This is a bit wordy so forgive me.

There have been some top end lenses for sale here recently, lenses that some here consider legendary/the ultimate for their focal length. In particular, two people are selling/wish to sell the 90mm APO, one dumped his 75mm Lux, and one is selling his 35mm Lux Asph. What is going on? Is less more?

I was outside in the sun, and the apertures wider than f5.6 cannot be used outdoors unless you live in perpetual cloud cover, or if you shoot during the dawn and dusk periods, or you have the lifestyle of a bat. This is because of the limit of 1/1000 second shutter speed. So all this talk of "bokeh" is moot except for low light situations. I say this because I was out with my Nikon 105 f2.5 lens and could use the f2.5 setting due to higher available shutter speeds. I am thinking of getting the FM3a (which manually goes as fast as 1/4000 second) instead of a 90mm Leica lens due to this reason.

If you notice the Leica pictures all the way from HCB to today, almost everything is in focus, there is no OOF area in most of the shots. (Look at Wolfgang's latest Jordan, Morocco submissions.)

While the 90mm lens has a narrow depth of field due to its focal length, settings wider than f5.6 are impossible to use, so these don't seem to be good outdoor lenses in bright light situations for the purposes of getting that exquisite bokeh that people talk about with religous reverence. I know one can use neutral density filters, but that defeats the purpose. Is the FAST 90mm worth buying??? I've read everything here on the 90mm and seen Al Smith's biker shots, etc.

Bottom line, I'm confused as hell, and to some it might appear that I don't know what I'm talking about. Will someone please chime in. Call me stupid if you like, but I want to learn. I have budgeted for the lenses; I don't mind spending but I hate to waste money. Thanks. Leica Day is May 2nd and I have to decide before then!

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), April 20, 2002

Answers

What is "bokeh" anyhow, so I can follow the rest of this thread.

Cheers, Hyatt Lee

-- Hyatt Lee (shahmat@ms63.hinet.net), April 20, 2002.

Regarding the problem you describe in the first two paragraphs, just use slower film! I'm very fond of Ilford Pan F+ (EI 50), which I develope in Rodinal. By simply using this film you get the following advantages: 1.You can use your lens wide open in daylight, and bokeh to your heart's delight. 2.Superior grain, sharpness, tonal range - makes your 35mm work more closely resemble medium format quality! I sometimes use fast film, but only when lighting circumstances force me to use it. I'm always eager to use as slow a film as I can manage. You can see some Pan F+/Rodinal shots here: http://www.web-graphics.com/steinerphoto

-- Ollie Steiner (violindevil@yahoo.com), April 20, 2002.

Sorta depends on the speed of the film you're using doesn't it?

I still have K25 and in bright sun, I could do 1/1000 @ 2.8 using the sunny 16 rule! Getting down to the last of it now though, so it'll be K64 from here on out I'm afraid.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), April 20, 2002.

Vikram, of course you wouldn't expect every Leica user to require the same lenses. I happen to enjoy both the 75 Summilux and 90 SAA lenses, having no problem with their size, weight, etc, although others might prefer different options. I shoot outside with larger apertures than 5.6; how fast of a film are you using? Yes, Leica shutterspeed is limited to 1/1000. If your goal is to shoot fast film at high noon with Leica lenses at maximum aperture, ND filters are probably your only option. If you are buying Leica equipment only to exploit famous Leica bokeh wide open, I think that you are missing something. Leica lenses ARE wonderful at maximum aperture; they are also improved at more modest apertures - as are virtually all lenses. Maybe you should consider what it is that you wish to accomplish before buying any more photo equipment.

-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), April 20, 2002.

Yes of course, slower film. How stupid of me. I'm so used to using only 400 film that it didn't occur to me. I must be getting senile. Thanks for you input. Now you CAN call me stupid. :)

I have resisted buying any of the lenses that I mentioned. I have the 35 and 50 summicrons, and am extremely happy with them. I like to theorize though, isn't that part of the fun on this forum? Thanks again.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), April 20, 2002.

Hyatt, bokeh refers to the character of out-of-focus areas of a photo. Different lenses can show some differences (some subtle, some obvious). In this photo, the girl is in focus, the rest exhibits the bokeh of the lens.

Vikraam, some of us actually do have the lifestyle of a bat. ; ) In addition to what others have said about slow film (shot linked above was PanF+), also consider situations where you're shooting in the shade or indoors.

