Johhny ‘aspheric’ summicron vs. Joey ‘the 4th’ summicron. Big Bokeh knock out.greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread |
Ok the title is perhaps a little grand, but this post is here to contribute to the debate on the out of focus rendition comparison between both lenses. [Or bokeh to its’ friends.] I had the opportunity to try the new aspheric 35mm at a Leica day in England, and rushed to the nearest park to grab a few comparative snaps. The artistic value of these shots is zero; the point was merely to ascertain what the difference in bokeh might be. I appreciate that the subtle and gradual change in focus rendition is perhaps the most important factor for bokeh aficionados, but I had about 5 minutes with the lenses, so apologies for those expecting to make an artistic judgement.I have 9 comparative shots [18 total] that I am now inspecting on a contact strip, I will try to print these later in the week, but for now here are my findings. You will appreciate that if the findings are visible on a contact they will be very clear on an 8x12 print. I used FP4 film exposed at ISO 125. The day was extremely sunny, and to get the wide open apertures I was using something in the region of 1000-250 shutter speed. All shots are hand held with the same M6.
Most of the shots are taken at f2, with some at 2.8 and 4. The logic here was to use the lenses where they are supposed to be most different. The differences on these contact strips are ALREADY very clear, I am sure there will be much more to say once they are printed.
Here are some of my findings, the N refers to Non-aspherical, the A to aspherical.
View of town centre, lenses at F2/0.7m: attempt to see the differences with completely out of focus image. N shows less fuzziness and more detail; as if A was ‘more out of focus’ at this magnification it is only the straight lines/edges that are clarifying this. Trees and sky, lenses at F2/0.7m: attempt to see differences completely out of focus with strong edge between trees and sky. N again seems superior with a much more pleasing edge and less smudginess, contrast also seems superior. Tree foreground, Church background, looking into the sun, lenses F2.8/3m. The focus was on the bark of the tree. N seems altogether better, the church in background has much more contrast and detail, the bright light through he leaves seems to wash these out much more on the A. Overall contrast of image SEEMS better for the N. Slanted tree in foreground, sunlight trees in background, lenses at F2/1.2m The focus was on the bark of the tree. A seems to give a better, more punchy image; contrast over whole image seems better. N may have more detail in the out of focus area, but seems to have slightly less contrast.
There are a number of other images here but I will leave these for when I can compare at a sensible magnification after printing. QUESTION: How would it be best to get these images onto the Web in order for others to make their own subjective views?
My conclusion at this stage: I think the N is a keeper….but let’s see what the real detail is like at sensible Magnification.
-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), July 07, 2001
Maybe I'm ignorant but I always used the in-focus part of the shot to make the choice between one lens and another. Having owned both the pre-aspheric and aspheric 35 Summicron-M the latter is flatter-field and also gives better overall sharpness and contrast from f2 to f/4- 5.6. If they were equal otherwise, then maybe the "bokeh" would be the default criterion.
-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), July 07, 2001.
The point of the note is ONLY to compare bokeh, also it is interesting to consider what proportion of an image is in focus if you shoot people at close range wide-open. I do this quite a lot, and I guess 85% of the image is out of focus. I personally believe that the change from in to out of focus and the tonal qualitiy/considentcy in here is helping to contribute to the subjective quality of such an image. If you only want to consider the in focus performance, fine. i personally am intested in the overall quality of an image which for me contains both in focus and out of focus information.
-- Richard Palmer (richard@designblue.co.uk), July 07, 2001.
I'm with Jay here bigtime... If your style of phototgraphy dictates that because you shoot people the out-of-focus areas and the transition to them are more important than the in-focus part of the image, the subject, so be it. For me, I'll take superb sharpness as the first order priority with decent Bokeh as a way second order priority. If I ever encounter a situation where I need to re-consider that priority for my images, I can always stretch Saran wrap over the front of my asph!
-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 07, 2001.
Richard,I did the same test when the Aspheric Summicron came out. I shot a bit more film than you and over a broader range of subjects. I already knew how good my lens was at the middle apertures, so I concentrated on the first couple of apertures, where the benefit of the new design was suppose to shine.
