for those of you that are interested following the previous heated debate on the compaison of the 35/2 ASPH and pre. I have posted onto photo.net two comparitive scans. Lens comparison They have been automatically exposed in scanning and have not been touched since apart form resizing and compressing. In print form the 35/2 is darker in the shadows, but for some reason the ASPH looks darker from the scans. Ignore this aspect and compare the detail and contrast in the out of focus regions aswell as the in focus. Also look at the corners of the image. The settings where f2.8 at 3m focus[on tree] FP4 at 125 ASA with 250 shutter speed. Let me know what you think. [The prints at the same exposure show the differnces more easily in my opinion]

-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), September 20, 2001

Answers

One final thing.. the sun is shining through the top left of the image past the tree to see the effect of flare. [Also the image has no aesthetic value......it was just part of a 10 minute selection I took whilst borrowing the lens.]

-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), September 20, 2001.

This comes up all the time and every time people compare results with the lenses wide open or almost wide open.

FOR THE RECORD, the 35/2 fourth version pre-asph is called the "King of Bokeh" for its delicate delectable transitions from focused to out of focus in the MIDDLE APERTURE RANGE (f5.6 to f11) not wide open! It has all the usual problems of high speed wide angles when wide open.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), September 20, 2001.

"In print form the 35/2 is darker in the shadows" This would seem to support what I've always heard about the ASPH 35 been designed to have low Macro Contrast and high Micro Contrast, much like the 50mm/f1.0. After all, wasn't this lens designed specifically for available light photography? To my eye, Leica lenses have always been designed for tonality as opposed to hue. Beside, color always look so drab in a photograph.

-- Leicaddict (leicaddict@hotmail.com), September 20, 2001.

Richard:

IMO the first image is much softer than the second. In the second, I can see more defnition in the bricks on the OOF church in the background.

I'm not convinced that the viewing of web-based scans acurately depicts the actual performance characteristics of a lens, but it might be interesting to hear what you thought of the lens(es) at difering apertures.

Thanks for the post,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 20, 2001.

Hi, Richard:

Thanks for your examples.

I have been following the bokeh threads since some time so far and think that preferences on this respect will solely depend upon personal taste. What I mean is that even if we were able to measure it I see no way to define a given number bokeh like better than a differently numbered one. Just an example: I like the green colour but what green is better? I know that I can attach a set of three objectively measured numbers to the particular green hue I prefer over other greens. But will it make it any better for you and/or everybody else?

But I also have a doubt regarding the concept itself: is it intended to refer to background OOF images like through the window in this picture or to OOF details in the fore planes too like in this other one too?

Any way, Richard, thanks for your contribution again. Have fun.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), September 20, 2001.

color always look so drab in a photograph

Sometimes I think I have passed into an alternate reality.

The Wall, Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer

Regarding the original topic...

What I'd really like to see is a great photograph that demonstrates "bad bokeh." Most of the examples I see are not particularly enlightening given what photography should be about. It's like photos of brick walls - while it may point out gross defects, one doesn't get much sense of the difference in lenses from sharpness comparisons of brick walls.

One example I see over and over is bright light coming through trees, and I think it usually looks lousy regardless of the quality of the bokeh.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), September 20, 2001.

I thought the leaves in the OOF area looked sharper with pre-ASPH, and I thought the contrast (evident as deeper shadows) might have been higher with the pre-ASPH also. The trouble is, I don't know what to conclude from all that. It seems as though the pre-ASPH must have more DOF to produce this result, but this is not likely on theoretical grounds. I think of "good Bokeh" as a smoothness of the OOF area; but here the area that should be OOF doesn't seem to be out of focus to begin with--at least, not much.

The more I learn about Bokeh, the less I know about it. Soon I'll know everything about nothing, I guess.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), September 20, 2001.

An example of bad bokeh: In National Geographic, maybe two or three years ago (I don't remember exactly the date), there was a photo of a wedding party where many people had large automatic weapons. It was taken in central Asia, but I can't remember the country. I think it was by Michael Yamashita, who is a great photographer, and I liked the picture very much. But I noticed that the light coming through trees in the upper part of the photo was very much all doughnuts, very harsh. It did not destroy the picture, but perhaps nice bokeh could have been even better.

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), September 22, 2001.

Perhaps the annular (donut) appearance was because he used a mirror lens.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), September 23, 2001.

