Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I'm glad that Roland posted the link to Mike Johnson's piece. He originated the term "bokeh king" and the label stuck, for better or for worse. I'd like to offer three observations and one illustrative anecdote: 1) no web presentation is going to "prove" anything with respect to high quality lenses, 2) the quality of out of focus areas can be markedly different in front of the zone of best focus, when compared to the area behind -- even on a great lens, and 3) the version of the Summicron you are discussing has many virtues, including compact design. It really is a great all-around lens. There are others, of course and which is best is mostly a matter of taste and intended use.
True story: I was taking pictures of a friend's wedding back in the good old days of film. Must have been in the summer of 2000. I had a Nikon F4 and a Leica M6, both with 35/2 lenses and Delta 400 film in them. I took two pictures of the bride and groom and all their friends, standing in the open shade on the steps of a church in San Francisco. It was a large group and my pictures from that weekend were to be part of my wedding gift for the couple. All images were printed full frame on 11x14 Ilford Multigrade paper, with just the smallest amount of white space between the black frame's edge and the paper's edge. So I could actually see two prints of pretty decent size with a Nikon and Leica lens right next to each other. Holding the prints veeery close to my nose and squinting at the guests faces in the corner of the frame, the barest edge went to the Leica in terms of the amount of detail rendered, the lack of distortion and image sharpness. But I do mean the barest advantage. And that's what we are talking about here: tiny differences at the edges of the frame. Now to some it matters. Me: I choose the Leica glass over the Nikon, when I can. If it has got to be an SLR, I am fine with slapping that 35mm AF-Nikkor on there. But I know, based on my experience, that the Leica is going to give that 1/1000th extra bit of oomph, given the limitations of the way I work. But is this "proof"? Nothing like it brother.
True story: I was taking pictures of a friend's wedding back in the good old days of film. Must have been in the summer of 2000. I had a Nikon F4 and a Leica M6, both with 35/2 lenses and Delta 400 film in them. I took two pictures of the bride and groom and all their friends, standing in the open shade on the steps of a church in San Francisco. It was a large group and my pictures from that weekend were to be part of my wedding gift for the couple. All images were printed full frame on 11x14 Ilford Multigrade paper, with just the smallest amount of white space between the black frame's edge and the paper's edge. So I could actually see two prints of pretty decent size with a Nikon and Leica lens right next to each other. Holding the prints veeery close to my nose and squinting at the guests faces in the corner of the frame, the barest edge went to the Leica in terms of the amount of detail rendered, the lack of distortion and image sharpness. But I do mean the barest advantage. And that's what we are talking about here: tiny differences at the edges of the frame. Now to some it matters. Me: I choose the Leica glass over the Nikon, when I can. If it has got to be an SLR, I am fine with slapping that 35mm AF-Nikkor on there. But I know, based on my experience, that the Leica is going to give that 1/1000th extra bit of oomph, given the limitations of the way I work. But is this "proof"? Nothing like it brother.