My results... The Aspheric lens is indeed sharper on the focus plane than the pre-aspheric. There is one caveat, over the years I learned to exploit the edge fall off in sharpness of my lens, and have been able to make it work for me. It was like I could get the "apparent" depth of field of a f/1.4 lens at f/2.0. I don't do full head portraits with a 35mm lens, so there is usually quite a bit of the frame showing that is rendered out of focus, and here I prefer my older lens. I know the actual subject sharpness is less than the new model, but when contrasted over the beautifully blurred background, it really looks better to me. I love to use my lens at f/2.0, even if there is enough light to go to f/4.0. No other lens looks like this, and to me sharpness is not everything for this type of portrait. If seeing every pore in the skin is important, then go with the new lens. If a more impressionistic, almost painterly quality suits your style, the used shelves should be lined with the older lenses traded in for the aspheric. In the middle apertures, and at some distance, the lenses were fairly even.
My decision... I kept the old lens, returned the loaner and spent the thousand dollars on film. There are thousands of guys out happily shooting with Summarits and non-aspheric 35mm Summiluxs. The intended result is and should be different for every body, so use what you like... it is your photography.
-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), July 07, 2001.
My take on the bokeh issue is that it is much more noticeable when using a 50mm wide open or short teles. With a 35mm lens, the out of focus areas are, well, just not that out of focus unless you are shooting a subject at 3 feet wide open. Has something to do with effective aperture, which is the focal length divided by aperture. So a 35mm even at f2.0 is 17.5, where a 90 even at 2.8 is 32 and a 50 at f2 is 25. Anyway, with respect to the two 35's tested above, since neither really has "Bad bokeh", the differences are going to be pretty subtle. I have used lenses where the bokeh really is ugly (some modern zooms mostly)--double images, mis-shapen highlights--"rags" as someone once referred to it. I think the size of the older lens being smaller would have more say in a persons chosing it than the bokeh issue.
-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), July 07, 2001.
I'm with Andrew on this one...I think!? I've used a passel of Leica lenses over the years, including the latest non aspheric 35, and now the Asph Summicron and find that although the bokeh (odd how we're all arguing about something that no one had heard of 10 years ago) is more pleasant on some of the older lenses, the merits of the Asph design (sharpness, but also flare control) makes the new 35 Asph my favorite wideangle. As was said, the bokeh is not at all unpleasant on the new lens, just different. I have in my collection a 50 uncoated Elmar that gives the best bokeh of any lens I own, problem is it's not very sharp (compared to any modern lens) and flares terribly, yet by what's been said earlier in this post, it should be my lens of choice.
-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), July 07, 2001.
Why does everyone assume that somehow I am not interested in the sharpness of the lense? Surprisingly I cannot detect any improvement in sharpness at f2 on the prints I have done so far [18x12]with the ASPH, although since everybody talks about it I am happy to accept it is there...somewhere. The out of focus performance however, is noticeably different both in contrast and sharpness, and this does change the impression that the overall image gives. From the very limited and unscientific comparison that I have completed there is a consistent benefit in the 'quality' of the image provided by this difference. Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion and this is mine.
-- Richard Palmer (richard@designblue.co.uk), July 07, 2001.
Richard, possibly you have a 'bad' example of an Asph to work with. I, as well as many others find that stopped down 1 or 2 stops, the lenses are fairly comparable, sharpness-wise, but (this is my experience as well as others), that wide open, particularily at the edges the Asph does perform better. I think you have seen so much vehemence because of the title you gave your post. It does sound pretty serious :-)
-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), July 07, 2001.
Pictures of both on this link. But not taken at same time (though same place) so not sure if this is valid to compare directly.http://home.wxs.nl/~sanderva/SummiTest.htm
Cheers.
-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), July 07, 2001.
RE: the comparison referenced just above, both lenses seem to render nice round out of focus highlights. The non-ASPH seems to render them larger in diameter. But this could be the result of the higher sun angle in Summer, or might be exaggerated by the somewhat fuller looking exposure. In any experiment, to be conclusive, all parameters except the independent variable (lens type in this case) must be held constant. I do see more exposure variation across the non-ASPH frame. The ASPH seems more uniformly illuminated.