Bokeh I can see...

http://beta.content.communities.msn.com/Leicausers/leicamania.msnw? action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=129

http://beta.content.communities.msn.com/Leicausers/leicamania.msnw? action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=1250

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), September 23, 2001.

Oops, look and Linley and Little Sean.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), September 23, 2001.

Both pictures do not look sharp or contrasty. They look milky. Have you used lens hood with them? The backgrounds look "out of focus" rather than blurred or having nice "bokeh". You need 50mm or more (75mm and 90 or even 135mm) wide open to generate natural bokeh. 35mm has inherently larger depth of field and the fact you have a f2.0 does not help much in producing nice bokeh. I have a 35/1.4 APSH whose OOF background is always a little too sharp wide open. Even my Canon EF100/2.0 does it better, even though it is not in the same league as my Noctilux or the 75/1.4 I borrowed very often from my friend.

-- Damond Lam (damond_lam@hotmail.com), September 24, 2001.

First of all, these aren't my photographs. Secondly, I tried to post links to individual photographs but it didn't work. The Little Sean photo I was trying to show was taken with a 75 Summilux-M and the other one with the early 35 Summilux-M. I certainly wasn't expecting criticism of this person's work.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), September 24, 2001.

Bud, my comments did not refer to your photos, but Richard's. I've looked at your photos which have pretty good bokeh.

http://www.fototime.com/29F5A9A5C9AFADF/standard.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/ABC05FEF50427A6/standard.jpg

Here are my bokehs. One with 50/1.0 and the other with 75/1.4 Both were scanned with Nikon Coolscan 4000ED.

-- Damond Lam (damond_lam@hotmail.com), September 24, 2001.

Damond, Sorry for the confusion on my part. Your examples are beautiful. I've just got to have a 75 Summilux!

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), September 24, 2001.

It is sad to live in a world where untalented amateurs own $5000 worth of esoteric lenses to produce snaps that deserve to be taken with a $100 point & shoot. Such photography is not illumiating; in fact, it is degrading to the art and an insult to the fine photographers out there who deserve but can't afford such indulgences.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), September 24, 2001.

That's quite a statement, Peter. You do have a way with words. I think it's way off the topic, though, isn't it?

BTW, what do you do for a living?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), September 24, 2001.

Gently...gently....

I submit that amateurs and professionals, rich and poor, talented and untalented, all help keep Leica alive and the average price of lenses down, and all have a place at the table.

To get back to 35 'crons...

IMHO, in Richard's examples you can't see much bokeh effect - the soft and sharp parts are too close together and too similar (but thanks for making the effort).

To really see what a lens can/will do you need a subject at (say) 1 meter and a background at (say) 6 meters plus. Here's my submission (if I can get this thing to work again):

-

Ahhhhh!

35 pre-ASPH at f/2. Personally I think whatever pleasing qualities this lens has are just as visible at f/2 as at the middle apertures. The more we look at each others pictures, the more we'll begin to understand what each of us is seeing when we think of 'bokeh'.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 25, 2001.

Mmmm,

I never presented the pics for any other reason than to compare the oof regions, the pictures have ABSOLUTELY NO AESTHETIC value. [The scans were unaltered on a default setting, and yes they are horrible...] I have my opinion on bokeh and I have shared it enough so will not bore you again. Finally thanks for all the comments, oh except for Peter's - I guess this was aimed at me? Well we have already shared views on each other's photographs - and these were clearly not taken for critique.

-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), September 25, 2001.

Well, after all that, I have to admit that I'm still completely unmoved by the out of focus areas of snaps, whether my own or other people's.

Peter, that was a very illuminating comment.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), September 25, 2001.

Whoa, Peter! I consider myself an untalented amateur, although I'm serious about it and that's my rationale. I own some esoteric lenses, e.g. Noct, 75 'lux, and 21, and I've asked myself if I should be spending my net worth on equipment which capabilities I'll hardly scratch in my lifetime. Encourge me!! :-)

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), September 25, 2001.

Seems to me that if the "BOKEH" of a portrait is so important, all of the photo lenses of the world would design a lens with the ability to adjust the effect. Nikon does it twice. 105 F2 DC, 135 F2 DC.If you have'nt tried one of the DC lenses, how can you say only Leica glass gives such a remarkable "BOKEH"???? The DC lenses are truly 2 of a kind!!

-- Brian Harvey (bharvey423@yahoo.com), September 30, 2001.