Thinking of buying the Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZM for use with M6

<p>I'm thinking of buying the Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZM lens for use with the Leica M6. I'm looking for a 35mm lens, and after reading KenRockwell's review of the lens, he seems to think it is a better lens than the Summicron-M 35mm (1979-1996) and about comparable to the Summicron-M ASPH 35mm.<br /> He has similarly positive things to say about the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 ZM.</p>

<p>I have read some user reviews of both the Zeiss f/2 and f/2.8, and some users say they like the "3D" look the lens gives, characteristic of all Zeiss lenses. What does this mean exactly?<br /> What are your guys' experiences with these two Zeiss lenses?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Also, I'm not really bothered by the awkward 43mm filter size.</p>

<p>returned mine to store after a few rolls--in a word, meh :) built like a fuji and drawing like one (yardstick: two dozen or so pre-1980 glass, leica and nikon). as the p.c. folk say, YMMV; mine didn't :P for an M6, save up and get a 'cron--any 'cron</p>

<p>Can you rent one first?</p>

<p>I don't know of any place to rent lenses in my area (D.C.) Does anyone?</p>

<p>If Ken says it, it must be so:) <br>

Google is your friend here. Try searching tags on flickr for the various lenses. I like the Summicron.</p>

<p>Hey Barry, <br /> your portfolio has some great shots. They look like slides, which I shoot as well. The problem with searching google, I've noticed, is that I've searched both Summicrons and Zeiss lenses, and found good and bad shots of each (not just compositionally, but in terms of sharpness, color, etc.) I take it some people are processing incorrectly, scanning poorly, or some other issues. I have trouble basing my decision on just their shots when there are so many variables I don't know.</p>

<p>The Leitz 35mm f2.8 Summaron is an excellent lens and is very well built. If you can do without the additional stop you should give it some consideration. It also takes the common E39 filters that many Leitz lenses use. Those of us that have the Summaron are quite pleased with it. </p>

<p>In general the Zeiss lenses are not as well made as the Leica lenses but are a lot cheaper. In terms of IQ the ones I have used are not quite as good as they equivalent Leica but do get quite close. In general I have found that they tend to be warmer but still provide good results. It really comes down to money and the look you like. The Zeiss build quality is still very good and the image quality is excellent from most of their lenses. Personally I tend to buy Leica except where there is a Zeiss or CV lens that gives me an image Leica does not offer. In my case this is the 12mm CV (as their is no Leica equivalent), the 21mm F4 VC (which is super compact) and the Zeiss 50mm F1.5 which offers a very different image to my Leica 50 cron. Indeed this lens offers a very different loo to almost every 50mm lens on the market.<br>

rom memory the Zeiss 35 f2 is very conventional and colour not withstanding is similar to the 35 cron in look.</p>

<p>I, too, have never understood the meaning of the "Zeiss 3D look". There is also apparently a "Leica 3D look" too. My interpretation of this is that the person who uses the phrase thinks, "I really like the lens, but cannot find any way to describe it, and it won't be shown in any objective test, so I will call it this phrase I read somewhere on the internet: its "3D look"". Another similar expression is '"drawing", the other voguish word of the moment. No one really can define what this means. One is tempted to think it means largely the quality of the bokeh, but apparently this is not all it is. I don't pooh-pooh these subjective descriptions entirely, but I think they are of limited use as no two people can probably agree exactly what they mean. From all I have read, the Zeiss 35/2 is a good lens and I probably wouldn't hesitate if that is what you are thinking of buying. There may be some Zeiss lenses that have issues such as the 50/1.5 Sonnar that make them rather idiosyncratic, but I don't think the 35/2 is one of them.</p>

<p>Anything but a Summicron is a step backwards.</p>

<p>The "3D look", in my humble estimation has a lot to do with a crispness in edge definition, and I've noticed it in some of my older Zeiss lenses. Never tried any of the ZM ones though. I did have a Leitz 35mm Summicron-M ASPH and it was one of the sharpest lenses I've used. Having said that, because I admit to lusting over it initially, I ended up going back to my favorite, much less sharp Summaron. Different courses for different horses.</p>

<p>Thanks for the great responses, everybody.</p>

<p>The cheapest 35 mm Summicron I see on KEH, in EX+ condition, is http://www.keh.com/camera/Leica-M-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-LM069990071450?r=FE</p>

<p>Can anyone give me a lowdown on what "Version" of the lens that is and what they think of it? The KenRockwell review of the Zeiss lenses really made the Summicrons sounds like overpriced lenses for people that were splurging for name alone. I'm kind of confused now.</p>

<p>And I know it seems like I'm really trying to make someone say these lenses are as good as the Crons, but it's just 'cus I want to believe that I can get an equal lens at half the price (around $1000 new). </p>

<p>http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zm/35mm-f2.htm</p>

<p>Do you guys disagree with his analysis often? Or does he just enjoy taking Leica down a notch?</p>

<p>I had a 21mm Zeiss F4.5 ZM - Sharp, small, nicely made... But I ended up selling it because I didn't like the overly contrasty look along side my Leica M lenses. <br>

The pre ASPH 35 F1.4s are really nice. The ASPH F2 is really nice too. Get a nice 35mm from KEH, even the older ones are excellent.<br>

Ken is mad - you can safely ignore most of what's on his site.</p>

<p>Ken actually likes his Leica, but he needs to attract viewers, and likes younger ones, so irreverent commentary is his stock in trade. Some of his observations, when you cut thru the bs, are quite good, although not necessarily backed up by scientific evidence, but who cares....he's pretty entertaining.</p>

The lens you linked to on KEH is the 4th version "pre-asph" Summicron. It's a great lens. I bought mine

used in 2002 and it's about doubled in dollar cost. Leica lenses retain their monetary value. That said,

the 21 4.5 Zeiss ZM lens I have is very nice. The main difference I see is that it renders with a little more

contrast than my Leica lenses. For me this is fine with film. I think either lens you are considering is

going to give you really good results. The difference is that they will have a slightly different kind of look.

