35-50mm FL - which is bokeh king ?

[proenca]

Hi there,

Im quite addicted to bokeh, and Im missing it in Leica M. I have two lens so far ( as I come from a SLR bakcground ) >

35 F2 ASPH

and

90 F2 ASPH

35F2 as a very distinct signature, and the 90 is just super duper sharp. If the background is somewhat distant then the main subject, the bokeh is fine. But if the planes are somewhat close, its mayhem, evyerthing is sharp - even stuff in the bokeh area.

Left me wondering - there are from time to time, people here talking about old 'crons and alike, that have a nice bokeh signature ( I do like noctilux one, I dont like its size AND price tag ).

I want something ( preferably 28 to 90 ) that delivers a nice smooth dreamy bokeh.

Ideas ?

Thank you in advance

 

[x-ray]

I don't find any of my leica asph lenses to have particularly good OOF. Older non asph Leica glass does as a rule such as my 90 Elmarit v1. I also find some of the non Leica glass to have particularly nice OOF such as the Zeiss Biogon 35, 50 Planar and the CV 35 Nokton and 28mm Ultron.

 

[wintoid]

I'm partial to the bokeh of the Konica M-Hexanon lenses, especially the 50mm.

Have a look here too

http://www.lulu.com/content/129691

 

[ferider]

To many degrees of freedom (too many possible lenses, OOF is a personal taste issue) in your question. Check out

http://www.flickr.com/groups/m-mount

And go from there ....

Roland.

 

[ampguy]

same here

same here

handles round OOF lights and other distracting objects amazingly well, like nothing else I've seen.

I'm partial to the bokeh of the Konica M-Hexanon lenses, especially the 50mm.

Have a look here too

http://www.lulu.com/content/129691

 

[clintock]

Third the motion, hexanon 50.. best bokeh ever in a 50 m. No footballs, no rings, no blood cells, just fuzzballs..

 

[Biggles]

50mm f/1.4 Summilux, 1964 vintage, wide open:

And here's my 40mm f/2 Summicron, stopped down quite a bit, and focused on the snowman. But look at the foreground:

I'm very happy with how smoothly both these lenses render out-of-focus areas, at all apertures. I haven't seen "ugly bokeh" on my contact sheets from these lenses yet. My modern 50mm f/2 Summicron was a bit crashy by comparison.

 

[Krosya]

I have a Summicron Rigid 50/2 and I like it's bokeh. Sorry no examples handy. Also, My russian J-3 50/1.5 is very good at OOF.

 

[peter_n]

I think the closest an ASPH lens comes to the older look is the 35/1.4.

 

[TJV]

A tear forms in my eye whenever I look at old pictures I took with a version II 35mm Summicron. I sold it to help fund my M8 and 35 Lux ASPH. I loved that lens, especially when working in colour.
I may be going out on a limb here, but I also liked working in B/W with my old collapsable 50mm Cron.
I'll report about my new 35 lux in a while when I've caught up on processing. I haven't seen anything from that yet...

 

[Krosya]

Ok, I just did some digging and here are a few photos from the Rigid Summicron 50/2. Maybe it will give you some idea - most of them are at f/2.

 

[Krosya]

Here is one at f/4 or 5.6 if I remember it right. Still Rigid Cron 50mm/2

 

[Way]

From my gallery. 50 lux pre asph, probably shot wide open. Recently traded it for the new 50 lux asph. I hope I don't regret it!

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showfull.php?photo=28100

 

[wintoid]

This shot shows quite nicely how the Hexanon 50mm lens carves the sharp part of the image out of its bokeh 😀 Of course, like most lenses, it's not THIS good when there are bright lights in the background etc, but this should give you an idea.

 

[Pherdinand]

proenca, i tell you a secret.
The "best" bokeh originates from leftovers of spherical aberration in a lens.
The lenses marked "asph" are very well corrected for spherical aberration by using aspherical lens elements. The sharpness is better, but bokeh... you get the point, i guess.

