nasmformyzombie
Registered
Interesting article. For me, the one obvious omission in the tests is the Zeiss ZM 50mm f1.5 Sonnar.
Very interesting article about the Bokeh Kings.
- Thread starter Erik van Straten
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 36
- Views 5K
aizan
Veteran
they mentioned the zm sonnar, so it could be in the next installment.
the shots don't really reveal anything we didn't already know about each of these lenses, like how the summilux asph is really smooth, the rigid summicron makes bright rings, stopping down two stops reduces bright rings, but then you see the aperture blades, etc.
what i'd really like to see is someone develop a methodology for a more complete analysis of bokeh performance along all of its dimensions, with different types of backgrounds, a variety of different objects in the background, at multiple f-stops, at various focus distances, various distances to the background, and whatever else i'm forgetting.
having side-by-side comparisons is pretty darn convenient, though!
the shots don't really reveal anything we didn't already know about each of these lenses, like how the summilux asph is really smooth, the rigid summicron makes bright rings, stopping down two stops reduces bright rings, but then you see the aperture blades, etc.
what i'd really like to see is someone develop a methodology for a more complete analysis of bokeh performance along all of its dimensions, with different types of backgrounds, a variety of different objects in the background, at multiple f-stops, at various focus distances, various distances to the background, and whatever else i'm forgetting.
having side-by-side comparisons is pretty darn convenient, though!
derleicaman
Member
Hello Everyone,
I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I am the author and the editor of the LHSA Viewfinder in which it appeared.
Yes, I would have liked to include the 50/1.5 ZM Sonnar, but I didn't have one at hand at the time of the testing. Speaking of which, it is a major PITA to do these things with some degree of consistent methodology. My main objective was to compare as many lenses as possible with the reputation of having an appeal in their Bokeh. I think it is very useful to compare them under the same circumstances. It is beyond my abilities to go to the length you are advocating testing lens Bokeh under all circumstances.
As far as the comment about rich man's toys, I don't own any of the Noctilux lenses shown. They were kindly supplied by Dan Tamarkin, who helped me with the testing and also supplied the M240, which I also don't own. Having said that, I do have a ridiculous amount of lenses in my collection. It is, after all, an addiction!
I have not written part 2 yet, having been overwhelmed with part 1 and trying to tie everything together in part 2 that makes some sense. As with everything, the more I studied the Bokeh effect, the more I realized what I didn't know about it. So I am still struggling with part 2.
I am also working on an article on 30 well-known Leica compatible lenses I compared at an outdoor location with the Monochrom II, supplied as a loan from Leica USA. I was comparing their resolution wide open and stopped down. There were some real eye openers in that one. I presented a preview at the LHSA annual meeting in Washington DC last fall. I am also working on comparing the 50/1.5 ZM and the other classic Sonnars and Jupiters with their contemporary Nikon, Canon and Leica 50mm counterparts.
One last thought. Criticism is easy, but try doing it and you'll see its not so easily done.😱
I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I am the author and the editor of the LHSA Viewfinder in which it appeared.
Yes, I would have liked to include the 50/1.5 ZM Sonnar, but I didn't have one at hand at the time of the testing. Speaking of which, it is a major PITA to do these things with some degree of consistent methodology. My main objective was to compare as many lenses as possible with the reputation of having an appeal in their Bokeh. I think it is very useful to compare them under the same circumstances. It is beyond my abilities to go to the length you are advocating testing lens Bokeh under all circumstances.
As far as the comment about rich man's toys, I don't own any of the Noctilux lenses shown. They were kindly supplied by Dan Tamarkin, who helped me with the testing and also supplied the M240, which I also don't own. Having said that, I do have a ridiculous amount of lenses in my collection. It is, after all, an addiction!
I have not written part 2 yet, having been overwhelmed with part 1 and trying to tie everything together in part 2 that makes some sense. As with everything, the more I studied the Bokeh effect, the more I realized what I didn't know about it. So I am still struggling with part 2.