 

What's equally or more important than the difference between the two lenses is the light you shoot in, how

the film is processed, quality of scanner or enlarger lens, etc.

I have the Zeiss 2.8 35 and really like it. There is also a thread on the f2 Zeiss 35 on rangefinderforum.com. I am very

happy with the build of all my Zeiss lenses, except my 25 which is a bit stiff and perhaps has the beginnings of the Zeiss

wobble. I have the 35 Summicron and like that very much. It is an understated look that the images made with it have. The most remarkable thing about the version 4 (pre ASPH) Summicron is its size: absolutely tiny. I

think there is something special about some of the Zeiss lenses which isn't just imagination. I agree with th earlier

suggestion to look up images. To search RFF use Google: try searching Zeiss biogon f2 love site:rangefinderforum.com

and you'll find the thread I refer to above.

 

EDIT: Here's the RFF thread - just looked through it again myself. You couldn't be unhappy with the Zeiss. See Tom A's posts.

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127259

<p>I think the differences when comparing these Leica lenses with the Zeiss ZMs is probably very small and probably not worth losing sleep over. However, it is fair to to say that the Leica lenses will always remain more expensive to buy not least because of their compatability, via conversion or from origin, in providing EXIF data to a digital M body. The ZMs cannot do this although there are work arounds. Also there is a design continuity with the Leica lenses that is aesthetically pleasing. I actually like the look of the chrome ZMs though.</p>

<p>Get the Leica as you will never look back. With the Zeiss you will always question your decision.</p>

<p>Robin - I think Drawing is a term that may have returned to use. I remember the late, great Geoffrey Crawley used to use it quite a lot many years ago in reviews. I always took his use of the word to mean how the lens handled the transition form OOF to In focus to OOF again. I suspect that it is a similar quality that people refer to when they talk about a 3D image. It does appear to me that some lenses do a better job of this (i.e. I find the transition more pleasing) than others. Of course this is very subjective and sometimes a gradual transition makes a better image - other times more rapid transitions do.</p>

<p>Richard G, I have decided to get the Zeiss C Biogon f/2.8 (I think). I have looked up a lot of photos and literally do not see any difference with the summicrons. Certainly not $1000 difference. This way I can maybe buy a better scanner too.</p>

<p>For all the summicron users, if money was no object I probably would have bought the 'cron just to be safe. But I really don't see the extra sharpness in the results. Steve McCurry took some of the sharpest photos ever on 35mm film, and used a Nikon SLR system. The sharpness of Leicas seem a bit overrated, but I guess I won't know 'til I actually try a 35mm cron!</p>

I don't think it's sharpness so much as it is the recipe for contrast of either lens. Even then

it takes a fairly trained eye to be aware of the difference, but it's there.

<p>I went for the ultra cheap CV 35/2.5 and it performs just fine. (too my eye anyway) <br>

<a href="https://www.facebook.com/IanTaylorPhotography/photos/a.673723966022928.1073741847.171846589544004/675438165851508/?type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-xap1%2Ft31.0-8%2F1799209_675438165851508_672606291_o.jpg&smallsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-xap1%2Ft1.0-9%2F1560639_675438165851508_672606291_n.jpg&size=2048%2C1363&fbid=675438165851508">Sample</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/IanTaylorPhotography/photos/a.673723966022928.1073741847.171846589544004/678557238872934/?type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-xfp1%2Ft31.0-8%2F1891372_678557238872934_1699538372_o.jpg&smallsrc=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-xfp1%2Ft1.0-9%2F1925223_678557238872934_1699538372_n.jpg&size=2048%2C1363&fbid=678557238872934">sample</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/IanTaylorPhotography/photos/a.673723966022928.1073741847.171846589544004/718952411500083/?type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-xfp1%2Ft31.0-8%2F1398553_718952411500083_1353962093039070271_o.jpg&smallsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-xap1%2Ft1.0-9%2F10169341_718952411500083_1353962093039070271_n.jpg&size=2048%2C1365&fbid=718952411500083">sample</a>. </p>

<p>Philip. Yes, it is indeed an old word coming back into use. There is something in it, I won't deny. But frankly I think 99% people use these words to attempt to put an objective spin on what is essentially a subjective purchase - a variant of "I spent a lot of money so it must be really good, or I didn't spend much so and yet I have such a great lens".</p>

<p>I own several 35mm Summicrons, including two of the current ASPH version. I also own the Zeiss ZM 35mm f2 Biogon and love the look of the lens, which is why I am using it, not the Summicrons. That's my own personal taste. With regards to the build quality, it's comparable with the new Leica M lenses I have seen.</p>