Having only two lenses abd BOTH being "asph"versions, one would think you were after good sharpness.
I am sure anybody would gladly trade 1-to-1 an older, "good bokeh" M lens to one of your "asph" versions. 😉

 

[telenous]

proenca, i tell you a secret.
The "best" bokeh originates from leftovers of spherical aberration in a lens.
The lenses marked "asph" are very well corrected for spherical aberration by using aspherical lens elements. The sharpness is better, but bokeh... you get the point, i guess.
QUOTE]

Well, strictly speaking that is correct, at least in theory. But curiously it doesn't agree always with experience. (It certainly doesn't agree with mine).

Perhaps some of us remember some time ago the 'dog' blind lens test by Ray Harms, here in RFF? He tested the Summicron DR (a lens which cannot be said to have bad bokeh - quite on the contrary) versus the Summilux 50 Asph for bokeh. Surprisingly the Aspherical lens had less cross-eyed and busy bokeh than its vintage counterpart, something which was stratlingly obvious when one looked in the gravel in the backround. My expectation that the bokeh of the modern lens would be more corrected and hence harsher was what prompted me to guess wrongly at the time (I had the DR myself but not the Lux Asph). Perhaps you will say that was just the result of the 50 Lux Asph, but I also remember a test by another RFF member between the Summicron 35 preasph and the Summicron 35 Asph. where he reached a similar result about the OOF characteristics of the Aspherical lenses. BTW by comparison to the Zeiss Planar 50 both Leica lenses had smoother OOF areas (no test for that, just my experience back then).

I have read many times in the past about users going back to their older Leica lenses because they don't like the bokeh of the newer Aspherical ones, but that cannot be because the Asphericals have less 'creamy' bokeh (they actually seem to be smoother). There's something else that people do not like about the bokeh of the Asphs and, contrary to received wisdom, I think it is the fact that older lenses have more, not less 'energy' and definition in the rendition of OOF objects.

I am just speculating of course 🙄 🙂

PS. Usual disclaimers apply - all these lenses handle bokeh very well, and none of them will destroy a photo because of the OOF areas. One could say that bokeh is the least important or interesting aspect of a photo. Still I have noticed the emergence and even predominance of a group of photographers who enjoy bokefying everything even at the expense of a classical 'net' composition (not to knock on them, these photos are actually very nice). To them, bokeh is everything (enter the Noctiluxians). It is as if with the invention of the word 'bokeh' people finally took notice of it and even elevated it in a form of art in itself.

 

[dave lackey]

Ahhhh...

So, that is what I have become ... a "Noctiluxian"!!!! 😱

Or maybe, because of the price, a wannabee Noctiluxian, who just happens to look for a similar result at a reasonable price... 😉

After 35 years, I find myself more concerned with understanding different lenses and their effect on bokeh than I am with composition. Hope to marry the two successfully not only for close-ups but for a lot of my photography.

Here is the result of something I haven't tried but will next week for my close-ups:

Lensbaby Macro-kit...


http://www.lensbabies.com/galleries/macro/botanicals/Macro_bots_09.JPG

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Biggles]

It is as if with the invention of the word 'bokeh' people finally took notice of it and even elevated it in a form of art in itself.

Definitely. It's like peat-smoke in single malts, or blackberry notes in in a big fat Shiraz. You've been drinking Shiraz with your steak for years because it's red and it comes in a one-liter bag, and then one evening your supper companion of the moment gives her glass an approving look and says "You can really taste the peppery notes."

"Th- the what? (Slurp.) Oooohhh..."

At least, that's how it was with me. Until that Photo Techniques article in the mid-nineties, I'd never given the quality of the out-of-focus background a single thought. Hadn't had the brains to look at it, and none of my photographic mentors had ever mentioned it. I read that piece, and my eyeballs bulged.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request