Leica 35mm F/2.5 Summarit M or Zeiss ZM Biogon?

[brad_herman1]

All;<br /><br />I currently own a Leica M8, and have a 28mm and 50mm lens. On the M8, the 28mm is a (37mm equivalent, and the 50 is approx. a 66mm) Blah-Blah-Blah<br /><br />Anyway, I was thinking about a 35mm, (which would give me approx. a 46mm on the M8). I'm not looking to spend $3k on a 35mm Summicron. I've heard some good things about the Summarit and the Zeiss Biogons.<br /><br />The only thing about the Summarit is that the optional shade ($135.00) only screws in part of the way, as there is some sort of stop, which keeps it oriented properly since it is a rectangular shade. Now, what if I use a Cut IR on the Summarit, (which is pretty much mandatory for the M8)? Can the Optional Summarit lens shade screw into that properly, or should I just opt for a 'generic' B+W screw-in round metal shade for $25.00? <br /><br />You would really have to own a Summarit to know what I'm talking about.<br /><br />Please let me know your thoughts.<br /><br />Thanks, Brad

 

[brucescameras]

<p>The Zeiss lenses are not much good wide open. The Leicas are good completely open or stopped down just a little. So it depends on your usage. I would prefer the Leicas.</p>

[richard_g]

<p>Thread's got off to a bad start.</p>

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>The Summarit-Serie was established to match with the better selling and still better price level of the Zeiss ZM lenses. It's up to your personal believe, which one you want to choose. Try it out yourself, don't go wrong and listening to other people opinion's!</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>I have the 35/2.5 summarit, and I can recommend it very highly, at equal apertures it is extremely similar to the 35/1.4 summilux ASPH (version 1 anyway). There are differences, but they are not the kind you would notice in general use. I do not use the shade (I have not found it necessary at all), but are you sure they have not broached this problem? It seems like they must have taken into account the idea that people might use filters with the shade...<br>

In any case, I know the ZM lenses are superb as well, but in this case I think the 35/2.5 is probably the way to go. It is a superb lens, it is a touch faster, and the ZM biogon is a true symmetrical wide angle -- that is great for film, but does not do as well with digital. It brings the rear element closer to the sensor, increases the angle of the light hitting it, thereby increasing vignetting and color vignetting. Since you are using it on an M8, I would simplify your life by getting the lens that already has the coding and has a 39mm filter thread that will be easier to find IR filters for (the Biogon is a 43mm thread, in which I don't think Leica makes their own IR filters). <br>

Obviously there is a price difference to be navigated as well. I bought my summarit as a demo, so the difference was much closer, but it can be an issue. And of course, I don't want to say anything to disparage the biogon, as I am sure it is fantastic. Just in this case, and especially since you are using the M8, I would say the summarit is the more logical choice. </p>

[ross_macdonald]

<p>I use a 35 Summarit on an M8, and it has both the hood and an IR cut filter on it at all times. The hood thread is external, similar to Leica hoods that clip on, and is separate from, and independent of, the filter thread.</p>

[Fotohuis RoVo]

<p>I think that a very few people can really find in the pictures a difference between the ZM and the Summarit lenses.</p>

<p>I do not have the 35mm but I am working with the 2,5/75mm Summarit and I am satisfied with the preformance on my M7.<br>

Maybe I would be satisfied too with the new C.V. 1,8/75mm M-mount when I had to make a new choice. ZM are just C.V. lenses build in license agreement. Good value for the money.</p>

[pc_b]

<p>Tricky question. I have never seen a serious test scrutinizing the differences between the Summicron and the Biogon.<br>

However, I once had the opportunity to shoot a pre-asph Summicron against a 2/35 Biogon on provia 100F. The Biogon won on all accounts but never by much. I like the Summicron's focus tab much more than the Biogon's "hump", though...<br>

With a 43->46 step-up ring and a generic metal shade you can use the 46mm Leica cut filter. I'd go with a Zeiss, but there may be some difference in color transmission (to be countered in PS up to a certain level).<br>

Hope this helps somewhat!<br>

Cheers, Pete</p>

[charlie_novice]

<p>Faced the same choice of a 35 for M8, already having use of Zeiss ZM 28/2.8 and 50/2.<br /> <br />Went with the Summarit 35/2.5 and am very pleased. The main difference I notice (I am only a novice) is the treatment of color and color transitions. Zeiss's have punched-up color, and they do that well, unlike some modern camera and lens combinations that give vivid colors but thin rather than rich.<br /> <br />However, the Summarit colors and color transitions confirm the cliches about the Leica look. It combines the smoothness of film with the resolution of good digital. This is my opinion after several weeks; I still want to go out and take shots of ordinary things just to enjoy the colors, the textures, and the magic of a photo framing something.</p>

<p>Aside: I still think the M8 renders yellow-green with too much yellow most of the time. I often do a hues shift.</p>

<p>If you have the patience to search Flickr images on appropriate key words for the lenses, looking for the best ones, you'll see examples for comparison.</p>

 

[tim gray]

<p>I was very happy with the ZM 35/2 when I had it. Very good performer. The Summarit looks like a great lens too and is a bit more compact.</p>

[keithdunlop]

<p>"The Zeiss lenses are not much good wide open."</p>

<p>That's a ridiculous comment -- there are some truly spectacular performers in the Zeiss ZM lineup. The 25mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0, and 50mm f/2.0 are especially strong performers and will satisfy all but the purists who think it's blasphemy to put anything other than a Leica-branded lens on an M body.</p>

<p>My best advice would be to make your own comparisons and decide for yourself what you like better. You can rent the Zeiss lenses and the Summarits at LensRentals.com and do your own side-by-side comparisons.</p>

[ray .]

