lutz Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 Hi there,<P>Just had a couple of test slides back. I did a side to side comparison at various f-stops of my 35 lux asph with a 35 lux pre-asph which I intend to buy. To my surprise the two lenses show quite a different OOF signature. At identical f-stops the OOF areas of the pre-asph look visibly *sharper* than those of the asph, which appear much more blurred! I'm attaching two samples taken at f/1.7. Have a close look at the poster on the wall, for instance...<P>Even if in this case there might be a very slight difference in the subject-to-camera distance from one shot to the other, the phenomenon is identical in a number of shots I've taken with the tripod (of less interesting subjects). And it is consistent from f/1.4 thru 16. Has any of you ever experienced this before? I would have bet, that if at all, it would have been the other way round, as I was looking for a pre-asph 35 lux because of its proverbial "glow". <P>Now, what is this? A practical example of better bokeh in the asph...? Comments welcome. Cheers.<P><CENTER><IMG SRC="http://www.konermann.net/35.lux.comp.29.(pre-asph).jpeg"><P>above: 35 lux pre-asph @ f/1.7 - below: 35 lux asph @ f/1.7<P><P><IMG SRC="http://www.konermann.net/35.lux.comp.30.(asph).jpeg"><P></CENTER> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_collier2 Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 Yes the Asph Lux is well known for bokeh which is slightly on the harsh side at times. It varies significantly depending on aperture and focused distance. However you can also notice how much sharper it is even on a 100k jpg! The only way you will get mine is to pry it out of my cold dead hands... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_a. Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 Thanks Lutz,Can you or anyone tell me how much a pre 35 lux, boxed, mint goes for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_bunnik Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 Sorry John C. but (apart from the bokeh) I can not detect any difference in the sharpness between these 2 pictures. IMHO it would have needed a little fill-in flash though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutz Posted June 14, 2002 Author Share Posted June 14, 2002 Frank, as I was comparing the lenses for flare resistance in backlit situations flashing was no issue at that time and for that purpose. BTW, I like the shady mood.<P>As for the sharpness issue, I, too, find the two lenses surprisingly close @ f/1.7(!) - no argument to really justify a price difference of $1000 between a new asph and an excellent pre-asph.<P>Expect to pay $750 for a mintish pre-asph, though, John. An original shade easily accounts for another $100, boxes are for collectors.<P>Any comment on the OOF issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msitaraman Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 Check out the OOF white spots on the hill. In the case of the Asph, they appear to have a darker centre. Although the overall effect is that of a more blurry background, you can see some of the double image, jaggie artifacts the bokeh causes. Look again, at the transmission tower blur on top of the hill. I am willing to concede that I may be talking through my hat, of course ! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutz Posted June 14, 2002 Author Share Posted June 14, 2002 Hi, Mani. Even thru your hat I can read you clearly...;o) Nevertheless, the donut effect is there in the pre-asph OOF, too. Only are the donuts smaller in size - which is exactly what I was surprised by. <P>Donut=bonut or badnut, bokehwise? (You can leave your hat on...) LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 Lutz, I can see exactly what you're talking about even on the web. The slight difference could be attributed to a slightly different focus point... as well as a slight shift in lighting conditions. To really test your notion, you should set up a constant situation in constant light. Plus, it is possible you have an exceptional non ASPH 35. I had one like that once. I had no clue what people were talking about when they went on about the "glow". It was as sharp and contrasty as my 50/2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 Hey Lutz, what a funny comparison. Many years ago I owned a pre ASPH summilux 35 mm but I don't remember its look. Meanwhile I use a 35/1.4 ASPH - very often at f1.4 or f2.8.Until today I never thought about how different the pics of both lenses are. Very interesting. Nevertheless, I prefer the new 'lux and my little gem - a pre ASPH Summicron :-) Frank Thoma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutz Posted June 14, 2002 Author Share Posted June 14, 2002 Frank, I owned the pre-asph lux twice before... and should never have sold either of them. There WAS that special glow to it, at least @ 1.4 and 1.7 - but I can't detect it with the sample I'm testing. I was considering getting my third sample (yeah, I'm totally obsessed, I confess...) to regain that special quality for special purposes. Tell me more about your pr-asph cron gem, from addict to addict...;o) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 Hi Lutz, A thought. If all things are equal then is it possible that the 1.7 on the pre-ASPH is not a true 1.7 but more like a 2? I have a pre-ASPH 35 lux and at 1.4 to about 2 it is on the soft side. All reports say that the 35/1.4 ASPH is a vast impovement over the old non-ASPH. My pre-ASPH 35/1.4 flares like the Fourth of July. I love its glow, however. My 35/2 ASPH is a great little lens--perfect--but does not glow. It is literal and unmerciful. I don't know what to say about your two pictures. What you say is true. Why it is true may be quite enlightening. Best, Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 ... I owned the pre-asph lux twice before... Lutz, I know what you are talking about. When I left fotoMAGAZIN seven years ago I made myself a little present: Bought a (used) M6, a 35/2 and a 90/2.8 from the Leica academy in Solms - just to complete my SLR equippment. In 2001 I sold the well used Canadian made 35 