k__43
Registered Film User
i find the Bokeh of the Cron-C not as nice as the bokeh I was getting from the older 50mm summicrons. I think that the bokeh of the Hexar AF is better too.
But it's not bad at all(!!!), I prefer it to anything I've seen from the Noktons f/1.4
for the price you can't go wrong
I've not changed mine to bring up the 35mm frame line yet - I really should but I'm afraid it kills the resale value. (the 40 is much closer to 35 than to 50. far more than I thought)
But it's not bad at all(!!!), I prefer it to anything I've seen from the Noktons f/1.4
for the price you can't go wrong
I've not changed mine to bring up the 35mm frame line yet - I really should but I'm afraid it kills the resale value. (the 40 is much closer to 35 than to 50. far more than I thought)
raid
Dad Photographer
I once compared my Summicron-C with a Pentax 43mm 1.9 L, side by side. Both lenses gave me wonderful looking images, and I could not see any differences. Maybe if I had blown up some images into large sized prints, then I would have seen any differences. The Summicron-C is a really good deal of a lens. The Rokkor is as good and some like it more, but this is untried by me so far.
Paul T.
Veteran
Bokeh is in the eye of the beholder.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
I owned the Pentax 43, The M-Rokkor CLE, the CV 35/1.4 and various others.
The differences in these lenses is so small, it is really irrelevant.
The difference between two images made by two differnet photographers is HUGE HUGE HUGE compared to the same shot taken with two different lenses (of the same focal lenght at the same fstop, etc.)
it simply makes no friggin sense to think about qualities like that.
What you put behind your subject has a much bigger effect on the bokeh than the lens. You can force even reknowned bokeh lenses like the Nikon 85/1.4 into distracting background rendering.
The differences in these lenses is so small, it is really irrelevant.
The difference between two images made by two differnet photographers is HUGE HUGE HUGE compared to the same shot taken with two different lenses (of the same focal lenght at the same fstop, etc.)
it simply makes no friggin sense to think about qualities like that.
What you put behind your subject has a much bigger effect on the bokeh than the lens. You can force even reknowned bokeh lenses like the Nikon 85/1.4 into distracting background rendering.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
As I always say to my girlfriend: beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
Paul T.
Veteran
kanzlr
Hexaneur
Jani_from_Finland
Well-known
I am offered an 4/5 classed m-rokkor 40/2 any differences in build quality between this and the Leica version?
Have always liked 40mm and just made a deal on an Leica M2, thinking this could be good lens as i cant afford any other, maybe some VC lenses, but dont like their build quality having owned a VC 40/1.4SC. Feels weird to put a minolta lens on a Leica, but having missed out on 3 auctions on ebay with the summicron version i think this is a good substitute?
Have always liked 40mm and just made a deal on an Leica M2, thinking this could be good lens as i cant afford any other, maybe some VC lenses, but dont like their build quality having owned a VC 40/1.4SC. Feels weird to put a minolta lens on a Leica, but having missed out on 3 auctions on ebay with the summicron version i think this is a good substitute?
Tessar.
Established
Thanks to everyone who posted, the pics are great. I don't see any evidence the nasties I'd noticed from the examples I saw before.
After long and hard thought I decided that I really like the rendering of the Hex lens in my hexar AF over the Summicron, and as the L-Hex and UC-Hex 35 lenses are very expensive now I pulled the plug on a 50/2.4 L-Hexanon from SK-Photo after looking at all the examples from it I could find.
Hopefully I made the right decision. I figured I can just carry the Hexar for when I want the 35 or a screw mount body with the 50 on depending on how I feel.
After long and hard thought I decided that I really like the rendering of the Hex lens in my hexar AF over the Summicron, and as the L-Hex and UC-Hex 35 lenses are very expensive now I pulled the plug on a 50/2.4 L-Hexanon from SK-Photo after looking at all the examples from it I could find.
Hopefully I made the right decision. I figured I can just carry the Hexar for when I want the 35 or a screw mount body with the 50 on depending on how I feel.
porktaco
Well-known
i adore this lens
d_c
Established
Optically the performance that I got out of the M-Rokkor was as good as what I now get out of the Summicron-C. If I had to choose between them with regard to build quality I would say that the Summicron-C is slightly better in this respect but it would be more a perception than something I could put definitively put my finger on. Getting either one of these lenses would count as a good move.
k__43
Registered Film User
true too
also a bit overrated .. a lens is defined by many parameters this is only one
Tessar.
