certainly don't measure up to the cost, IMO. I figured this out the hard way, BTW. I had a 35 Aspherical Summilux and a VC 40 SC Nokton at the same time and I couldn't usually tell the pics apart. If the Leica cost double the VC, then so be it; but it costs, what, $2,500 on the used market now.

I just paid $350 for another SC Nokton.

[back alley]

...Leica's hitting notes only a dog can hear...

what a great line!!

[telenous]

Originally Posted by kevin m

Leica's hitting notes only a dog can hear with their lenses

And that's what happens when someone mistakes an optical instrument for a musical instrument.

[kipkeston]

Ah, I think you are better than your lens when your lens earns you more money than you bought it for. Is that it?

[aizan]

a lens is only as good as its owner? i like that one.

[dcsang]

We'll see how these two perform side by side - I've got both right now and am shooting the same thing and you guys can figure out if you can see a difference - I'm not going into the whole MTF chart crap or shooting brick walls but we'll see if there's any real huge difference between the two that would justify a 2.5x price difference.

Cheers
Dave

[Krosya]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

Why not include the Hexanon 35mm/2.0 in the poll?

Exactly! Now this would interesting to compare.

[cmogi10]

well
it looks like I'm ending up with the asph 35/1.4

Expect to see a biogon in the classifieds soon.

[Krosya]

Originally Posted by cmogi10

well
it looks like I'm ending up with the asph 35/1.4

Expect to see a biogon in the classifieds soon.

Wow, you go through lenses faster than NY minute!.
What made you switch so soon? Just a little while back you were so happy with the Biogon, right?