any 35mm without swirly bokeh?

[Phil_F_NM]

If you want the very same look of a Hexar AF, you'd have to find the 35mm L Hexanon, not the UC Hexanon, they are slightly different. L model is a copy of the Hexar AF optic and predates the UC and M Hexanons.
Generally the rule is that the faster the lens, the more swirly the background will get at the wider apertures. You can fix this by stopping down a bit, for the most part, or try a different formulation like you're doing.

My vote is for the Summaron. Either version. I have a late LTM Summaron f/3.5 and it's a fantastic lens. Zero swirly background. Actually, the aberrations are close to nil in all aspects on that lens. It's a great performer and one of the best deals out there in real Leica glass.

Phil Forrest

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

Pardon my lack of knowledge on swirlyness in bokeh but wouldn't the faster lens be more prone to swirls due to having a wider aperture and more blur in the background than say a 2.8 lens or even stopping said fast lens down to 2.8?

 

[aleksanderpolo]

I thought the swirlyness can be seen by a big discrepancy between the sag and tan line on the mtf? Never notice any swirlyness on my ZM 35/2 and its bokeh is quite natural/neutral.

 

[kossi008]

Isn't swirly bokeh also related to the max. aperture via the cat's eye effect?* If dominantly so, then any f/1.4 lens will exhibit it. But I guess there are other factors.

*: see here: http://toothwalker.org/optics/vignetting.html

 

[greyelm]

If you don't like swirly bokeh avoid Summitars

 

[gonzo74]

Summaron, Summaron, Summaron,.... and not because I have one for sale here now... 😉

awesome lens, though you said no leica lenses, they can be found at a decent price...mine is the 2.8 version, and i love it. no swirls 🙂

 

[pb908]

here is my example shot from nokton 35mm MC, wide open

for a reason, it's hard for me to get swirl with it stopped down @ f2. maybe that's the "CURE"..

 

[Krosya]

If you don't like swirly bokeh avoid Summitars

Even more so if you are looking for a 35mm lens, since Summitar is 50/2 lens. 😉

 

[umcelinho]

slightly OT, but is there a way to have the Ultron focus down to .7m, not losing infinity focus? been wondering that as read it being possible with a 50/1.5 Nokton.

 

[jsrockit]

The 35/1.7 Ultron in my opinion.

Yes, I agree... cheapest, fastest option and no swirls in site.

 

[Krosya]

slightly OT, but is there a way to have the Ultron focus down to .7m, not losing infinity focus? been wondering that as read it being possible with a 50/1.5 Nokton.

Yes it can be:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97167

and I have one that was adjusted for sale too 😉

 

[Chris101]

slightly OT, but is there a way to have the Ultron focus down to .7m, not losing infinity focus? been wondering that as read it being possible with a 50/1.5 Nokton.

Yes it can be:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97167

and I have one that was adjusted for sale too 😉

Krosya, that's kind of a tease, but it looks like a fun project. If I ever do get another M lens than my Ultron 35, I might just try to do the same thing.

Until then, my close focus solution is a Heliopan 1/38 x 0.5 close up 'filter':

At close focus of the lens, it focuses at [/i]exactly[/i] 18 inches:

Here is some not-swirly bokey at 18 inches with the above setup, even though I thought it looked swirly when I shot it: 😱

 

[Krosya]

I recently picked up a Komura 35/2.8 and while I dont have any leaves in a background shots - from first trial looks pretty smooth in a Bokeh department:

Not the best samples but you get some idea about bokeh, right? 😉

 

[Rob-F]

I would also suggest the Summaron f/2.8, provided that the price and the f/2.8 aperture are acceptable. The Summaron has become quite popular lately, though, and this has driven up the price.

I don't know if a 40mm lens would be acceptable, since the question calls for a 35mm. But if 40mm is not out of the question, then what about the 40mm M-Rokkor? I have one, and have never noticed any swirly Bokeh (though I don't often do OOF leaves in the background at f/2). The 40/2 M-Rokkor can be had for half the price of a Summaron, so I thought it was worth a mention.

 

[umcelinho]

Krosya, that's kind of a tease, but it looks like a fun project. If I ever do get another M lens than my Ultron 35, I might just try to do the same thing.

Until then, my close focus solution is a Heliopan 1/38 x 0.5 close up 'filter':

At close focus of the lens, it focuses at [/i]exactly[/i] 18 inches:

Here is some not-swirly bokey at 18 inches with the above setup, even though I thought it looked swirly when I shot it: 😱

that's pretty clever! Ultron DR 🙂

 

[Krosya]

Boring day with rather dull weather, so I thought I'd try to get my Komura 35/2.8 to swirl. It does seem to have a little of that, but still pretty pleasant IMO:

this is at f4, I think:

and wide open again:

 

[pb908]

Another shot that shows the Nikkor 35/2.5 swirlies:


bokeh - vintage Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 @ f2.5 by jonmanjiro, on Flickr

Nice image, and what a swirly bokeh !!!
is this in LTM mount or Nikon/Contax RF mount ?

 

[pb908]

I recently picked up a Komura 35/2.8 :

Not the best samples but you get some idea about bokeh, right? 😉

Krosya, I think I see some sign of swirl on the light behind the object. on the upper left, the highlight makes a little angle toward the center, as well the light on top area and the highlight on the mirror (is it ?) in the upper right corner. All pointing to the center.

On the last image wide open (your 2nd picture post, which shows fence and background off tree branches), i think I see the swirl as well, although it is not that much seen from f2.8. maybe a test with lots of highlight in background will show more.

anyone have sample from Jupiter 12 wide open ?

 

[mtargz]

is it ?

I tried to take some pictures yesterday, try to get the "swirly bokeh" and then stop down from there, but I couldn't get any swirly picture (well, it always cloudy these days). anyone can confirm this ?

The swirl is a by-product of mechanical vignetting, and thus cured beyond a certain aperture. This can easily be observed through an SLR with "swirly" lenses as they get stopped down: Beyond f/2 or f/2.8, the Nokton's swirl should be much reduced - though I cannot confirm this, as I don't have a Nokton.

Try opening your camera's back and shutter (on Bulb) and looking through the very edge of the picture area. If the aperture you see from there is not complete (IE, looks vaguely football/cat's-eye-shaped), it will potentially swirl - so stop down until even from the edges, you can see the entire aperture-opening.

 

[rxmd]

The swirl is a by-product of mechanical vignetting, and thus cured beyond a certain aperture.

The swirl has nothing to do at all with mechanical vignetting. Mechanical vignetting makes the corners go dark and that's it. For an overview over various kinds of vignetting and their causes and results, see this page.

What you mean is probably the cat's eye effect, which is one cause for swirl that is not lens-specific. Lens-specific swirliness results from undercorrected aberrations, in particular coma, which manifests as little diagonal trails around light sources that are arranged in circles around the image center. It is thus particularly well-known among astrophotographers because it makes stars in the corners look like this:

(from this photo.net thread)