35mm Lens options for Leica-M

[brian steinberger]

Thanks so much guys. I'm excited! I should have the camera and lens next week. I was just metering some scenes around the house, one of my girlfriend in the living room with one lamp on, not very bright. Reading with simply the reflected light from the lamp onto her I got 1/30 at f/2 at ISO 1600. Perfect! Hopefully that extra stop will be worth it!

 

[warden]

Thanks so much guys. I'm excited! I should have the camera and lens next week. I was just metering some scenes around the house, one of my girlfriend in the living room with one lamp on, not very bright. Reading with simply the reflected light from the lamp onto her I got 1/30 at f/2 at ISO 1600. Perfect! Hopefully that extra stop will be worth it!

Congrats Brian!

I'm pretty sure you'll like the lens. My only quibble with it is the size, but it's worth it for the speed I think.

I couldn't decide between the 2.8 and 2.0 Biogons so I purchased both and shot with them for a while. I decided to keep the 2.0, but that 2.8C is a fine and small lens. The 2.0 does intrude into the 35mm framelines on the Ikon, but I actually had to go and check to be sure; it's quite minor.

Anyway I wanted to share a few comparison shots for you, but you already went and bought one. Perhaps someone else will find them of interest. These images are bigger than I remember so sorry for the size. I shot these last year as I was deciding between lenses. Both lenses performed well for casual photography but I wanted to see if a noticeable difference would emerge if I (for once) used a tripod and took identical photos. The first two are at f2.8 and the last two are with the Biogon 2.0 exposed at f5.6.

I scanned them on a Nikon Coolscan - this one is a full size crop of the one above.

Enjoy your new lens!

 

[M. Lointain]

I think you made the right choice Brian. If I am not mistaken, the f/2 Biogon has less distortion than the f/2.8. It really is a great lens.

 

[brian steinberger]

Congrats Brian!

I'm pretty sure you'll like the lens. My only quibble with it is the size, but it's worth it for the speed I think.

I couldn't decide between the 2.8 and 2.0 Biogons so I purchased both and shot with them for a while. I decided to keep the 2.0, but that 2.8C is a fine and small lens. The 2.0 does intrude into the 35mm framelines on the Ikon, but I actually had to go and check to be sure; it's quite minor.

Anyway I wanted to share a few comparison shots for you, but you already went and bought one. Perhaps someone else will find them of interest. These images are bigger than I remember so sorry for the size. I shot these last year as I was deciding between lenses. Both lenses performed well for casual photography but I wanted to see if a noticeable difference would emerge if I (for once) used a tripod and took identical photos. The first two are at f2.8 and the last two are with the Biogon 2.0 exposed at f5.6.

Thanks for the examples! so in your findings of using both lenses did you see a difference?

Also, I'm excited at the sharpness with the Coolscan. I too have one.

 

[warden]

Thanks for the examples! so in your findings of using both lenses did you see a difference?

Not really, at least as far as sharpness and contrast are concerned. I'm not a pixel peeper so doing the tripod shots was painfully boring for me, but I'm glad I did them. As M. Lointain says the distortion on the 2.0 is smaller which I like.

One last shot, showing the 2.8 attached to the camera and the 2.0 next to it. Not a small lens (it's bigger than my 50mm 1.5 Sonnar) but I quickly got used to the size. The filter and caps make the 2.0 look bigger in this image than it is.

 

[M. Lointain]

Brian, I know your original question involved the Summicron and I did a test with both the Summicron and the Biogon of a granite rock which was very telling. If I can find the scans I will post them just so you know what you are not missing..

 

[brian steinberger]

What is the actual length difference? Looks to be about 1/2"? I'm used to MF rangefinders, this is actually my first 35mm rangefinder so I think maybe the larger lens will actually work better for me since I'm used to larger lenses.

 

[brian steinberger]

Brian, I know your original question involved the Summicron and I did a test with both the Summicron and the Biogon of a granite rock which was very telling. If I can find the scans I will post them just so you know what you are not missing..

This would be great, thanks!

 

[warden]

Sorry but I don't know the length difference as I sold the 2.8. It's probably in the Zeiss PDFs though.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas, do you have any examples shot this way? You think maybe I should go for the f/2 Biogon rather than the f/2.8 if I intend it to be my only lens?

Brian,

Looks like you got yourself a nice lens there. I do find the extra stop invaluable to me, but my hands aren't very steady anyway, so for low light shooting f/1.4 becomes almost invaluable to me. I like photographing people that move around, or are in a dynamic environment.
Since you already have the lens purchased, I will stop looking for a suitable example.

Have fun with your new camera! They are a joy to use, and since you're already used to rangefinders, I'm sure you won't get into the same 'love at first sight shooting frenzy' that I engulfed myself in, but take a reasonable approach to it.

- Thomas

 

[brian steinberger]

Hey guys I got the M6 today. It is in fantastic condition. And the 35/2 Biogon came also. The focus on the lens is VERY stiff. The lens itself moves on the mount just ever so slightly from the focus being so stiff. Anything to do about that? I'm thinking of sending it out to have a CLA and make sure the RF is spot on. Other than that I'm impressed with the build quality. I'm looking forward to this weekend to actually shoot it.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Check for accurate alignment of the rangefinder spot with the lens set to infinity (a distant radio tower works great). If that is good, you are probably good to go, especially with a 35mm f2 lens.

I have learned (the hard way) to use a Leica specialist for accurate rangefinder adjustment. Sherry Krauter (Goldentouch) has the factory jigs to do it right; I don't know about others. I've seen some really bad work, but most rangefinder adjustments will still be adequate with most 35 and 50mm lens. Super fast and long lenses require every bit of accuracy the camera can deliver.