I am also working on an article on 30 well-known Leica compatible lenses I compared at an outdoor location with the Monochrom II, supplied as a loan from Leica USA. I was comparing their resolution wide open and stopped down. There were some real eye openers in that one. I presented a preview at the LHSA annual meeting in Washington DC last fall. I am also working on comparing the 50/1.5 ZM and the other classic Sonnars and Jupiters with their contemporary Nikon, Canon and Leica 50mm counterparts.
One last thought. Criticism is easy, but try doing it and you'll see its not so easily done.😱
derleicaman
Member
Thanks Eric,
This was the purpose of the article, to compare a number of lenses people may have heard about but rarely get to compare on their own. Or maybe they could only compare one or two together. Unfortunately, I had limited resources in doing my testing. You can't include everything, much as I would have liked to.
David Farkas, owner or Red Dot Forum tells me that there have been over 800K views of my article. This is quite gratifying and reinforces my belief that this is a subject which has a lot of interest.
This was my effort, and I would invite everyone here to do a follow on test of their own. I would be more than happy to publish your results in Viewfinder.
goamules
Well-known
Thanks for a great test. With out of focus lights, what I notice most is their shape. A lot of these lenses show significant coma, or elongation of the highlights, getting worse out from the center. To me, the Summicron does very well, the lights are rounder the in focus sharper, than most of the others.
The last time I checked, about 5 years ago, the Viewfinder was stubbornly insistent that it owned the copyright of all articles submitted to it, and would not give permission to have those articles published elsewhere. I encountered that when an author gave me permission to republish a series of articles, but the brain trust at LHSA refused.
Stephen
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Well, I really enjoyed this test and I am looking forward to your coming publications.
Above all I am interested in the earliest versions of the Summilux 35mm and 50mm lenses because they were both so quickly superseded by newer computations while I think the earlier versions were better. I would like to see this confirmed - or not - by your tests.
Erik.
derleicaman
Member
Hi Erik
For the Bokeh Kings, I did not test anything wider than 50, as I would be shooting off the setup I had. 50mm or longer on that one. I did include my second version chrome 50 Summilux in the part one, and in the other article I am working on. I don't know of anyone who has a true first version 50 Lux. I also sold my steel rim 35 Lux a while back, so that one was not included either.
derleicaman
Member
Hi Stephen
I have been the editor of Viewfinder since 2000. You are probably referring to leadership of LHSA at the time, who was an attorney. All of this copyright stuff came up when we were making the Viewfinder archives. If you look at the archives on the website, all images that may have been copyrighted were blocked out. Silly stuff. Leadership and what they concentrate on comes and goes, just like any other management. I am still trying to put out the best publication I can for people interested in Leica. I have several new authors coming on board and will make Viewfinder even better.
Bill
derleicaman
Member
This is what really got my attention initially as well. Round shapes, footballs and cones. I have read some technical papers that explain the reason for this. I am going to try and include some of this into part 2. It is really technical and is a sure cure for insomnia though!😀
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I have both, so I should do the test myself. However, I am not really a tester.
Thank you for your extensive answer!
Erik.
I remember it as years later. The odd thing was that the articles in question were written by an LHSA editor at the time, yet ownership and copyright was claimed by LHSA leadership.
So, what is current LHSA copyright and ownership policy on articles submitted to the Viewfinder?
Does LHSA presently claim ownership and copyright of Viewfinder articles without compensating authors and photographers? Does LHSA make clear all copyright and ownership issues before submission?
What about past contributions from day 1 of Viewfinder publications? Does LHSA claim ownership and copyright on submitted articles? If so, does LHSA have a signed contract of sale and with paid compensation to the authors? Or is article ownership and copyright of text and photos now acknowledged by LHSA to belong to the authors and or photographers?
RFF members deserve to know LHSA policy before submitting articles to the LHSA Viewfinder.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
TBH, all of the lenses tested in the article produce very "bad" boke. In the sense that they all produce a jarring, highly noticeable effect, which calls attention to itself.
I'm not one who thinks the effect needs to be perfectly smooth to be good, but I think it's best if its not the first thing you notice when looking at a photo.
