Bokeh

[markok765]

How do does a leica 50 1.4 compare to the ashahi pentax super takmur 55 1.8 in

bokeh.

i have a shot taken with this lens which has the foreground sharp and the

background smoothly, softly going out out of focus.

 

so how do they stack up?

 

Also What does the number of apeture blades do to the bokeh. all of my lenses

have 5 or 6 blades.

 

Marko

 

asahi pentax sp500 55 1.8, 35 3.5 , 105 2.8, 80-210 4.5

[jerry_lehrer]

Marko,-- I'm afraid that you are wrong. The 50m f1.4 Summilux does not have 5 or 6 blades. It has 11. The bokeh from this lens has always been superb. That is one of the reasons why it is my only 50mm lens

in my arsenal. The Asperic Summilux does not come close in quality of image.

[tommy_baker]

> The Asperic Summilux does not come close in quality of image.

 

guess not too many ASPH owners want to hear this LOL

[arthuryeo]

> The Asperic Summilux does not come close in quality of image.

 

Wonder where you pull this out? Is this your personal opinion or have you read something I don't know about or have you done a scientific test to prove this? Or is this simply PTOOYA ?

[john_shriver]

Hey, guys, lay off the ad-hominem attacks. (Playing moderator.)

 

I suspect that the intended response from Jerry was that the bokeh from the Summilux is nicer than the Summilux ASPH. Wouldn't be the first Leica ASPH that people felt that way about.

 

As for aperture blades, an out-of-round iris can show in the bokeh, on bright OOF points. For instance, there are some apertures on the Canon LTM 50/1.2 and 50/1.4 lenses where the iris is distinctly non-round, and I've seen pictures that telegraph that very obviously.

[tommy_baker]

er, don't think i was attacking the OP. just making a general comment. or is

this not allowed either. heheh

[__jon__]

>Jerry Lehrer , may 19, 2006; 05:27 p.m.

>Marko,-- I'm afraid that you are wrong. The 50m f1.4 Summilux does not have 5 or 6

blades.

 

Would you kindly point out where he stated that a 'lux has 5 or 6 blades? Please, at least,

make the effort to actually read the post.

 

>The Asperic Summilux does not come close in quality of image.

 

Well, since you have used them both... Please post comparison images to prove that last

statement.

[35mmdelux]

How does a Porsche compare to a....well, you came to the right place for a discussion of the finer points !

 

BTW how many leafs does the pentax aperture whatnot have?

 

Best - Paul

[frederick_muller]

I have both a 1990's vintage Lux and the newer lux aspherical. In my experience, the older lux has a more pleasing out of focus rendition wide open. However, the newer lux is sharper and contrastier all around. There is no mistaking the difference. It's worth having both, as they need to be used in different situations. Selection depends on what you want out of the picture.

[todd frederick]

It is my understanding that the more aperture blades, the more of a trule "circle-of-confusion" you will obtain in specular light in the background, which also affects the general smoothness of the out-of-focus portions...Bokeh. A 5 bladed aperture will give you a distinct, and annoying pentagon specular image, but an 11 blade aperture will come closer to a circle.

 

I'm not sure about the Pentax, but I once took some photos with a Canon GIII with 5 blades, and, though the focused image was fine, the backround was horrid...you can count the blades distinctly where bright light flashed through the trees.

 

I have also used Leica Summitar lenses, some with 6 blades and some with 11. There seems to be a visual difference in Bokeh.

 

Bokeh is a very perdsonal and subjective quality of out-of-focus image areas, and is not readily evaluated with "scientific" bench-testing, IMO.

[dstate1]

You've been watching the Bokeh network. Do not adjust your sets, the blurryness is

intentional.

 

What the hell, let's all just stop focusing our lenses at all....then we would have

nothing BUT bokeh.

 

 

Best wishes,

Crabby Dan

[karl_keung]

i hope by next year we will all be discussing the virtue and failing of Leica with digital pictures taken with digital M camera.

 

admit it, discussion of lens without pictures is meaningless.

[fred_c1]

>the more of a trule "circle-of-confusion" you will obtain in specular light in the background, which also affects the general smoothness of the out-of-focus portions...Bokeh. A 5 bladed aperture will give you a distinct, and annoying pentagon specular image, but an 11 blade aperture will come closer to a circle.

 

Only in the Leica forum can you see circle-of-confusion being equated to out-of-focus highlights.

 

And I guess as long as it's circular, it's good bokeh, like the donuts produced by reflex lenses.

[jerry_lehrer]

Marko et al,-- Yes I have used the Asph Summilux extensively and I

definately prefer the non-asph for the "quality of image". I use that

expression because it is MY preference, not yours. If I felt that the

asph was my preference, I would buy it, as much as I hate 50mm lenses.