-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 07, 2001.
I too have looked at the link shown, and the results I have are NOTHING like this. In fact it was this very link that prompted me to try the experiment. my results all show the N with much a clearer, better differentiated, and higher contrast 'more picture like' image. I have some that create the small round highlights as shown in htis image but like for like the ASPH produces more and at greater diameter. Looking back at the images to try and ascertain the improved ASPH performance ignoring the out of focus rendition I have one particular image which is very interesting. It shows the A having less shadow intensity, and the N having deeper shadows, but consequently less shadow detail. This particular image is also shot directly into the sun with the associaited problem of flare. It would be great to put this on the web somewhere for people to comment.PS Bob thanks for the advice re the title, it was meant as a tongue in the cheek provocation I suspect some correspondents interpreted that I was implying the N is in some way superior ot the A because of the OOF rendition? For me I just think this particular topic is interesting especially in respect of the quality that most Leica images have in comparison ot others from apparently equally sharp lenses. This is clear to most people who see them, I am just interested in why? I don't THINK it is just contast and sharpness in the image plane, but I don't KNOW!
-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), July 08, 2001.
Richard, one thing I've found is that many Leica users (and unfortunately I fall into this category) have very little sense of humour concerning our cameras. You can make fun of me, my family and my dog, but heaven forbid I think you're slighting my camera ;-)
-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), July 08, 2001.
Richard:It almost sounds as though your results were the opposite of what Simon shared the link to... I'm sure you're sure, but are you sure that you did not get the A and the N switched/confused in your comparison?
-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 08, 2001.
I saw that test on the net awhile back, and in my opinion it is not valid. If you are comparing two of anything to see which one performs to your liking, then you MUST assure that as many of the variables are eliminated as possible. The two images are not even close enough to arrive at any conclusion. The lighting is different, there is a tree limb in one photo that can skew the impression of the out of focus area, that is not in the second image. Additionally, the one recognizable building from both images is placed in different parts of the frame. One would expect that the center and the edge would look different at the widest apertures, so what can we gain by how that building is rendered?Would you compare two cars for acceleration with one car on an incline and the other on a decline? The website comparison has no validity in my opinion. Take both lenses, shoot the same scene, at the same f-stop, under the same light, on the same film (slide film will eliminate even more potential for variation). Lay the slides side by side on a light table and the answer will be clear.
-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), July 08, 2001.
One of these days someone needs to take exactly the same shots with both lenses at a few different apertures and locations so a real scientific A/B comparison could be had about the bokeh issue. If I had access to both lenses, I'd volunteer to use up a couple of dollars of film and processing to do the test. Anybody want to tackle this homework assignment for the good of mankind?I have a feeling it will end up being similar to comparing two sets of loudspeakers at a stereo shop. The two images will be different, but it will be hard to reach a consensus on which is "better".
-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), July 08, 2001.
In answer to Jack I am 100% SURE I wrote down every shot and the sequence is interrupted which means a single error would make the results inconsistent, and they are not. Al, I have 18 shots to compare that are like for like except I had no tripod. The same shot, the same day, the same light, the same camera, the same focus distance, the same aperture, the same film the same developer the same printer, the same ....... The ONLY inconsistency is my hand framing. If somebody will tell me where to put these images ont the web I will post them for all to see and comment. Personally my mind is made up I will not change the N, they are CONSISTENTLY different in the out of focus region and I PERSONALLY prefer the N, but hey that is just my opinion.....
-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), July 08, 2001.
Richard,You reached the same conclusion that I did, (as stated higher up this thread), and as you mentioned, it is your (and my) conclusion. For the type of shooting I do with a rangefinder camera, the older lens gives me better images. A hundred people can present test that tries to say I have the wrong lens, but I know what I like and what works for me. Just keep using the lens that you like, and make good pictures. Nothing is more proof of a correct choice than images that make you happy.
