The Bokeh King

[jaapv]

Must surely be the Summarit 1.5-50. Both at aperture 1.5, not really usable according to Mr. Puts. However, on the M8 this lens takes on a new lease on life.

 

[venchka]

Sonnar??????????

Sonnar??????????

Don't tell me. Let me guess. Is the lens a Sonnar clone? I think that's right. Like the Nikkor 50/1.4 and the Canon 50/1.5? Sonnar may be incorrect. Y'all know I'm talking about. Anyway, I'm seeing the swirlly thing. Not as pronounced maybe as the Nikkor, but a hint of it anyway. This isn't a bad thing to my eye. Just curious if the optical formula is similar to the other Sonnar copies. By the way, what does a real 50/1.5 Sonnar image look like?

PS: You know better than to use the B.K. thing, right? Grinning!

 

[jaapv]

Spot on. It is a straight Sonnar clone.

 

[venchka]

What do you know. I'm learning!

 

[RML]

I'm sorry to say but I find that bokeh nauseating. The whirlyness makes my head spin.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

?? The Summarit is a Sonnar clone?

I'm a little skeptical, there's got to be a major difference if it is, but that may explain why I sometimes have a hard time discerning some shots taken with the Canon 50 f/1.5 and the Summarit when I've used both in the same roll.

The biggest difference is of course how they handle flare and contrast, but when they render a benign scene the same way, it's a little challenging if I don't see double-lining in the bokeh (which is typical of the Canon 50 f/1.5)

The bokeh is great. It's not for the weak

Source for this info?

 

[vrgard]

Is the Summarit really a Sonnar design? Cameraquest and others list it as a Xenon design. Sorry, but I don't know enough to know whether that answers the question or not. Anyone else know?

-Randy

 

[Xmas]

I think it is a double gauss i.e. like a lux, this from early leitz documentation, as cameraquest also indicate.

Noel

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Yes, the Summarit is a straight license from T&H -> Schneider Xenon.

I always believed that the Xenon/Summarit was a Planar derivative, not a Sonnar clone.

 

[nikola]

I'm with RML... it is nauseating and harsh...
maybe something with simpler texture would be nicer.

 

[clarence]

I agree with the Headspin, but Headspin I like.

Clarence

 

[Diomedes]

I've found this page a very informative about lens design, lenses and cameras....
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Biotar.html
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/index.html

 

[jonasv]

Well, tastes vary, I suppose. Personally I think this is a prime sample of horrible bokeh.

 

[Meleica]

where's my dramamine.....

Dan

My bokeh page:

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/bokeh.htm

 

[Dougg]

I'm not fond of that look either. Sorry, Jaap!

 

[xayraa33]

Jaapv's first posting never claimed the Summarit was a Sonnar clone, which it is not.
the Summarit is a like it or hate it type lens.
I think I prefere the bokeh of a Sweeneyfied Jupiter 3 in most cases and yes the J-3 is a Sonnar clone.

 

[fgianni]

That the Bokeh king? Jaap I'm sure U can do much better with your 75 lux.

 

[kevin m]

...not really usable according to Mr. Puts.

Whaddaya know. I find myself agreeing withi Mr. Puts.

 

[jaapv]

That the Bokeh king? Jaap I'm sure U can do much better with your 75 lux.

Sorry guys, you're right The Summar family are of course of the double-gauss type with the Summarit the Leica version of the Xenon, unlike the Sonnar, which is a triplet derivate like the Elmar and Hektor group... My head must have been spinning from that first shot. Actually I rather like that vintage look, especially the way it handled that second one, the way the leaves in the hedge stand out.
Anyway, here is the Summilux 75 @1.4 focussed slightly more back.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request