If most of your shooting is done outside during the day, then no, you probably won't get much benefit from the fast glass. On the other hand, about 90% of my Leica shooting is at apertures wider than f4.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 20, 2002.

"What is "bokeh" anyhow, so I can follow the rest of this thread. Cheers, Hyatt Lee"

Hyatt,

Here are some links. (You can always use www.google.com and type in the word.)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/bokeh.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

Picture: http://www.uwgb.edu/galta/a100/lectures/bokeh.htm

I must confess that I had never heard of this word before reading this forum. Welcome to the University. Regards,

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), April 20, 2002.

Mike Dixon, Mr. Bat :), so that's where all the gorgeous models hide!

Do you please have an example of a bokeh picture where the main subject matter is the one that is out of focus?

Could you discourse a bit on when you decide whether to have the main subject in, and when out, of focus.

Thanks as always for your fine writing and even finer pictures.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), April 20, 2002.

I can't think of any shots offhand where I have the primary subject out of focus, though I have some where important elements of the image are not in focus. This photo has the model strongly out of focus, though she's an essential part of the image. (It also show that non-Leica lenses can have groovy bokeh--shot with an old FL-mount Canon 55/f1.2 lens.)

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 20, 2002.

Or, beside using slower film, you can always use ND Filters in various sizes (strengths).

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 20, 2002.

Vikram:

"I was outside in the sun, and the apertures wider than f5.6 cannot be used outdoors unless you live in perpetual cloud cover, or if you shoot during the dawn and dusk periods, or you have the lifestyle of a bat."

. . . I think that putting available light photography in the same category as having the lifestyle of a bat, while obviously tongue-in- cheek, has the effect of dismissing too lightly an important area of photography. If we are going to shoot outside in the sun, we don't need need f/1.4 lenses, and maybe not f/2 lenses. You probably don't need a 75 Lux to shoot landscapes or cityscapes (though that focal length might well be useful). But what about documenting nightlife, theater, ballet, etc.? Someone who does these things will have uses for these lenses, while those of us who do pictorial photography will feel little need for them. I'm happy with my 35 pre-asph Lux, 50 Lux, and 50 Cron. The rest of my Leica lenses are f/2.8 or slower. This is all I need to take my pretty postcard type shots. So for you and me, some of the exotic lenses are an unnecessary extravagance. If we bought them, we would probably wind up selling them when we realize this. And that is probably why they seem to show up for sale. Toy-of-the-month club. In the hands of a Rob Appleby, Mike Dixon, and others who use these tools well, it's a whole other story. Eisenstadt, I'm sure, would have known what to do with a 75 Lux.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 20, 2002.

Vikram:

This is precisely the reason the 3E is such a popular lens for most "normal" shooting conditions. However, the ability to shoot indoors without flash, or at night without flash, comes with lens speed. Couple that with the fact you can hadhold the M a shutter speed or two lower than an SLR and you've got a serious advantage in low light. Add yet again, that Leica lenses seem to perform exceptionally well wide open, which is where images from most other lenses fall apart, and you've described a system that stands head and shoulders above the crowd for use in low light situations.

So, quite frankly, if all you are going to shoot is normal scenes in normal light with normal film, then most of the current autoeverything SLR's will deliver essentially equivalent results -- equivalent that is, excepting Bokeh and tonal range -- to the Leica M, do it more easily, and do it for less money. But the Leica can still do the normal stuff with or without super-fast glass...

So to answer you questions... Why do I like the fast glass? Because like horsepower in my car, the extra is there if I want it! Is it worth it? Only if I am in a situation where I want to use it.

;-)

-- J Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 20, 2002.

"...the apertures wider than f5.6 cannot be used outdoors unless you live in perpetual cloud cover, or if you shoot during the dawn and dusk periods, or you have the lifestyle of a bat. This is because of the limit of 1/1000 second shutter speed"

Or you have a Konica Hexar RF. But give Leica another 20 years, and I'm sure they can overcome the technical problems.

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), April 20, 2002.

This forum is a bit strange- people who are seemingly anti-lux/cron only, and the opposite. Well, I don't think you have to be a certain level of photog etc. to use a lux. They're there for when th situation merits. That's all. Period. Really quite simple isn't it?

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 20, 2002.

