"bokeh king" vs. summicron 35mm f2 asph etc...which 1?

[steve_mcsteve]

<p>For 3 straight days now I can call myself an owner of a Leica M9. Worked my bleeding A off to obtain one but now Bob's finally my uncle. It gets to sleep between me and my gf and we pet and named it. It feels more natural in your hands than any other camera body I've ever owned. <br>

Nonsense, but really, I have to find myself a perfect 35mm lens to go with the body. Let's say i'm quite demanding, so aside from being capable of producing vivid and true colours my #1 lense has to have a nice creamy bokeh at F2, as far as is possible with a wide angle lens like the 35, and moreover has to be small and lightweight. And that's where the fit hits the shan for me.<br>

I don't settle for anything less than F2, but that wish comes with a curse because that leaves me with few options to go from. Starting with the first two:<br>

<strong><a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zm/35mm-f2.htm">Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2 ZM</a></strong><br>

<strong><strong><a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/konica/hexar-rf/35mm-uc.htm">Konica UC 35mm f/2</a></strong></strong><br>

the Zeiss is a great lens overall, specially bang4urbucks/bokeh-wise, but with all due respect: it makes your stealthy Leica stand out like Mitt Romney in a liquor store.<br>

The latter is grey and dull like a new york pigeon (purely based on google image search).<br>

Now I did my fare share of research on the leica-m lenses themselves and I came up with 3 candidates when it comes to bokeh and size. Shown below here are the 3 lenses that made it for me;</p>

<p> bokeh score on Ken Rockwell's site (on a scale of what?)<br>

Summicron 35mm F2 Asph. - 5 <br>

Summarit 35mm F2.5 - 5<br>

Summicron 35mm F2 Pre-Asph V4 (bokeh king) - 4.5</p>

<p>Now here is the thing that's been bugging me. The "Asph Cron" is actually very good at producing creamy bokeh for a 35mm as I've witnessed on google, but so is the to some overrated "Cron V4 Bokeh King" and so is the Summarit 35mm somewhat according to certain people. But why are all those sites so contradicting upon each other? Steve Huff tesed all aforementioned lenses and praised all of them. But others say that the "bokeh king" hype is a result of a flawd article in some photomagazine.<br>

I know you are probably thinking why I left out the Summilux 1.4 and why I included the Summarit, being a f2.5. Well, maybe because I don't have a moneytree growing out of my hiney.<br>

So, basically my question is: Is the summicron-m 35mm F2 Asph the best ratio choice out of these 3 when I want small size, the best of pictures and creamy bokeh?</p>

 

[mukul_dube]

<p>Any of the five lenses you name could be the right one.You might also consider the screw mount Canon and Nikon 35mm lenses. This "bokeh" business is such a personal thing -- always assuming that it is anything at all -- that you probably cannot judge or decide before you have actually tried one lens or several.<br>

To some people, by the way, any camera with any lens looks like, well, a giraffe in a tin of paint. It may be true, of course, that the current Biogon is aesthetically unsuitable for the M9, never mind how good it is optically. That too, like "bokeh", is one of the eternal imponderables.</p>

[paul_keller]

<p> You have strode into the mire of personnal choice.<br>

I like symetrical wide angles and can't really tell you why. The images made from 4x5 super angulons to 35mm Jupiter 12's just look better to me. It's not resolution or contrast or light fall off in the corners. There is just something organic and magical about biogon type designs. <br>

I fully understand that others may disagree and they are not wrong. I don't care. My opinion has formed based on my extensive findings and experience of what I like. <br>

Would I buy a Zeiss ZM 35mm Biogon? Nope. It's just too big and filter size is a problem. I also think those designs have strayed too far from being symetrical. I'm sure I could be piloried for my lack of technical advancement, but when all is settled, I, and you, are the final judge. Shoot what you like and the rest be damned. After all, this is art.<br>

</p>

[rgerraty]

