Summicron flare vs Zeiss Biogon

[NJH]

I think you are right, they certainly look more or less the same. ISTR the Zeiss one is about £70 and the Voigtlander one about £60 here. I bet the boxes will be almost identical as well just different coloured card.

 

[Xmas]

Hi

I use a vernier caliper on the two I had... Cosina had made them to high tolerances...
And to be fair I dont think Cosina have the same margin in their OEM sales to Zeiss...

Noel

 

[chip j]

I bought (15 yrs ago0 a M3 w/old 50mm Cron. Then I bought a new Leica lens hood for it. This hood was plastic and would deform into an oval if you tried to put it on! After a 1/2 hr of trying, I took the M3, lens & hood back to the camera store, sold it at a hefty loss & swore off Leica M Forever!! (Now I have a Contax G out fit that gives me no problems)

 

[ericdan]

I shot diamond fuji the other day and that a photo right into the sun. The summicron had ugly flare and I wasn't using a filter. I shot my ricoh GR1v at the same time and it was perfect. No flare.
So far the highly praised Summicron is really not holding up to well.


Sent from Tapatalk

 

[Pioneer]

I shot diamond fuji the other day and that a photo right into the sun. The summicron had ugly flare and I wasn't using a filter. I shot my ricoh GR1v at the same time and it was perfect. No flare.
So far the highly praised Summicron is really not holding up to well.


Sent from Tapatalk

I suppose you'll have to get used to it or buy better lenses. I have learned over the years there is some myth involved in Leica. In the beginning I did try to buy Leica glass but I eventually learned. Now I don't worry about it and keep the ones that work.

But, don't hold it against Leica. There is a bundle of myth packaged with all the brands now days. It can be fun in the beginning, and it makes for interesting forum threads, but eventually you learn to filter it out. Particularly if your interest is in the end product.

One other thing I have learned. Older glass is fun if you want "character." But if you really want a lens that does its job, buy the newer stuff. It tends to be a lot easier to add in character than it is to take it out.

 

[Xmas]

I shot diamond fuji the other day and that a photo right into the sun. The summicron had ugly flare and I wasn't using a filter. I shot my ricoh GR1v at the same time and it was perfect. No flare.
So far the highly praised Summicron is really not holding up to well.


Sent from Tapatalk

Can I inquire if you still hang up your stocking, for Rudulph to stop at?
The Summicron type IV is a really cheap lens to manufacture and so widely copied.
It is not optimised for shooting into sun or night photography.
It is good for micro contrast off axis if you shoot with tmax100 and heavy tripod - just detectably so.
The ZM planar is not that different a design and mine would flare too easily.
I use a LTM CV /2.5 cause it has a very deep hood to keep the sun away, it will still flare easily given a few photons.

 

[AgX]

Without filter it's acceptable, but not as robust as the Zeiss with a filter.

I don't see how one single uncoated surface added to an otherwise multicoated multi-lens system could significantly alter the image quality.

 

[Xmas]

The lens has got a plane multi coated air to glass surface already two single coated filter surfaces interact with this and the film (or sensor) surface badly.

There may be other mechanisms.

As well as flare you can get iris images... But this will only be apparent with sun in lens.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/50mm_f/2_Summicron-M

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

It tends to be a lot easier to add in character than it is to take it out.

Interesting. I'm of the exact opposite opinion. I seek out lenses of unique and special character. If all I wanted was a sharp and contrasty lens practically any modern lens will do. I have those too but often value the more special ones exactly for their special and unique attributes.

 

[Jim Noel]

The Zeiss is only slightly heavier and bigger than the summicron, but from my experience so far it beats the summicron by leaps and bounds.
I just wonder why Zeiss went for f/2.8 - f/22 instead of f/2.0 - f/16
Everybody wants the extra stop at the wide open end.

to answer your question: Size, weight and cost.

 

[Xmas]

to answer your question: Size, weight and cost.

The performance may be no different either eg Leica make a /2.5...

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Zeiss made both a 35/2 and a 35/2.8 in ZM.

 

[ericdan]

With the 35mm f/2.0 being too big and heavy. I'm sure it's an amazing lens but it's too bulky.
Can't have it all I guess.


