Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica M Film Cameras

View Poll Results: Bigon VS Cron
Zeiss 35/2.0 Biogon 488 50.57%
Leica 35/2.0 Summicron ASPH 477 49.43%
Voters: 965. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 05-16-2014   #321
albertospa
Registered User
 
albertospa's Avatar
 
albertospa is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Italy
Posts: 67
Do not forget that the value of a Leica lens remains forever, in fact grows with time. A Zeiss lens on the day after you buy it loses its value. I would choose the Summicron asph. But let's not forget the 35 Summicron IV used that costs much less than asph. I am now using the two lenses and really do not know which one to keep. The asph produces technically perfect images, the type IV the most beautiful images.
__________________
Ciao
Alberto

website https://www.albertospa.com/

flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/albertospa/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-09-2014   #322
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,583
I've always thought the 8 element was the most beautiful in style.

But on the Zeiss value issue once you take the initial hit from NIB to used they don't really go down much. Leica lenses have the same issue. There has been one period in time where demand was so high and access to new lenses so limited that people were paying more for used lenses than new but now things are back to sane levels and a used 35 cron ASPH offers a significant savings over a brand new one (KEH's most expensive 35 cron asph is 600 dollars cheaper than the same lens new, which is in stock from b&h).
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2014   #323
mrak
Registered User
 
mrak is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by albertospa View Post
Do not forget that the value of a Leica lens remains forever, in fact grows with time. A Zeiss lens on the day after you buy it loses its value. I would choose the Summicron asph. But let's not forget the 35 Summicron IV used that costs much less than asph. I am now using the two lenses and really do not know which one to keep. The asph produces technically perfect images, the type IV the most beautiful images.
Actually I don't think that's true. All lenses, unless they are tied to an unsuccessful system, retain their value well. Even Leica lenses sell used for a lot less than what they cost new. Thanks to people giving the 35 Summicron IV the name "King of Bokeh" the used prices are not too far from the Asph.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2015   #324
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monochrom View Post
hi

I think the biogon has two flaws, itīs large and at f2 is no wonder...
The ZM 35/2 is not soft at f/2 but you have to nail it


L1026130-2 by unoh7, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2015   #325
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
The ZM 35/2 is not soft at f/2 but you have to nail itL1026130-2 by unoh7, on Flickr
The ZM is anything but soft at f2.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2015   #326
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,094
I don't own the summicron. I do have summarons though (3.5 and 2.8) and they are (obviously different than the biogon (that I also own).

I got the biogon only partly because of lower price. I agonized over the summicron/biogon decision and looked at lots of example images. I just couldn't see a substantial difference between them (summicron seemed to have better corner sharpness and less corner CA, but that might be in my head). So, I did what made sense.....and, I saved $$ to put toward another lens (which I still need to find; either a newer summicron 50 or v1 summilux 50, but that's a topic for a whole other thread). For me, the only real selling point for the summicron over biogon is the smaller size of the lens and the focus tab style. I imagine the cron handles much like the summaron 2.8, which I like a lot. I like the biogon handling too, just not as much as the 2.8 summaron.

BTW, the summarons are quite special lenses too. Especially the 2.8. Really, all of these lenses are just wonderful. I'm happy with any of them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2015   #327
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,473
The voting is near neck and neck .....

I'll add that the late 35mm f2 Zuiko I got from Maitani here at RFF a year or two ago appears to be a match for either of these two lenses IMO.
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-17-2015   #328
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 920
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmogi10 View Post
Battle of the titans! The Zeiss Biogon 35/2.0 verse the Leica Summicron 35/2.0 ASPH...One costs multiple times as much, but which one is really better? Or the better question is which one do you prefer and why?
Looks like we are going to have send the results of this poll to the Supreme Court to determine whether all the voters were qualified to vote!
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-18-2015   #329
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 12,279
If the Supreme Court would take the case... Well, I'm one of those not really qualified, as I have never used the Summicron ASPH... just the v.1 Summicron, but I do also have and use the f/2 and f/2.8 Biogons. Both the latter are brilliant.
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-19-2015   #330
mcfingon
Western Australia
 
mcfingon is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 764
I'm another one-eyed voter as I have a Biogon f2/35 ZM. It is sharp in the centre! It's happy all over on the Leica M2 I bought to give it a proper home. Lovely.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2016   #331
fer_fdi
Registered User
 
fer_fdi's Avatar
 
fer_fdi is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Barcelona & Empordā, Spain
Posts: 383
it doesn't look soft at all at f2 on the last two examples! nice

While I save for a current 35 C-Biogon I use my beloved Jupiter-12, sort of it's uncertain grandfather :P
And my also loved Summaron 35/3.5.
Both very interesting, with great plasticity and small
__________________
~
Fer
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2016   #332
35photo
Registered User
 
35photo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 578
I've shooting the ASPH for 10+ years its a fine lens it was the first lens I've owned that made me step back and go wow this is different, its contrast was what caught me a bit off guard and took a bit to get used to. It does have a 3D quality at times in certain light conditions..