mm Summicron just to buy a german made 35 in mint condition some weeks ago. That's crazy, isn't it? I think that's true Leica-Lunism... :-) Meanwhile I have a bunch of M-lenses and four bodies, but the strangest thing is: I use them all. Best regards Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkie Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 hi lutz, what version 35' slux do you have. the 1st version (ollux hood) or the second version (seven series filter). At a guess I'd say you had a 2nd version or later, as there is little light fall off in the top right and lower corners. cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_.1 Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 Hmn, I like the pre-asph bokeh better. Seems like a higher performing lens since you have bokeh, but less blurred. Although it seems the cellist looks crisper in the bottom photo. As said before, hard to tell on a jpg. Thanks for the comparison! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkie Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 yeh, i agree wit'cha. the pre has a cleaner more natural look. the asph seem to be too contrasty and the blend from sharp to OOF seems to be over exaggerated. JMHO <shrug shoulders> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 This looks like a big difference in DOF. Are you sure the older lens is stopping down completely? That difference would seem to be confirmed by some difference in exposure also. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlegaspi Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 <i>IMHO it would have needed a little fill-in flash though.</i><br><br>um, no. fill-in flash would have killed the mood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackflesher Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 I hate to burst everybody's Bo-Ke bubble, but here is what I see: It appears to me that the point of focus on the Pre-Asph shot is somewhere between the far edge of the body of the Cello(?) and the edge of the table where the TV is sitting. (If you look at the edge of the instrument and the edge of the table under the TV you can see what I am referring to.) On the Asph shot, it appears the point of focus is somewhere near the crook of the musician's arm. (Sharper appearing than either the edge of the instrument of the edge of the TV table.) If I am in fact seeing this correctly on the jpg's, then IMO, this is more than enough of a difference in POF to create a significantly different DOF profile for the images. Furthermore, I agree wholeheartedly with John that the Asph shot appears much sharper. But I also think the shot with the Pre-Asph hasd a very pleasant quality. Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolfe_tessem Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 Lutz, I think the most reasonable explanation is that despite the markings on the lenses, the two are not set at identical f stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emile_de_leon9 Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 The point of focus is closer with the Asph. Another test is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 I don't know how anyone could tell anything about the point of focus from those two images, but I agree with John. The ASPH image appears sharper, but the OOF areas appear less smooth. If you can tell increased sharpness on a Jpeg viewed on a computer screen, you can bet it would be more visible on a projected transparency. That said, which image is more pleasing to the eye is still very subjective, and I don't find a large difference between the two in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emile_de_leon9 Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 Im looking at the chrome base of the music stand, and the musicians shoulder to determine point of focus.In the 1st pic the stand is more in focus and the shoulder is out. In the 2nd pic the stand is more out and the shoulder is more in focus as well as the watch.This combined with the really blurry bokeh leads me to believe the Asph was focused closer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roberto_watson_garc_a Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 About exposition, because of the tv screen I can say time exposure was the same, so I guess f/stop too. Three questions Lutz, this preasph you used does the glows wide open as other preasph do?, what serial # is it?; and last, do you know of element edge pain work done in order to improve flare in this lense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg choong Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 Maybe another comparison @ f/1.4 which is what the difference is all about? <p><center> <img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=819478&size=md"><p> taken with the 35mm 'lux ASPH <p> <img src="http://www.leica-gallery.net/photo-lib/image/1/large/jas_big_xmas_tree-23584.jpg"><p> taken with the 35mm 'lux pre-ASPH<p></centre> Comments welcome. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_piper2 Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 N-eerrf! I read half the posts before I realized we were talking 'luxes, not 'crons! Nice comparison, Lutz. I CAN see the sharpness/edge-contrast difference - most clearly in the highlights on the woman's hair. The ASPH nails them. The places where people are seeing the biggest bokeh differences are near the edges/corners (hill towers, poster, etc.). I think the preASPH's really strong coma (as shown in Greg's (?) picture of kid and Xmas lights) is having a lot of influence - the light rays are going all kinds of weird places and 'roughening/sharpening' the image even when out of focus. (How can something 'roughen' and 'sharpen' at the same time? By redistributing the light from a point into a long narrow line - which looks sharper than a perfectly circular blur but also interacts/interferes with the other interlocking 'lines' to form a sort of tic-tac-toe cross-hatching.) Coma correction is supposed to be the single biggest 'feature' from all Leica's wide-angle ASPH designs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now