Interesting find on OOF: 35 lux pre- vs. asph comparison @ f/1.7

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>

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...

Thanks Lutz,

Can you or anyone tell me how much a pre 35 lux, boxed, mint goes for?

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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)

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

... 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

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,

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!

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>

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.

<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.

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,

Lutz, I think the most reasonable explanation is that despite the markings on the lenses, the two are not set at identical f stops.

The point of focus is closer with the Asph. Another test is needed.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.