I got the Leica v4 Summicron not knowing of its reputation. It's a fine lens, one of the chief benefits being its minute

dimensions. I do like the Zeiss lenses and have three of them, but not a 35. Starting again I might seriously look at a 35 or

40 Nokton. The aspheric Leica is no doubt great but I would have to be a pro to justify the cost.

[jo_l_cahane]

<p>Any of these lenses are very very good.<br>

I would add the summicron version one.<br>

Very good définition, probably the best, and also fantastic bokeh.<br>

Its only " limitation " would be less vivid colours than the modern lenses (but i like it also for that same reason)<br>

The Zeiss is fantastic too.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I suggest we drop the Japanese expression of "boke" or "boke-aji" (or Mike Johnston's anglicized "bokeh") by "out of focus rendition" (OOFR) or "out of focus quality" (OOFQ). We might then benefit from a less contrasty caste system of lens hierarchy.</p>

<p>How about a simplified acronym, like "OOF%" !!</p>

<p>When someone finds out that his lens doesn't make the sanctified bokeh grade, "ouff" might be a highly appropriate reaction?</p>

[john_brewton]

<p>I go for OOF myself, but back to the subject at hand. I had a 'Cron ASPH and frankly was never impressed with the OOF background. It was okay but no "king". I always thought the Summilux (either 35 or 50) as the top of the heap. 'Course then there's that money thing...</p>

[pc_b]

<p>Yes, the 2/35A, Steve.</p>

[steve_mcsteve]

<p>Thank you for your responses, guys. I used the term "Bokeh" only because everybody has this clear connotative picture inside their heads and know exactly what one means when seeing the word "bokeh".<br>

What seriously made me considering going for the 35/2 cron asph is the following site I stumbled upon couple hours ago, and it kinda threw me off from what Ken Rockwell basically said about 35mm lenses, namely that you can totally forget about bokeh using those. I reckon he just raises bars high. For a 35mm lens the bokeh below is pretty neat imho. This image, so the poster states, is taken with a 35/2 cron asph. If this is a straight out of camera bokeh, not messed with that is, than I guess I will go for this lens. Your input is much appreciated</p>

<p>http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=255555</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/5087930820_67a5622fa5_b.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="750" /></p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Steve</p>

<p>I had the Summicron ASPH and it was a great lens. I had no problem with the bokeh. I am not, however, someone who parses infinitely subtle differences between lenses and it sounds like you do. The ASPH is very sharp at all apertures and very "well-behaved". It is reputed not to have as good bokeh as the pre-ASPH 35, but it is sharper wide open. You pays your money and you takes your choice. The shot below gives you some idea of the ASPH's bokeh wide open.</p>

<p>Many people disdain Ken Rockwell's views (in case you didn't know). I don't, but I don't regard them as necessarily helpful either, so I wouldn't put too much stress on his musings.</p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>Although yielding a nice effect, I'm not as sure as some that the 35mm ASPH gives as fine a boke or OOF quality as its predecessor 35mm lens. One problem is that we usually see shots at f2, but not often at 2.8, 4 or even 5.6 at close focus, where the effects are less strong but possibly smoother than at f2. Wide open the ASPH seems to tend slightly towards the production of double line boke quality ("ni-sen") or a halo about the out of focus details, although not as extreme as some other lenses including the pre-2000s standard focal length Nikkors where the double line boke effect was very noticeable and I think bothersome. That said, the 35mm f2 ASPH is (or was until the very latest round of new lenses from Solms) one of the two finest lenses in the M line-up, all qualities confounded.</p>

[gerald_widen]

<p>The SM Canon f2 from the late 50's is an incredible lens. Very small for that lens opening. Unfortunately I haven't shot film in quite a few years and have sadly sold off many of the lenses I used to use on my M2. The 3 lenses I have left are Canon 35/2, 50/2 and for me at least the Bokah king of all an old SM Elmar f4. Been out of photography totally for about 6-7 years and just got back in with a Panasonic LX-5.</p>

[Troll]

<p>You can't go wrong with anything that says "SUMMICRON" on it.</p>