Tim Gray
Well-known
First off, I should say I don't get overly worked up about bokeh one way or the other.
I feel that a lot of people rag on the Leica ASPH lenses for harsh bokeh. I have the 28/2 and the 50/1.4. Neither seems to have harsh bokeh. The 50/1.4 ASPH is significantly smoother than shots I've seen from the pre-ASPH. Not that that is better, but the pre-ASPH can get that swirly/jagged bokeh thing going on.
So my question is, which Leica ASPH lenses are the ones that got the rep for harsh bokeh? The 35s?
I feel that a lot of people rag on the Leica ASPH lenses for harsh bokeh. I have the 28/2 and the 50/1.4. Neither seems to have harsh bokeh. The 50/1.4 ASPH is significantly smoother than shots I've seen from the pre-ASPH. Not that that is better, but the pre-ASPH can get that swirly/jagged bokeh thing going on.
So my question is, which Leica ASPH lenses are the ones that got the rep for harsh bokeh? The 35s?
dovevadar
DoveVadar
The summicrons my friend. try the 50mm cron and you will know what they meant. another interesting candidate is the zm planar 50mm f2.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The OOF areas on my 75 Summicron look beautiful to me. Same with the 21 and 24 Summiluxes (Summiluces? Summiluxi?)
But then, at that price, they should. Maybe I'm biased.
Or maybe I'm not all that fussed about bokeh.
Cheers,
R.
But then, at that price, they should. Maybe I'm biased.
Or maybe I'm not all that fussed about bokeh.
Cheers,
R.
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
The OP refers to aspherical lenses. The 50 Summicron is not aspherical.
As for the other Summicrons, the one most often criticized (unfairly, in my opinion) is the 35 Summicron Asph. It, however, does not have harsh bokeh. It has vibrant bokeh, but not harsh bokeh.
However, once can judge for one's self:
ferider
Veteran
My take on this is the following:
People (I used to do that too) take test shots with OOF highlights (like leaves etc), and then are surprised to find OOF highlights slightly radially and un-evenly distorted, maybe even slight donuts. Then a lens is labeled as having bad bokeh. Note that if you do this you will find that the Summicron 35/2 v4, the Summaron 2.8, the Summilux 75/1.4, etc. all have "bad bokeh", just as Summilux 35 asph or Summicron 35 asph.
On the other hand, in situations where it really matters (like JJK's third photo), all the above lenses have very nice behavior, no double lines in the background, and typically with a DOF thinner than they should have on paper, and due to this, you can achieve a beautiful 3D effect.
I don't completely understand why, but I have also noticed bokeh of those lenses to be distinctly different when comparing film vs. digital, i.e. digital being more sensitive to background double lines.
Under the bottom line: don't worry, in particular if you shoot film.
Roland.
People (I used to do that too) take test shots with OOF highlights (like leaves etc), and then are surprised to find OOF highlights slightly radially and un-evenly distorted, maybe even slight donuts. Then a lens is labeled as having bad bokeh. Note that if you do this you will find that the Summicron 35/2 v4, the Summaron 2.8, the Summilux 75/1.4, etc. all have "bad bokeh", just as Summilux 35 asph or Summicron 35 asph.
On the other hand, in situations where it really matters (like JJK's third photo), all the above lenses have very nice behavior, no double lines in the background, and typically with a DOF thinner than they should have on paper, and due to this, you can achieve a beautiful 3D effect.
I don't completely understand why, but I have also noticed bokeh of those lenses to be distinctly different when comparing film vs. digital, i.e. digital being more sensitive to background double lines.
Under the bottom line: don't worry, in particular if you shoot film.
Roland.
Last edited:
Tim Gray
Well-known
Yeah, I just find it funny when someone talks about a newer ASPH lens, and they comment that the bokeh isn't harsh like most ASPH lenses. I'd like to know which ASPH lens actually has harsh bokeh. I was surprised to see how choppy the 35/2 v4 actually looked in some situations, which seems to get tons of praise. Then there's the CV 35/1.4 which people slam, and to my eye... it's no worse than the 35/2 v4.
I do profess ignorance with respect to the ASPH 35s. As well as some of the wider, older ASPHs (21/2.8, 24/2.8).
I do profess ignorance with respect to the ASPH 35s. As well as some of the wider, older ASPHs (21/2.8, 24/2.8).
Tim Gray
Well-known
I've noticed that with some lenses, not all ASPH ones. But I know what you mean.
I agree with you though. I don't think I'm attuned to some of the things people seem to wax poetic about, and I'm glad. Don't get me started on the 3D threads that go on over at fredmiranda.com.
I like the 28/2 and 50/1.4 ASPHs because they are super dependable in terms of what they deliver at any focus distance, any aperture. Fast, sharp, even across the field, don't flare too much, etc. As cool as my Nikkor 50/1.4 is, those crazy flares I sometimes get wide open can be annoying.
JJK is spot on. 'Vibrant'. Also 'molten' light sources at night. The Summicron-M 35mm f/2 ASPH has, to this eye, the most amazing bo-ke.