Just for information, on my test I shot 3 rolls of Fujichrome, on a tripod mounted M6, with incident meter. I have no use for how infinity looks, since all of my shots are usually done indoors with window light. My area of out of focus rendering is limited to about 8-12 feet from my subject which is usually about 4-6 feet from my camera, so my testing was conducted to see this result. My results may have been different if I were using a different criteria, but as stated, for a test to be valid has to measure something of value to the person that wishes to determine which sample is better. I set up a small still life on a table, and placed furniture incrementally in front and behind the table at a diagonal angle front left (close) to rear right (far). I could observe the softening of the out of focus areas at various distances, (don't forget the bokeh in front of the subject!), and again, I like the results with the older lens. To preclude any errors, I placed the lens not being used next to my still life, so that if the aspheric lens is on the slide, I know that that image was made with the pre-aspheric... no errors possible. I shot so much film because I changed the configuration of the window dressing in the room, to see how different light sources blurred... from soft translucent drapes to hard vertical angled blinds.
Someone else could look at my slides and feel completely different, and that is the beauty of this... After f-stops and shutter speeds, photography get less like a science and more like art, and not everybody agrees which art looks good.
-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), July 08, 2001.
by including some indicator of the test system, the unused lens, you have influenced the outcome. you may not think you have, but your assessment is now unfairly biased, for good or bad, because of it. the evaluation as presented by the poster is flawed, due to financial influences. the differences may be so great as to override the bias of not wanting to spend $3000, but we are human afterall, and prone to listen to our brain even when we try to turn it off!a totally blind test, in the least, is needed here to attain a truly emotional response to your images and lens. I used to own a guitar amplifier company, designing amplifiers, and would invite professional guitar slingers into the laboratory to play through my amps. we would spend hours trying to ascertain what it was that worked magically and what failed. I learned that our senses are so easily influenced by external parameters and that our responses are dynamic. your preferred bokeh of today may not fare as well tomorrow.
one more story, somewhat off-topic. Carlos Santana was stopping by and bringing his amplifiers. I knew one of my students worshiped Carlos and tried to get them together. for some reason, the kid showed up hours later, long after Carlos had left. as usual, he started noodling around, playing guitar through the amps, and unknowningly plugged into Carlos's equipment he had left with me. after ten minutes of playing, he unplugged in disgust and said something like 'this amplifier sounds terrible. what would it take to modify it so I can get Santana's sound'? I didn't have the heart to tell him he had been playing through that exact equipment he had heard on the records. we can admire Cartier-Bresson, Gibson, Harvey, et al, but must not forget that their great images come from far beyond their Leica.
-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), July 08, 2001.
Nice bokeh? I have both the 35mm Summicron f/2 ASPH and a '60s vintage (I think) 35mm Summicron f/2 with "frog eyes." I also have the 50mm Summicron f/2, latest generation, and the DR Summicron f/2. I did a bokeh test, not rigidly controlled to be sure, but just to see if there were any obvious differences. I took one photograph each of my fiance standing in the shade with a sunlit bouganvilla in the background. I was attempting to produce those little circles of out-of-focus hightlights so characteristic of the Leica, mindful of the decreased number of diaphragm leaves in the newer lenses, and wondering if I'd get septagons instead of circles. Well, while there were differences, all four photographs, taken at f/2 on Provia, were characteristically Leica and characteristically beautiful. The out- of-focus highlights in the newer lenses were indistinguisable from those of the older lenses. Of course the differences between these lenses can be revealed only after long experience or much shooting or some combination thereof. I have noticed distant out-of-focus highlights from the 35 ASPH which are exactly the shape of the hole made by the diaphragm leaves in a photograph made at probably f/11. But in my test, as I say, the results were indistinguishable. I viewed the slides in my Leica 5X loupe, so I couldn't see them at the same time. This is important when comparing images because it's difficult to retain enough information for an adequate comparison. But I'm not Erwin Puts, just a fan of his.
-- Jon Streeter (jonlucien@aol.com), July 10, 2001.
Strange comment from somebody who watches television on a Saturday night.......
-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), July 13, 2001.