Sent from Tapatalk

 

[Xmas]

With the 35mm f/2.0 being too big and heavy. I'm sure it's an amazing lens but it's too bulky.
Can't have it all I guess.


Sent from Tapatalk

Yes and heavy too.
I use the CV /2.5 35mm classic with large optional hood to keep the sun out.
Small light and cheap.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

With the 35mm f/2.0 being too big and heavy. I'm sure it's an amazing lens but it's too bulky.
Can't have it all I guess.

Darn it! Never realized that before now. Shoot. And I liked this lens so much! Guess I'll shoot my SLRs....oh wait.

 

[Pioneer]

Yes and heavy too.
I use the CV /2.5 35mm classic with large optional hood to keep the sun out.
Small light and cheap.

I like the CV Color Skopar 35/2.5 as well. I use it on my Bessa R2C frequently. On the M though I usually walk around with my MS Optical Perar 35/3.5 because it is even more compact.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I like the CV Color Skopar 35/2.5 as well. I use it on my Bessa R2C frequently. On the M though I usually walk around with my MS Optical Perar 35/3.5 because it is even more compact.

If we're gonna talk slower 35's then of course compactness comes into serious play. I have a really nice 35/3.5 Kyoei Acall in LTM that's really compact and a nice performer though with its hood it loses a lot of that compactness. But for ultra compactness nothing beats my uncoated 35/3.5 Elmar. Supposedly a real dog but shhhh, nobody told my example that:


SF downtown LeicaIIIf RD 35f3-5Elmar(uncoated) KodakTri-X Rodinal 1-50 11min 22C 1minAg2x 2013-11 VSmac 4000 Scan-140105-0011 by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

The uncoated 35/3.5 Elmar on my MP. So compact it's almost comical:

 

[AgX]

The lens has got a plane multi coated air to glass surface already two single coated filter surfaces interact with this and the film (or sensor) surface badly.

There may be other mechanisms.

As well as flare you can get iris images... But this will only be apparent with sun in lens.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/50mm_f/2_Summicron-M

-) For interaction those internal two plain surfaces at the lens elements would not be more critical than any other lens surfaces. Even if uncoated and critical due to total-reflection, incoming and reflected light would be refracted by the frontal lens element.

-) Out of the lens at worst about 3% of the incoming light might be reflected, leaving the lens at different directions. Thus a total reflection cannot take place even with an uncoated filter. The light reflected back into the lens will be much less than those 3%.
How could that significantly degrade the image?

 

[frank]

Interesting. I'm of the exact opposite opinion. I seek out lenses of unique and special character. If all I wanted was a sharp and contrasty lens practically any modern lens will do. I have those too but often value the more special ones exactly for their special and unique attributes.

Me too. I have Canon ltm lenses in 28, 35, and 50mm. Then a few "inferior" 50mm lenses like a col. Summicron, Summar, Elmar f3.5, FED f3.5, and Zeiss f2.

For a modern look, I've got a range of Nikkor SLR lenses.

 

[Xmas]

-) For interaction those internal two plain surfaces at the lens elements would not be more critical than any other lens surfaces. Even if uncoated and critical due to total-reflection, incoming and reflected light would be refracted by the frontal lens element.

-) Out of the lens at worst about 3% of the incoming light might be reflected, leaving the lens at different directions. Thus a total reflection cannot take place even with an uncoated filter. The light reflected back into the lens will be much less than those 3%.
How could that significantly degrade the image?

If you are shooting with light sources in the frame eg

At night or
Low sun in morning or evening

And the contrast ratio is more than 1:10000 the 0.5 % off a single coated filter or (oblique rays from) IR cut filter will be significant.

At night you leave off even multi coated filters or expect ghost images...

Low sun with M8 you leave off IR cut filter or get iris images.

Note most triplet lenses have one plane surface.

Cine people would use a French flag shooting on location and deep hoods.

I use deep 3 cm hoods or barn doors.

The DSLR fashion of using a zoom with deep petal hood inverted is ok cause they chimp and reshoot selfies!

It is less good when they drop the camera.