Then again, the following remarks are spot on:
Then again, the following remarks are spot on:
dovevadar
DoveVadar
Well, my bad
forgot the "ASPH". cron 50 is always on my mind when it comes to bad bokeh. Not from tales but from personal research and I think I've read and see enough to determine for my liking. But "Bokeh" is always subjective. No right or wrong. Either you like it or you dont. For me, I find the cron 35 type 4 having the most undeserving title of "Bokeh King". Dont flame me yet, as I said bokeh is subjective. compare the 2 pictures below:
I prefer the 2nd one. No prize for guessing what lens. That said, some like this, some like that. like photography, everything is subjective. but I think we all have a common bottom-line of what is pleasing or harsh. And JJ, dont compare foreground bokeh. Can hardly tell a difference.
Last edited:
dovevadar
DoveVadar
here another one from the 35 cron asph:
nice, but not super. But surely better than type 4. hehe To be frank, I was very disappointed after finding out which is the real "bokeh king" back then. I think the real one should be the Noctilux or summilux asph.
nice, but not super. But surely better than type 4. hehe
To be frank, I was very disappointed after finding out which is the real "bokeh king" back then. I think the real one should be the Noctilux or summilux asph.
For me the "real" one is the 35/2 ASPH.here another one from the 35 cron asph:
nice, but not super. But surely better than type 4. hehe
dovevadar
DoveVadar
O.K.!
How do I upload from my PC?
How do I upload from my PC?
Innerimager
Established
Tim- I find the OOF rendering of both the lenses you have, (28/2 and 50/1.4 asph) to be quite beautiful, smooth, and not too "busy". I had a 50/1.4 pre-asph (last version) for awhile and in no way found the bokeh more pleasing, on the other hand I definitely preferred the sharpness at 1.4 especially at close distances, and the slightly added contrast of the asph 50 much more, and hence the "I had" the pre-asph 50. While we are on it, I also like the bokeh of the 35 lux asph very much and have never been convinced that it is "better" on the pre-asph cron 35s. Maybe it's me, but I just have never been convinced by the legend of pre-asph bokeh. I am convinced that the presence of spherical aberrations and lower contrast can create a signature that is very pleasing in the pre-asph lenses in general, I'm just not sure it's the bokeh that matters.
Ranchu
Veteran
I read a magazine article from the eighties that said the 35/2 had the best bokeh at f4, better than wide open. The pic sure looked good, dunno if that's asph or not. Never had one, thought I'd toss that in...
Last edited:
Livesteamer
Well-known
I do a lot of little kid pictures up close and in available light with a 50mm Summilux asph. When I post the photos and folks look at the sharp and clear faces of these toddlers no one even notices the out of focus areas. I would say the lens has nice bokeh but few would notice it in the work I do. I don't use it much but the 28 Summicron is also an wonderful lens. In 35's I mostly use my old pre asph Summilux and leave the 35 Summilux asph at home. Joe
maddoc
... likes film again.
If I remember Mike Johnston's article correctly (He created the term "King of Bokeh" for the 35/2.0 vs4 pre-ASPH) his statement was that this lens has one of the most pleasant out-of-focus renderings when stopped down a little and not at f/2.0 ...
For me the lens with the most pleasant out-of-focus rendering is without a doubt the Noctilux BUT only under certain situations. With some harsh back lights or small leaves all lenses produce quite "strange" bokeh.
About the ASPH lenses, I don't like them because they are to perfect or sterile for my taste. Quite high contrast (good for color but less so for BW with modern emulsions like Neopan), a very flat field of focus and quite abrupt switch from in-focus to out-of-focus.
Recently, I use the Summarit 5cm 1:1.5 more and more and quite like what it can do in terms of out-of-focus rendering:
For me the lens with the most pleasant out-of-focus rendering is without a doubt the Noctilux BUT only under certain situations. With some harsh back lights or small leaves all lenses produce quite "strange" bokeh.
About the ASPH lenses, I don't like them because they are to perfect or sterile for my taste. Quite high contrast (good for color but less so for BW with modern emulsions like Neopan), a very flat field of focus and quite abrupt switch from in-focus to out-of-focus.
Recently, I use the Summarit 5cm 1:1.5 more and more and quite like what it can do in terms of out-of-focus rendering:
If I may, I'm not with you on this. There is nothing 'sterile' about the ASPHs' signature (and the ASPHs are different from one another). On the contrary, they are vibrant and wonderfully rich on 8 x 12" and larger prints, and for me large prints are the way to go to fully reap the joys of photography. Also, I find the colour/B&W equation to be the opposite of the one you mention, with the older lenses performing better in colour and the ASPHs supreme in B&W, rendering different results according to film. Neopan 400 actually behaves in a very classic way and is the most 'rounded-out' of the 400-speed films (Neopan 1600 is a different story, glorious but with a contrast difficult - but not impossible - to tame with the ASPHs.
That lens is to me the most glorious pre-ASPH 50 ever computed. No. 1 choice among the older 50s!maddoc said:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
maddoc
... likes film again.
I have to admit, my opinion is purely based on photos that I have seen on line. Now down-sized web-images are not a good base to judge the performance of a lens at all BUT from what I have seen on-line (many photos from many different photographer), I derived something like an average performance of lenses. Also I have used many different lenses and for example wasn`t impressed by the 35/2.0 "King of Bokeh" at all.