I love my 21 Biogon, but I like it more with film than I did with the M8 when I had one. It renders with a

little more contrast than the Leica lenses I have. I found that to occasionally be a bit of a problem with

high contrast scenes with digital. Otherwise it's a fantastic lens.

[steven_moseley1]

<h2>"ZM are just C.V. lenses build in license agreement" another ridiculous statment.</h2>

[Fotohuis RoVo]

<p>That's how it is and where the production is done. Like a Leica CL was done by Minolta but that doesn't mean it's a bad lens or camera at all.<br>

Only two Zeiss ZM lenses are build in Germany which you can also see on the price: 15mm/2,8 and the 85mm.</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>Well, I think what Steven might mean is that while they are built by C.V., Zeiss still has the majority to do in terms of the production of the lens. The lenses were designed by Zeiss, not CV, and they chose the materials etc. There is Zeiss representation at the CV factory, and I think the lenses are sent to Germany for final quality control (I could be wrong on this). I have a Japanese book on the ZM line, and it is obvious that while CV and Zeiss are cooperating, that the ZM lenses and the CV lenses may be produced in the same factory, they are not just upgraded Cosina lenses either. This is not to disparage the Cosina lenses either...</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Hey check out Sean Reids reviews on the slower 35's. They are all fine lenses and the VC 35 2.5 is pretty much as good as the Leica and the Zeiss. I know some of you are calling for my head right now. "A $400 lens as good as a Leica?" "Kill him" lol.</p>

[Fotohuis RoVo]

<blockquote>

<p><em>and I think the lenses are sent to Germany for final quality control (I could be wrong on this)</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, completely wrong.</p>

<p>The only reason Zeiss lenses are build in Japan is the price and the flexibility of the C.V. factory. If they are all build in Oberkochen the price would be even more then a Leica equivalent.</p>

<p>Do you really think a Mitsubishi build in Holland is sent to Japan for Q.C. and back again to Europe for selling on the market?</p>

<p>Talking about ridiculous ideas............</p>

<p> </p>

[vahe_sahakian]

<p>And then there is the 35.2.8 Summaron, I have one with goggles. If you do not need the speed this lens will stack up against any in quality and sharpness, in fact between f5.6 and f8 it is one of the sharpest wide angles from leica.</p>

 

[john_kwok]

<p>Robert Vonk,<br>

You are sadly mistaken. The Zeiss lenses built at the Cosina plant are built under strict Zeiss quality control standards and their production is overseen by Zeiss personnel from Oberkochen, Germany (Zeiss's headquarters). They are genuine Zeiss lenses. I own the 50mm Planar, 35mm f 2 Biogon, 28mm Biogon and the 25mm Biogon, and all are stellar performers, especially the 50mm and 25mm, which outperform their Leica equivalents. As for the 35mm Biogon, the 35mm Summicron ASPH may be slightly sharper at maximum aperture, but I have obtained great images at f2 that were quite sharp and contrasty. With regards to the slower 35mm lenses, the 35mm f2.8 Biogon-C apparently outperforms the 35mm Summarit wide open, if my interpretation of a test conducted by Erwin Puts is correct. I still own a 35mm f1.4 Summilux-M ASPH, 35mm f2 Summicron-M ASPH, 28mm f2 Summicron-M ASPH and the 24mm f2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH lenses, but only the 28mm f2 is used often, with the Summilux reserved for low light conditions.</p>

 

[Fotohuis RoVo]

<blockquote>

<p>The Zeiss lenses built at the Cosina plant are built under strict Zeiss quality control standards and their production is overseen by Zeiss personnel from Oberkochen, Germany (Zeiss's headquarters). They are genuine Zeiss lenses.</p>

<p>Yes, of course they are build according Zeiss specs and quality control, otherwise they were sold as C.V. lenses. That's also the only reason they are more expensive and they can compete with the LEICA specifications.</p>

</blockquote>

[john_kwok]

Robert Vonk -

 

You're dead wrong. The Voigtlander lenses are separate designs, which do not use any Zeiss materials or specifications. On the other hand, as someone else has noted, the Zeiss lenses built at the Voigtlander factory were designed at Oberkochen, Germany, are built on a separate production line than the Voigtlanders at the Cosina factory and are rigorously inspected by on site Zeiss personnel after their manufacture. I suggest you read up further about this at Zeiss's website.

[john_kwok]

Robert Vonk -

 

Your remarks are greatly misinformed. If you check Erwin Puts's website, for example, he has tests of most of the Voigtlander lenses, and these are original designs not related to either the late great German Voigtlander lenses or to virtually all of the recent and current Leica M lenses. The Zeiss lenses built at the Cosina plant have vastly different designs, such as the symmetrical Biogon formulae, not seen in the Voigtlander lenses. Instead of spouting off more nonsense again, may I suggest you consult with Erwin Puts, Zeiss and Cosina (Voigtlander) first.

[Fotohuis RoVo]

<p>I am an aquintance of Erwin (Puts) so you do not have to tell me all details of C.V. or Zeiss. In case you can mention something new information about C,V. or Zeiss it would be fine. But it's clear to me you are talking Chinese for most people who are reading Photo.net.<br>

Best regards from the Netherlands,</p>

<p>Robert</p>

 

[john_kwok]

Robert Vonk -

 

SInce you claim to know Erwin Puts, I suggest you follow what he has written with regards to the Cosina Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses. Both lens lines may be built in the same Cosina plant, but they are substantially different lens designs. It should strain the credulity of anyone even casually familiar with both lens lines to claim that they are related, when they were designed separately in Japan and Germany (Zeiss). The Cosina plant also manufactures the Nikon mount (ZF) and Canon mount (ZE) SLR lenses, which are substantial - in most cases - upgrades of lenses originally designed and built for the late great Contax SLR system (manufactured primarily in Japan by Yashica/Kyocera).