Bokeh comparison for Leica and Nikon medium telephotos

[albert_smith]

I was shooting this week at a motorcycle gathering in town and used both Leica M and Nikon systems on different days. I was able to see a distinct difference in the performance of the Leica 90mm Elmarit M and the Nikon 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor in the way that out of focus highlights are rendered. The aperture blades on the Nikkor never quite form a circle unless wide open, while the Elmarit M with only one more blade does a pretty good job of maintaining a round aperture.

 

These two shot were made on the same film type, with a similar subject distance and in very similar light. Both lenses were used at f/4.0, so both had the same chance to perform as close as possible to each other. Overall, both subjects have a good overall sharpness and the same level of selective focus effect.

 

<p>

 

Where they diverge is in the way they render the out of focus highlights in the background. The Nikkor image shows a distinct geometric shape with corners and sides. The Leica has more or less a clean circular image. If you look at the Nikkor shot, you can see the beginning of flare at the points of the highlights, while the Leica rendering is clean.

 

<p>

 

Please... no critique is required on the two photo's artistic merits, because there are none. They are simply "throw away" snap shots from a group of better photos. They are presented only to see the bokeh difference between two lenses that are often compared. The effect is more clear when viewing the shots at the largest magnification.

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=143395"> Bokeh comparison for Nikon and Leica lenses </a>

[sunil]

I see what you mean by the geometric shapes from the Nikkor. As for

the beginnings of flare, do you think it might possibly be due to a

slight difference in the angle of the reflected highlights?

[Jim_Tardio]

Very clear demonstration, AL. Just to add something to the mix,

here's a shot taken with my $75.00 ebay special Nikon 100/2.8 series

E lens...wide open. it has the same shape highlights as the Leica,

but it does show a bit of flare. Hope I get the attachment right.

 

<p>

 

<img src="http://www.jimtardio.com/extras-mark-big.jpg">

[albert_smith]

Nice shot Jim. The 105mm Nikkor has a similar look wide-open. It is

just the way the highlights look when the aperture is closed a bit

that make the backgrounds look busy, when compared to the Elmarit.

 

<p>

 

Your photo is a good lesson in the fact that lack of money doesn't

always get in the way of good photos.

[Jim_Tardio]

Good point about being wide open, Al. I overlooked that sentence in

your original post. More than likely the 100/2.8 would render the

same shapes as the 105 when stopped down a bit...I believe it has the

same number of blades, and the same octagon-like shape. I'll try to

round up a shot from my Zeiss Sonnar 90 for the Contax G to see how

it compares.

 

<p>

 

Yes, 100/2.8 is a bargin. My main reason for owning it is that it's

the same size as a 50mm lens.

[pcg]

Al, I'd love to see a comparison of the 2 lens from a fixed point,

say a tripod. The slightest change in position handheld can alter

the Bokeh due to reflectance & anglular changes. Probably a

slightly more rigid testing of the 2 lens would make more sense.

But nice comparison & I suspect that the differences we're

seeing are due to the actual lens themselves, & not angle. But it

would be nice to affirm...

[albert_smith]

Patrick,

 

<p>

 

This wasn't really a test. I just loaded a couple of hundred shots

onto my hard drive from this weekend, and saw this effect. In the

past, I had a Nikon shot negatively criticized in another forum for

the octagons in the background, so when I saw the Leica and Nikon

shots side by side, I though I'd post the comparison. You always

hear about bokeh, and it seem like a intangible thing, but I can see

a difference here.

[wilhelmn]

You're not comparing Bokeh.

[jackflesher]

FWIW, I definately see the difference in the shapes of the specualar

highlights, as influenced by the shape of the respective aperture

rings. However, the difference in Bokeh of these two lenses seems

very minor to my eye -- at least by viewing the images on my computer

screen. There exists a sense that the Leica image has a slightly

smoother oof area than the Nikon, but I'd be hard pressed to prove

it. Interestingly, the Nikon shot looks sharper to me -- probably a

slight contrast advantage. But comparing the hair on the two women

looks like the resolution edge goes to Nikon. I suspect actual

prints might exhibit more notable differences.

[dlegaspi]

and to add...105/2.5 is soft and low contrast at apertures greater

than f4...at least for the MF-AI version...

[brian walsh]

When I took a very quick peek at highlights from the two examples at

the same magnification in Photoshop, it seemed that--while it did

give a more circular impression of the out of focus highlights--the

Elmarit showed a much brighter periphery to those highlights, which

seems to often accompany a less smooth, double-line effect.

[Niels - NHSN]

Interesting comparison Al,<br>

This shows that you can achieve excellent results with a less than 400

$ Nikkor lens (vs 1200$ for the Elmarit).<br>

I do see the difference in the bokeh when presented side by side, but

I doubt that I would notice if they were presented to me individually

(and not told what to look for). The average viewer surely wouldn't -

and even if you explained, they probably wouldn't care.<br>I am not

dismissing the subtle qualities of the Elmarit, but merely saying

that much of our obsession with lenses has to do with satisfying

ourself -the rest of the world probably dont't care.