Established
True, I look for sharpness/rendering of tones first and then Bokeh, but all three have to be agreeable or harmonious.
If the L-hex doesn't work out for me then the excellent pics posted here will definitely steer me back to the Summicron-C again.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
reminds me of the dpreview threads that start with "all I care for is sharp sharp sharp"
lol
of course background rendition is different between lenses, no doubt about that. But as said there are many defining characteristics, oof rendition being one of them, sharpness, etc.
I am always surprised if people say they just shoot wide open anyways. what!?! If you examine examples of famous photographers, there are not that many wide open, shallow dof shots in their portfolios.
lol
of course background rendition is different between lenses, no doubt about that. But as said there are many defining characteristics, oof rendition being one of them, sharpness, etc.
I am always surprised if people say they just shoot wide open anyways. what!?! If you examine examples of famous photographers, there are not that many wide open, shallow dof shots in their portfolios.
Tessar.
Established
reminds me of the dpreview threads that start with "all I care for is sharp sharp sharp"
lol
of course background rendition is different between lenses, no doubt about that. But as said there are many defining characteristics, oof rendition being one of them, sharpness, etc.
I am always surprised if people say they just shoot wide open anyways. what!?! If you examine examples of famous photographers, there are not that many wide open, shallow dof shots in their portfolios.
Yes, and flickr groups for Bokeh for the sake of it, a million and one boring pics shot wide open...
I don't often shoot wide open either, which is why it's nice to see shots with the Summicron C which show the oof areas at smaller apertures. I think those sorts of shallow dof pics are a transitory phase that people go through when they're learning photography and then they move on. What used to amuse me was the number of pics shot at f1.4 on threads for the Nikon 85/1.4 or 28/1.4. I had the 28/1.4 once which I used on a D2h and once the lens' novelty wore off it was like what am I doing carrying all this weight around for for the odd pic at f1.4.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
lol, right.
Had my bokeh phase.
Had my bokeh phase.
Gadge
Established
I use an M-Rokkor second generation. It is a lovely lens in many ways.
The pictures are sharp and the bokeh good enough. It does not for me have the "magic drawing" of say a 50mm rigid but it is a great usable lens.
The real joy though for me is the weight and balance on the Leica M. It makes the camera so much lighter than using a heavy lens e.g. 50mm rigid, so I much prefer it for a carry about or travel combo.
I use it with a cheap screw on metal hood sourced from Ebay. This works fabulously well and it is so small that it fits right inside Leica's Ever Ready Case without needing to take the hood off! As a result, I have no need to use a lens cap. This makes it very handy and faff free to use. I also love the look of this lens and hood combo.
Conclusion : Highly recommended!
The pictures are sharp and the bokeh good enough. It does not for me have the "magic drawing" of say a 50mm rigid but it is a great usable lens.
The real joy though for me is the weight and balance on the Leica M. It makes the camera so much lighter than using a heavy lens e.g. 50mm rigid, so I much prefer it for a carry about or travel combo.
I use it with a cheap screw on metal hood sourced from Ebay. This works fabulously well and it is so small that it fits right inside Leica's Ever Ready Case without needing to take the hood off! As a result, I have no need to use a lens cap. This makes it very handy and faff free to use. I also love the look of this lens and hood combo.
Conclusion : Highly recommended!
Paul T.
Veteran
Yup.
Bokeh wars are a bit like horsepower wars with cars - it's buying stuff from the brochure. I think a lot of it comes from insecurity - as if that extra, luscious, OOF area will make up for a boring photo!
In the case of the Summicron C, it's especially silly. The lens has a real character of its own, mainly defined by its specific field of view.
It's the FOV that requires familiarisation, and will make or break a photog's relationship with it. The bokeh, while part of the character, is in comparison irrelevant.
surfer dude
Well-known
Yes, and flickr groups for Bokeh for the sake of it, a million and one boring pics shot wide open...
I don't often shoot wide open either
Yeah well, be careful if you try this at home, but I was once interested to find out some examples of the qualities of various lenses at their maximum apertures and keyed in "wide open" as a search on Explore in Flickr and -
- well, like I said, I wouldn't be trying this on the computer at work!mocheez
Member
I have both the Summicron-C 40mm f:2 and the Voigtländer Nokton 40mm f:1.4 SC. I love them both but can't really tell the difference… I'm not specifically in a bokeh phase, although I like to shoot wide open, but both lenses please me a lot. The VL really has that vintage image look, especially in black and white.