L1023852.jpg by Marko Mihailovich, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2016   #333
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 63
Posts: 2,801
All of my Zeiss Biogons have a wonderful signature and are magnificent lenses. I would not turn loose of any of them.

However it kind of depends on whether you prefer the Leica style or the Zeiss style.

As for performance I personally cannot see any difference. If there is one it certainly is not enoughtto justify the huge additional expense beyond the name on the lens.

As usual, these are such terrific lenses that there is no right answer. If you have enough cash or credit, buy what you want. If you don't have enough cash or credit buy a Color Skopar 35/2.5. Small, handy, doesn't show up to interfere with the viewfinder, and great image quality, and only gives up 1/2 stop of aperture.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2016   #334
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 3,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by fer_fdi View Post
it doesn't look soft at all at f2 on the last two examples! nice

While I save for a current 35 C-Biogon I use my beloved Jupiter-12, sort of it's uncertain grandfather :P
And my also loved Summaron 35/3.5.
Both very interesting, with great plasticity and small
I love my LTM Summaron, too!

I've come to believe that the C Biogon 35/2.8 blows both 2.0 lenses away. It's an amazing lens.

Zeiss C Biogon 35/2.8
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2016   #335
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,384
Still don't know why Cosina builds the Zeiss ZM lenses so cheaply, while they build the Zeiss SLR lenses like the ZFs so well. But for the same money to the consumer.
The difference in build between my ZM and ZF lenses is striking. Maybe because Cosina thinks the ZM market is more for amateurs so they wouldn't know the difference, while pros who use ZFs (and ZEs) would complain?
Optically, I do not see a difference between the two.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2016   #336
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,384
FWIW I have noticed that the Zeiss lenses control flare much better then my Leitz lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2016   #337
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is online now
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,079
I love my Biogon 35/2 and also my pre-asph Summilux 35/1.4 and the Summicron V1 35/2 and the Nikon 35/1.8 LTM. What is there not to like here?
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2016   #338
Daryl J.
Registered User
 
Daryl J. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 312
My 35 Summi ASPH is the only lens I own in 35mm format that isn't disposable. I can't tell you exactly why, but it's a delight all the way around.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2016   #339
nobbylon
Registered User
 
nobbylon's Avatar
 
nobbylon is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nederlands
Posts: 2,655
The only 35 I've had that I kept is the biogon-C.
All the others, even while I had them, made me think I'm still looking.
I've not had the f2 biogon so can't comment on that but i've had the Leica asph, v4 and summilux pre and although all are great lenses it's the biogon-C that won me over.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-27-2016   #340
E.M
Registered User
 
E.M is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 161
@ 35photo : what a lovely shot , WOW
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-27-2016   #341
NaChase
Registered User
 
NaChase's Avatar
 
NaChase is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Davis, CA
Age: 29
Posts: 381
There is something to be said for the Biogon's 3D pop.
Zeiss Pop by Nick Chase, on Flickr
__________________
Nick

RF Cameras: Leica M3DS, Leica M6, Nikon S2, Minolta Hi-Matic 7, Mamiya 7II, Graflex Pacemaker Crown Graphic
RF Lenses:
75 Summilux, 5cm Summicron, 50mm DR Summicron, 50mm Nikon Millennium f/1.4, Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon, Mamiya 80mm f/4, Mamiya 150mm f/4.5


http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/film_is...ong_live_film/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2016   #342
djnato10
Registered User
 
djnato10 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 9
Last year I was running two M6's one with the Leica Summicron 35 ASPH and one with the Zeiss Biogon-C 35 f2.8, I chose these simply because they are about the same size. From my experience the Zeiss was a little sharper and had more contrast. The Leica definitely had that more classic mid-tone look.

