Leica-Zeiss rangefinder lens comparison

[Orio]

I like Leica lenses, but I always preferred Zeiss. I have found a page that shows why with the evidence.
Go to the bottom of this page:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65014

and check for the four small pictures posted by "duoduo.coco"
He compares Leica Summicron 35mm f/2 and Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2
rangefinder lenses, on the same scene.

The Summicron photos are good, but the Biogon photos pop up to your eyes.
This link is good also to show people who can not understand what "3D" in photo is - just compare the pictures and see it for yourself in the Biogon.

Then consider that the Summicron sells for more than 1000 Euros more than the Biogon.

[Rolf]

Beside the price level the condition are not the same. You can see that during the Zeiss shots there was much more sun as when the Leica shots were made.

Furthermore the position is a little bit different. You can see a little bot more of the diagonal of the oil tank on the zeiss shot, together with the more brighten light you will have a better 3D-effect.

That doesn´t mean that Orio is wrong with his general statement but sometimes little details can change a picture.

[poilu]

difficult to compare performance with moving clouds
from barrel shadows, it seems that Zeiss got a better lightning than Leica
but I don't doubt that Zeiss is better

[Spotmatic]

Apparently the Leica vignettes a lot more. Maybe that also contributes to the "flatness".

[scsambrook]

I can't really understand the "football club devotion" some folks show for particular makes or families of lenses. This particular comparison simply shows the effect underexposure has on accentuating illumination fall off with moderately wide angle lenses ... sorry about that, Poilu and Orio !

I'm being mishievous, of course - everyone can support whatever team they want (Am I promiscuous if I support several teams?)

[Orio]

[Rolf]

[Orio]

[estudleon]

The comparision is clearly not regular. Why?

The summicron M 2/35 8 elements (made till 1968 and sold till 1969) was made when the fashion in greats lenses were the medium contrast, while the newest biogon has more contrast because now is more fashion the lens in this way. In leica lenses too.

It seems not reasonable to me the comparison between one lens from nearly 40 years and one almost, if not, new.

I should like the comparison between the new summicron M 2/35 aspheric and the zeiss. Only to respect the production line of each one. And to be more honest with the people who can read the test, the tester would have to inquire the oldness of the leica lens. All do not have the obligation of knowing it.

The zeiss is a great lens, endeed. But not better than Leica M.

Rino.

Note: the old summicron M 2/35, was made from 1958 to 1968 and sold till 1969. When the taste of the people changed to more contrast lenses, in 1969, Leica made a new version of the summicron M 2/35 continue to be a gaussian modified formula but with 6 elements (not 8 like the old version) to reduce flare and increased the contrast.

[scsambrook]

Maybe the photographer shifted his position when changing lenses . . . I think even half a pace would account for the small difference in coverage. But then, if Mr Leitz made his lens at +5% over marked focal length (36.75mm) and Mr Zeiss made his at -5% under (33.25mm) I think that also would account for it . . .

Rino makes a good point about the difference in age and 'optical fashion' in designing lenses - we get different optical 'flavours' from different eras. I don't think that Leitz/Leica lenses are better or worse than Zeiss, but they are frequently quite different. A friend of mine suggests it's rather like comparing fine wines or spirits - very much a matter of individual preference.

[F16SUNSHINE]

Having used both side by side I can say the performance difference is minimal (they look quite similar in prints).
Zeiss has a bit better microcontrast , even illumination, and corner performance open.
The asph summicron has a much nicer build quality, size, and usabilty and center sharpness wide open.
By f4 it was near impossible to tell the lenses apart.

I kept the biogon because I love the 3D effect from the lens and I love to keep my money.

The Summicron sold slightly used for $2200 on auction.
It is not $1500 nicer in use than the Biogon.

Funny is now my Biogon is seldom used over a tiny Rokkor CLE f2/40mm.
I just love the tiny Cron. The Biogon is beastly large by comparison.
When the light is low or flat I don't see the reason to carry the big Biogon.
With beautiful 3D lighting it is the one lens to have.

[F16SUNSHINE]

Look at the Biogon c 2.8/35 also. One stop slower but very compact and same performance.
I could give up one stop for a smaller package.
Usually I shoot at f4 anyway with the daytime lens.

[LucisPictor]

As usually, the Leica character seems to be a little cooler to me than Zeiss.
But to be honest, I don't think that we can really make out a clear winner between those two lenses.
Which, in turn, can be an argument for the Zeiss glass: same level for 1/4 of the price? Ok, that'e a no brainer, unless you are really a Leica fan.

[scsambrook]

LucisPictor has the vital and most powerful argument - I too would rather spend much less and get equal quality.