 

I cannot subit any pictures to the group as I have absolutely no digital photo ability or capability.

 

However I welcome any of you to visit my home in La Jolla and I will

show you prints etc.

 

I certainly cannot convince you of my personal preferences, nor can you of yours.

[andrew robertson]

From the tests I have seen, the Leica 50 f/1.4 ASPH has much MUCH better bokeh than the

previous model. There is an extensive test of these lenses side by side in the "Leica" book

by Gakken (No 17?).

[m m]

The second to latest and older 50 M Summilux's are often said to have better "Bokeh" than

most of the Summicron's. My question is whether people like the OOF rendition better at

all apertures or just wide open where the sumilux has less DOF and has a more OOF

background? A good example would be a portrait at around one meter, middle aperture,

with a distant background.

 

As for the original question: I haven't used the 55 much. But whatever conclusion you

come to, if you don't like it get a 50/1.4(My choice would be the SMC Takumar). The OOF

rendition is great and the lens is superb all around.

[jerry_lehrer]

m m,--Is that 50mm f1.4 SMC Takumar available in Leica screw mount? If

so, I would like to buy one and try it out. I'll have to find my LSM to M adapter.

[m m]

I wish it were, but it's only available in Pentax screw mount and K-mount. Though If it

were available in Leica screw mount it'd be real expensive and you'd want the Lux

anyways!

[berk_sirman2]

The 55/1.8 Takumar (as well as the 55/2) is very sharp but does not have the best bokeh. The 50/1.4 Takumar is much better in bokeh department. However, my 50/1.4 is slightly lower in contrast than my 55/1.8, both are SMC.

 

If you do not have point light sources in background the 55/1.8 is ok, it just has a signature, little harsh bokeh. I can instantly pick out 55/1.8 Takumar shots from the rest. But sometimes it gives the ugly hexagons which are sharp at the egdes. The 50/1.4 on the other hand is pretty smooth all the time.

 

If it makes any difference, the 55/1.8 has 6 aperture blades if I remember correctly. The 50/1.4 has about 10. Even stopped down, it pretty much looks like a circle.

[al henry]

Bokeh is something people with lots of expensive equipment and little talent invented to talk about. That way they would not be forced to confront the real issue of the sorry looking photos they were producing with camera bags full of equipment. If the only thing positive I could find to say about someones photos is how good the out of focus background looked I would not say anything. Talk about the hight of Madison Avenue spin. A legendary undefinable quality has got to one of the all time best.

[roland_schmid]

Al: thanks to these people Leica can survive. So be a little bit grateful....;-)

[anthony_brookes5]

The Pentax 1.8 Takumar was thought at the time to be a very sharp lens but I was under the impression that subsequently it was found that its sharpness was due to its contrastiness. At the time Japanese lenses were developing this very contrasty quality and the Pentax was the first. No doubt some expert can either confirm or deny this.

[doug herr]

Al Troll wrote: "<I>Bokeh is something people with lots of expensive equipment and little

talent invented to talk about.</I>"

<P>

Which of these was made when I had lots of expensive equipment and little talent?

<P>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/picidae/acwo01.jpg">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/lbhe01.jpg">

</CENTER>

[astral]

Anthony - I hope this helps:

 

High contrast can increase 'apparent' sharpness, but is not necessarily directly linked to actual sharpness. Low contrast does not invariably lead to greater sharpness, and greater sharpness does not necessarily mean lower contrast. I believe that Erwin Puts has written on this topic, particularly from the Leica perspective, and asserts that the conventional wisdom which directly linked contrast and sharpness is generally invalid.

 

Clearly, when aiming a particular lens at a particular market, manufacturers must always consider whether the design should have high real sharpness (capable of high degree of enlargement), or high

apparent sharpness (looks 'snappy' at smaller enlargements), etc. Such 'compromises' seem to be common on some cheaper and simpler lenses, particularly in compact fixed lens cameras, but appear to be uncommon in premium branded slr lenses, etc.

 

Super-wide angles, long telephotos and zooms characteristically involve more contrast/sharpness trade-offs than 'normal' focal length lenses. For example: my Tokina SL 17mm is apparently less sharp and actually less contrasty than my Fujinon EBC 19mm: the Fujinon is far crisper and snappy due in part to better lens coatings, but in reality the differences in resolution between the lenses is fairly small - the optical formulas, I believe, are pretty similar. The Fujinon is a super lens, the Tokina is OK.

 

My experience of the 55/1.8 Takumar has always been that it is a high class design of its era, genuinely providing high resolution and very good contrast: it isn't a 'fudged' design.

[andrew robertson]

Douglas, I think the top one with the mirror lens.