In the end I ended up selling the 'Cron and keeping the Biogon. High contrast is the look I enjoy personally. Some people told me I was crazy but I still feel I made the right choice for the way I shoot.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2016   #343
35photo
Registered User
 
35photo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.M View Post
@ 35photo : what a lovely shot , WOW
Thanks EM!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #344
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
Biogon the other day at F/2 on the M9:

Clove by unoh7, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #345
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,195
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Still don't know why Cosina builds the Zeiss ZM lenses so cheaply, while they build the Zeiss SLR lenses like the ZFs so well. But for the same money to the consumer.
The difference in build between my ZM and ZF lenses is striking. Maybe because Cosina thinks the ZM market is more for amateurs so they wouldn't know the difference, while pros who use ZFs (and ZEs) would complain?
Optically, I do not see a difference between the two.
I own a 50 planar and 35 f2 Biogon and owned the retro asph summicron. Also owned a 25 Biogon. Also for many years owned a V4 summicron and have my 2nd V1 summicron that I'm keeping along with my Zeiss lenses.

Several years ago when I bought my D800 Nikon I decided to buy a set of ZF Zeiss lenses. I had the 25 f2, 35 f2 and 100 f2 macro. Honestly I was quite disappointed in wide open performance. Everyone makes lenses that perform well at three stops down but wide open is what counts. The 25 and the 35 were soft in the outer zones and the chromatic aberrations were the worst I've ever seen at f2 and 2.8 with the 100. They were excessively heavy too. I kept than for almost a month and returned them for a refund to B&H.

In the 80's I owned 2 Rollei 3003's and A full set of Zeiss glass from 15 to 200. Other than the 25 and 50 I think all were German made Zeiss. Over the several years I owned them, and I used them very heavy, I found some had issues both optically and mechanically. My 35 1.4 wasn't very sharp until I stopped down two stops and then had the front element come lose. After getting fixed it still wasn't sharp. The 85 1.4 wasn't great at 1.4 either. In both cases my Nikkor 35 1.4 and 84 1.4 are as good or better. In the end I went back to all Nikkor glass and find it just as good as the Zeiss or better in some cases.

People equate weight with build quality. A heavy lens is not a better built lens. I've had more mechanical issues with Leica M lenses than with my Zeiss. I believe Zeiss elected to make the ZM lighter due to demand from customers and from experience they're constructed just as well. Think about all the complaining you hear about weight from Leica enthusiasts.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #346
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
I own a 50 planar and 35 f2 Biogon and owned the retro asph summicron. Also owned a 25 Biogon. Also for many years owned a V4 summicron and have my 2nd V1 summicron that I'm keeping along with my Zeiss lenses.

Several years ago when I bought my D800 Nikon I decided to buy a set of ZF Zeiss lenses. I had the 25 f2, 35 f2 and 100 f2 macro. Honestly I was quite disappointed in wide open performance. Everyone makes lenses that perform well at three stops down but wide open is what counts. The 25 and the 35 were soft in the outer zones and the chromatic aberrations were the worst I've ever seen at f2 and 2.8 with the 100. They were excessively heavy too. I kept than for almost a month and returned them for a refund to B&H.

In the 80's I owned 2 Rollei 3003's and A full set of Zeiss glass from 15 to 200. Other than the 25 and 50 I think all were German made Zeiss. Over the several years I owned them, and I used them very heavy, I found some had issues both optically and mechanically. My 35 1.4 wasn't very sharp until I stopped down two stops and then had the front element come lose. After getting fixed it still wasn't sharp. The 85 1.4 wasn't great at 1.4 either. In both cases my Nikkor 35 1.4 and 84 1.4 are as good or better. In the end I went back to all Nikkor glass and find it just as good as the Zeiss or better in some cases.

People equate weight with build quality. A heavy lens is not a better built lens. I've had more mechanical issues with Leica M lenses than with my Zeiss. I believe Zeiss elected to make the ZM lighter due to demand from customers and from experience they're constructed just as well. Think about all the complaining you hear about weight from Leica enthusiasts.
You got some high standards my man haha. There are a few of the ZF lenses that really shouldn't be evaluated on sharpness and CA. These are pretty old designs, with a lot of great character in their rendering. I certainly wouldn't choose the 85/1.4 Planar for example, if pure IQ was my only intent. The Nikon is simply a better lens with AF, and the Milvus, Otus, are better still. OTOH, I would choose the 85 Planar because it has a beautiful rendering. It has more than enough resolution for a portrait and that lovely Zeiss color and contrast to boot. More of a 'different' choice, than a 'better' choice. As for the 25, and 100, well your personal experiences don't mirror my own but I don't doubt that you saw what you saw.