Hero Dog Clock by Berang Berang, on Flickr
This for example, shows distinctive boke which is not overwhelming. There is a hint of bright outline and a hint of double-lining, but it is rather gentle.
tree by Berang Berang, on Flickr
This example is rather harsher, and a bit more noticeable, but still nowhere near as bad as most of what was produced by the "bokeh kings" in the article.
While determining boke quality is a matter of subjective judgement, it is at least a lot more interesting than trying to judge things like sharpness or contrast - from jpegs posted on a forum. Since one is looking for overall effect rather than a specific quantifiable measurement, that cannot possibly be objectively measured from a jpeg image on a forum. The problem is that most people don't really think much about these qualities, and simply think more blur = better boke. Which is why so many lenses with jarring, harsh, boke quality get praised, even though the OOF areas pretty much ruin the pictures made with them.
I'm not one who thinks the effect needs to be perfectly smooth to be good, but I think it's best if its not the first thing you notice when looking at a photo.
Hero Dog Clock by Berang Berang, on Flickr
This for example, shows distinctive boke which is not overwhelming. There is a hint of bright outline and a hint of double-lining, but it is rather gentle.
tree by Berang Berang, on Flickr
This example is rather harsher, and a bit more noticeable, but still nowhere near as bad as most of what was produced by the "bokeh kings" in the article.
While determining boke quality is a matter of subjective judgement, it is at least a lot more interesting than trying to judge things like sharpness or contrast - from jpegs posted on a forum. Since one is looking for overall effect rather than a specific quantifiable measurement, that cannot possibly be objectively measured from a jpeg image on a forum. The problem is that most people don't really think much about these qualities, and simply think more blur = better boke. Which is why so many lenses with jarring, harsh, boke quality get praised, even though the OOF areas pretty much ruin the pictures made with them.
nasmformyzombie
Registered
I don't know under what circumstances you viewed the test article but your contention that all the lenses in the test exhibit bad bokeh has not been suggested or even hinted at by any other participant in this thread.
I for one applaud the tester derleicaman, and find most of the results in the test pleasing to the eye. My only complaint as it were is that the ZM Sonnar was not included, which derleicaman addressed in a later post.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
The circumstances are I viewed the article on my computer, which I assume everybody else did too. 🙂
As for why all lenses tested thus far display "bad" boke, I gave my opinion in my post. The OOF effects overwhelm the photo, the OOF area draws too much attention to itself, distracting from the subject. I suppose if the reason a photographer chose these lenses was to make photographs with highly noticeable OOF effects, they may be great lenses by that yardstick. But for more conventional purposes, such conspicuous effects are not "good".
One might hold the same opinion for say, vignetting. It may be pleasing in a particular situation, or to somebody who specifically wants it, but otherwise if it is particularly noticeable, one would avoid it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with vignetting, but if it is distracting, it is distracting, and that is just that.
fergus
Well-known
I presume that the test photo was chosen for that very reason - to demonstrate comparative bokeh. And yes, we all view it on our computers.
I am curious about other lenses (as others have been). However, the article did exactly what it set out to do.
I am also surprised (again, as others have been) about the shape of the out-of-focus lights. I hope part II explains this. I fear the explanation will involve physics beyond my comprehension 🙂
Last edited:
Ronald M
Veteran
A few years back I DID A TEST OF MY OWN. Unfortunately I stopped down to 4 with the 50 1.4 ASPH. I got the same circle with points shown in the test. Ugly to say the least.
Did a Nikon G with rounded blades and got no circle with points. My first mentor always praised lenses with more blades that form a nice circle even stopped down.
The current 50 1.4 ASPH is all jagged, hence the circle with points.
Some day I will repeat at 1.4.
Did a Nikon G with rounded blades and got no circle with points. My first mentor always praised lenses with more blades that form a nice circle even stopped down.
The current 50 1.4 ASPH is all jagged, hence the circle with points.
Some day I will repeat at 1.4.
Similar threads