That said, I do tweak my own. Most often a tiny infinity adjustment puts it into pretty good order.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Oh, and nighttime works great Find a distant light. This happens to also show up any vertical error, but don't worry too much about that; vertical alignment error won't affect the focus and some people even prefer a slight amount.

 

[Bateleur]

I just purchased a used Carl Zeiss 35/2 Biogon ZM T*. I figure the extra stop of speed could be beneficial if it's my only lens. I've heard reports of the f/2 being slightly soft wide open, but to me getting the shot and it being a little soft is better than not being able to get the shot at all.

Congratulations Brian, it should be a lovely combination. My experience with Zeiss lenses are that they are a little stiff to begin with (25mm biogon). Happy shooting.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

So how is it?

 

[brian steinberger]

Shooting it is nice. I'm still getting used to the arrows for metering in the VF. I'm used to aperture priority mode in my other RF's. But the build quality is amazing, and the shutter is nice and smooth. I still have yet to develop any film yet.

 

[davela]

I'll go so far as saying there are not any bad Leica OR Zeiss lenses made for the M - in fact no "bad" Voigtlander lenses either! The main difference is that the late model Leica and Zeiss lenses will maintain a ridiculously high degree of sharpness wide open, whereas the earlier ones will not be quite as sharp wide open (but certainly darn good compared to the general field of 35mm lenses). And yes the aspherically surfaced Leica's deliver that wee bit of extra performance for the most demanding among us (and wealthiest!).

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Shooting it is nice. I'm still getting used to the arrows for metering in the VF. I'm used to aperture priority mode in my other RF's. But the build quality is amazing, and the shutter is nice and smooth. I still have yet to develop any film yet.

Coming from Auto, it won't take long for you to get the hang of manual exposure. For most situations you only need to meter once. Auto and the manual meter indicators move around a lot in response to slight changes in the reflectivity of the subject. If the light hasn't changed, or your subject hasn't moved into radically different light, then you don't need to change the exposure. Matching the arrows for each shot will not improve the exposure.


My apologies if you already know that and it seems too basic, but it is not always obvious when moving from auto exposure. I am speaking about negatives. The issue is similar, but the decision making is somewhat different for slides (need to make sure the highs don't blow out).

 

[Michael Erb]

I'm in the same predicament as the original owner of this thread. To buy the 2.8 or 2.0 Zeiss biogon. I'm wondering Brian how you feel about the size of the faster lens now that you have been using it a while? I want the F/2 but I'm worried about the size of it. I will be using the lens on a Voigtlander R2A.

 

[Missi]

great combo! i dont have a 35 mm, but a 28 mm, all great lenses.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I prefer a Leitz lens which is a result of hand calculation optimization not computer. An Genius sits on a table and works 10 hours a day for 2 or more years and when working with mathematics , he develops new mathematical view angles , formulas.
An computer can generate a lens but it cant generate itselves rules. Why Leica expensive , because they developed all better chemistry, mathematics , physics by themselves , they did not buy a 40 dollar research article , carry in to software and than generate the lenses as much as good as article.

Dont forget , older 60 years old Leitz lenses have two times more resolution at the corner than latest Summicron. Bokeh is not important , texture , degrades and colors are important. You cant get same color with canada leicas. I really hate everything about latest Leica images.

Dont waste your hard earned money to tourist traps , buy a IIF with Summar , no other lens can beat it.

Umut

 

[janrzm]

I have the 35 Cron Asph which I fully intended to sell when I bought the new 35 Lux, but I just have not been able to do it yet......I have no experience of the other Leica 35mm lenses so can only say that the Asph is an amazing lens but costly. I have several VC lenses which I hold in high regard, you should seriously consider the VC Nokton 35 f/1.2, faster and a lot less strain on the pocket. I know you said 35mm but the 40mm VC Nokton f/1.4 is a lens I can never quite put out of my mind.....

 

[peter_n]

I have the 35 Cron Asph which I fully intended to sell when I bought the new 35 Lux, but I just have not been able to do it yet...

Well the OP has already purchased his Biogon so that is done. However your post did remind me that I used to have the 35 Summilux ASPH and then got a 35 Summicron ASPH. Nine months later I sold the Summilux and bought a v.1 Summicron (8 element) which I like just as much as the ASPH but for different reasons. We are all different.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I prefer a Leitz lens which is a result of hand calculation optimization not computer. An Genius sits on a table and works 10 hours a day for 2 or more years and when working with mathematics , he develops new mathematical view angles , formulas.
An computer can generate a lens but it cant generate itselves rules. Why Leica expensive , because they developed all better chemistry, mathematics , physics by themselves , they did not buy a 40 dollar research article , carry in to software and than generate the lenses as much as good as article.

Dont forget , older 60 years old Leitz lenses have two times more resolution at the corner than latest Summicron. Bokeh is not important , texture , degrades and colors are important. You cant get same color with canada leicas. I really hate everything about latest Leica images.

Dont waste your hard earned money to tourist traps , buy a IIF with Summar , no other lens can beat it.

Umut

While some lens designers may well have been geniuses, the ones working for companies had many slav... er, assistants (mostly women) working all day doing the routine calculations for them. Not really different from a computer, just much slower.

60 years ago, Zeiss lenses were almost always better than Leica's (possible exception being the Elmar).
Given the same design, the made in Canada lenses were just as good as the made in Germany ones.
That a Summar is unbeatable is a statement which lies far, far (far!) in the realm of taste.

Whew...

 

[cmo]

I have the Zeiss 2/35 since a few weeks. Great lens, tacksharp, very good mechanics, and it's better at backlight shots than any other lens I ever used - it seems to be unable to produce flare or ghosts, and I am a backlight addict. The only downside is that it's a bit bigger than a Leica 2/35.