As for the Biogon, I am still loving mine a few months in. $650 bucks buys a lot of lens on the used market. It's perfectly balanced and styled to my chrome M4. . Is it sharp? Well it's probably not the sharpest lens ever made, but I've yet to encounter a subject that was not sufficiently resolved in the real world. And of course stopped down, perfection.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #347
agfa100
Registered User
 
agfa100 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 235
I have the Ver1 Summicron, a RX-1 with the 35 Sonnar, and a old 35 mm 2.8 Biogon and I would have to list them in that order, but it's so close who cares I win no matter which one I use. Lucky me.....
wbill
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #348
madNbad
Registered User
 
madNbad's Avatar
 
madNbad is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 436
For many years the only M mount lens I owned were a 35 Summicron ASPH and a 90 Tele-Elmarit. A few years ago I acquired a 35 3.5 Summaron in LTM and shortly after a Zeiss 35 2.8 Biogon-C. The Zeiss was easy to use, offered 1/3 stops and produced a great look but the 43mm filter size was a bit annoying. The Summaron was small, surprisingly sharp for its' age and the photos it produced had a nice look to them. Late last year I started looking at 28 2.8 Elmarit's and when it came time to raise funds it was the Biogon-C and the Summaron that were shipped off without a second thought. Stll have the Tele-Elmarit too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-05-2017   #349
bizarrius
the great
 
bizarrius's Avatar
 
bizarrius is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: house
Age: 31
Posts: 286
10 years later and this threat hasn't settled. maybe people should buy both and use both?
__________________
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

i am here: some instagram work
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-05-2017   #350
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 7,601
Interesting to see this again, my flip-flopping continued, I've settled with the ASPH and a V4. The Biogon size got to me IIRC.

Been shooting with this ASPH for five or six years now, hadn't thought of the Biogon in that whole time.

A whole lot of old missing faces in this thread.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-05-2017   #351
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 3,678
Biogon-C 35/2.8 for the win, at least for me.


Exhausted Boxer, Havana, February 15, 2017 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Afternoon, Cojímar, February 15, 2017 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Street Corner With Che and Hugo, Havana, February 13, 2017 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Chicken On A Bicycle, Havana, February 13, 2017 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2017   #352
djnato10
Registered User
 
djnato10 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 9
I haven't personally shot with the Biogon F2, but I did however sell my ASPH Cron in favor of the Biogon F2.8.

I found it to be sharper, a little more contrasty, and smaller/lighter. They are both amazing lenses, it just depends on the look you want. For me the higher contrast and lighter build was something that I wanted. The classic look of the Cron though is something that would have been nice.
__________________
2x Leica M6 Classics, Zeiss ZM 35mm f2.8 Biogon C, Zeiss ZM 50mm f2 Planar, Konica M-Hexanon 50mm f2, Leitz LTM 50mm f3.5 Elmar Nickel, Canon LTM 50mm f1.4, Jupiter 8
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2017   #353
narsuitus
Registered User
 
narsuitus's Avatar
 
narsuitus is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 701
I have never owned or shot with either because I prefer the 1.4 version of both.

I own and use the 35mm f/1.4mm Zeiss Distagon.

Therefore, I voted for the Zeiss Biogon.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-27-2017   #354
james.liam
Registered User
 
james.liam is offline
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by djnato10 View Post
I haven't personally shot with the Biogon F2, but I did however sell my ASPH Cron in favor of the Biogon F2.8.

I found it to be sharper, a little more contrasty, and smaller/lighter. They are both amazing lenses, it just depends on the look you want. For me the higher contrast and lighter build was something that I wanted. The classic look of the Cron though is something that would have been nice.
I did the very same thing. The Summicron ASPH tendency to focus shift is what soured me on that lens; killed innumerable shots beyond ƒ2.8 until 5.6. I loved its size and of course, ƒ/2. Considered the Biogon 2/35 but its focus is optimized for ƒ/2.8 and images appear softer at ƒ/2 because of focus shift. But the 35C is the 'Goldilocks' it terms of size, handling and superior optics despite the absence of special glass. Tack sharp already @ ƒ/2.8 that doesn't meaningfully improve stopping down, nearly flare-free with high-contrast and negligible focus shift.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-27-2017   #355
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is online now
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,186
Your money, your choice. Both will work for a while.

The Zeiss name does not make it German. Made and designed in Germany does.

CV stuff is not to my liking. My 12, 15, 25 are in my paperweight drawer.

Leica provides the only viable digital RF camera so support them. The extra cost will be forgotten when you are still using it in 30 years.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:06.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.