Limited 35mm budget: Zeiss vs Leica

[Vics]

Originally Posted by buzzardkid

LTM or M?

Modern glass? Voigtlander (ASPH) lenses, or Zeiss.
Vintage glass? A thousand bucks could get you a nice Summaron 35/2.8.

Plus one vote for the Summaron 35/2.8. I love mine! I think they can be had for around $700-$800.

[fotomeow]

voted for the v3, though the Biogon would be my second suggestion for you.
the good news, is that you can't go wrong with any of the lenses. However, I imagine someone should have
pointed out by now that a v4 isn't even close to a grand.

I see you are using it for film and the GF1. If you want modern sharpness and contrast, hit the Biogon.
If you want a more sultry result with less contrast, go for the v3.

I think f2.8 is too slow for you, especially given that it is 35mm, b/c it will be more difficult to get things OUT of focus
when you want them OOF, due to the wider FOV. The slower Summaron's 2.8 and 3.5 offer old world charm,
but you can always try one AFTER you get a nice fast all-purpose lens.
Let us know what you decide. And email me if you want a v3 for $1000. I know where you can get one.

[rulnacco]

I'm the owner of two budget alternatives.

I, too, have the 35/2.8 Summaron, and love it. Wide open it's quite good. I've read things by people who are much more expert at this than I am to the effect that it's sharper at 2.8 than most versions of the Summicron at that aperture. At 5.6, it's brilliant, I do know that. Mine's the goggled version, though--I got it for my M3--and so it's not quite as nice to use, although far from unpleasant or anything.

I just recently picked up the CLE version of the 40/2.0. And I'm loving it, except for the lack of proper framelines--although that's far from an insurmountable problem (I may eventually surmount it by adding a CLE body). A real tiny jewel of a lens, very sharp and to me quite easy to use and carry about.

There are many other worthy options discussed here, but considering performance to price ratio, the Summaron and Rokkor-M are definitely top contenders.

[Godfrey]

Three budget alternates here:

Voigtländer Color Skopar 35mm f/2.5 .. Brilliant tiny lens.
M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 II .. As mentioned, truly a great performer.
Voigtländer Nokton 40mm f1.4 .. Another great performer.

I'm reserving my Zeiss money for the 25mm f/2.8 , or my Leica money for the 21mm Super Elmar. :-)

[StillKicking]

My Zeiss Biogon 2.8 is a lovely lens.

[jparriott]

I love my f2 Biogon - find it razor sharp wide open. Also have a Planar f2 - so, obviously, the form factor doesn't bother me. But, when I want small, I put on the Nokton 40 or my ltm skopar 2.5 50 - a fine little lens, though exhibits CA when wide open.

[Richard G]

I love the Zeiss 2.8 C Biogon. Last night I went to a dinner and took the Leica v4 35 Summicron chiefly on account of its size and weight. I would have taken the C Sonnar 50 1.5 for its extra stop and other properties, but it's big and heavy and I have found the 35 focal length ideal for these functions. Wish I had taken the hood, however, which I usually leave off for dinners but there were some nasty horizontal lights that wreaked havoc with the photographers.

[Benjamin Marks]

Here's one from last week with the 35/2 Biogon at about f:5.6. M9 ISO 160.



Ben

[MIkhail]

Just another comparison I found online - for what's it worth.
http://www.myrightasset.com/

[venchka]

Originally Posted by Keith

No one has mentioned the UC Hexanon ... probably a little harder to track down but Dante Stella's write up on the lens where he compares it to the Summicron on his site is worth a read.

Yes indeed!

Wayne

[Kkcapture]

If you by a new Zeiss lens there is no problem in performance. The key issue is not the optical performance of that new lens, but how it performs after 1 or two years of use. Here comes the mechanics and built quality into play. Optical perfrmance may fail due to inferior mechanical quality. Concering mechanical quality you will then realize, that japanese ZM leses, are cheaper because of lower quality. I have a ZM Biogon 21 lens that after a while began to "whobble" ; had to be repaired, cost 300 €. Leica M lenses made of brass with low tolerances are costly,- but rather remain stable. The Leica M summarit lenses offer very good optical quality, mechanical quality is, however inferior. That why they are cheaper.
You get what you pay for !
Good luck


Good luck

[useless generation]

Why does the ZM 35mm F2 have to be so big? It's the one thing stopping me from getting one. When you look at the same lens for the Contax G it's tiny and it has autofocus motors inside

[larmarv916]

I had...past tense a Zeiss F2 and it did a killer job. But I dropped mine in Sandia Creek..while changing lenses! But if I were going to buy another Zeiss 35 mm now.
I would actually be buying the F2.8 version....I think it is overall sharper and using it at 2.8 or F 4 the results are great and actually better than the Zeiss F2. I have some photos shot with the F2 in my gallery here at RFF

[EdwardKaraa]

Originally Posted by useless generation

Why does the ZM 35mm F2 have to be so big? It's the one thing stopping me from getting one. When you look at the same lens for the Contax G it's tiny and it has autofocus motors inside

The ZM design has been optimized for digital sensors while the Contax G was designed for film. Also the G does not have an AF motor, it is screwdriven by motor in the camera.

[EdwardKaraa]

Originally Posted by larmarv916

I had...past tense a Zeiss F2 and it did a killer job. But I dropped mine in Sandia Creek..while changing lenses! But if I were going to buy another Zeiss 35 mm now.
I would actually be buying the F2.8 version....I think it is overall sharper and using it at 2.8 or F 4 the results are great and actually better than the Zeiss F2. I have some photos shot with the F2 in my gallery here at RFF

The f/2 is sharper at all apertures, but especially at wide ones. If you think the f/2.8 is better, maybe your lens was slightly out of calibration.

[bobbyrab]

Originally Posted by EdwardKaraa

The f/2 is sharper at all apertures, but especially at wide ones. If you think the f/2.8 is better, maybe your lens was slightly out of calibration.

This may well be true, although everyone that says this seems to base it on the graphs published by Zeiss rather than side by side images.
Personally to me the 2.8 always looks to have more pop to it which makes it appear sharper, but it's probably no more than a little more contrast in it's rendering.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by useless generation

Why does the ZM 35mm F2 have to be so big? It's the one thing stopping me from getting one. When you look at the same lens for the Contax G it's tiny and it has autofocus motors inside

Adding to EdwardKaraa's comment, note that the G 35/2 "Planar" has 7 elements 5 groups, while the ZM 35/2 Biogon has 9 elements 6 groups.

[bonatto]

Originally Posted by time

Hi all.

I know many has discussed it before. However, I did not see any poll of that.

Which of the 35mm´s do you like to buy for about 1000usd?

(900-1450usd)

Stretch it a bit and get the V4 summicron in the classifieds!