If you want shallow DOF and you're limited to 1/1000 and the light's too bright even with ISO 40 Velvia, you have options. One is to shoot color neg film, which can stand 2-3 stops of overexposure. Thus an ISO 100 print film could be shot at EI 50, 25 or even 12 and still deliver a printable neg. Another, which you mentioned, is the use of ND filters (I don't know why you think they defeat the purpose when they give you exactly the result you're after). A polarizer works fine as a ND filter with either color or b&w, cutting 1.5-2 stops. With b&w film an X1 (green) filter cuts (as I recall) 2 stops and is very flattering for portraiture. With an ISO 100 film in Sunny 16 conditions you would need to cut 4 stops to hit f/1.4@1/1000. Through the use of slower film, overexposing color neg, and light-cutting filters you can easily do that and more. And most likely the kinds of shots you want to do the "bokeh" thing with will not be made in Sunny 16 light anyway.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 20, 2002.

Mike, thanks for the lovely picture. Very classy indeed.

And thanks everyone for your insightful responses. In the past I have seen people recommend the fastest lenses in a knee-jerk fasion to every beginner who ventures into this forum. Some of them succumb to the "advice," and then realize they don't have a "need for speed" but had been sucked into the "fastest possible lens syndrome" that seems to be a religion for some of the writers here. This is not a criticism, for the reasoning of the advanced users is very sound, but not generally applicable to every photographer, and you can see the results in some of the trading going on here. I write this more for the Leica beginners, a category where I belong. If anything, this forum is teaching me a great deal about the virtues of patience!

So thanks again for your considered advice.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), April 21, 2002.

Try living in scotland, I need wide apertures most of the year to cope with the dullness!!

Waterproof cameras would be more use than fast shutter speeds!! :-)

-- John Tobias (johntobias@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.

Another fine example of "bokeh"...with a difference??

http://www.leica-gallery.net/gregchoong/image-23584.html

When you're there, you'd probably see more "bokehed" shots. Enjoy. Any comments are welcome.

Greg

-- Greg (greg_choong@yahoo.com), April 21, 2002.

i am one of those trying to sell their "legendary" lens, a 35 lux asph. the reason is the bulk of it. it produces outstanding results, the best i have ever seen on 35mm, but not if it stays at home because i can't slip the camera into a pocket anymore. if i want bulk, i take my medium format camera with me.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), April 21, 2002.

Different lenses for different folks. Whether using the Nikons or the Leica, about 95% of my pictures are made at settings of f4 and larger, so bokeh does matter to me. And if I find myself using shutterspeeds higher than 1/500 second very much, I switch to slower film and open up the aperture -- I'd rather have finer grain than greater depth-of-field.

And partly off-topic to this thread, but on-topic with another thread: does anyone else believe that the "king of bokeh," the 35mm Summicron 4th version, actually has lousy bokeh at f2? Mine produces nasty coma in the corners and jangly double-edged effects akin to what you would see when crossing your eyes. I've really gotta stop it down to around f2.8 or f4 to get nice looking backgrounds.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), April 21, 2002.

First, I want to thank Vikram for letting me "jump" onto his thread and also I appreciate the rest of you for providing links, illustrations and answering my questions. As for the Google, I had just assumed "bokeh" was a coded Leica M word. Thanks again everyone...

Cheers

-- Hyatt Lee (shahmat@ms63.hinet.net), April 21, 2002.

Sometimes not even a Mercedes or Rolls is suitable, whether financially or non to some. It's the way life is.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.

<< Or you have a Konica Hexar RF. But give Leica another 20 years, and I'm sure they can overcome the technical problems. -- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), April 20, 2002. >>

Masatoshi,

Something you wrote a while ago made me laugh so hard. I forget the exact words: some people viewed the "... M7 as the second coming of Christ..."

I must confess that I thought it strange too, the M7 frenzy, for I bought a Nikon FE in 1980, and the M7 is not even up to those feature levels, 22 years later.

So, thanks for the humor.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), April 22, 2002.

<< letting me "jump" onto his thread and also I appreciate the rest of you for providing links, illustrations and answering my questions. As for the Google, I had just assumed "bokeh" was a coded Leica M word. Thanks again everyone... Cheers -- Hyatt Lee >>

Hyatt,

Jumping in is the rule, for it is a free forum, no need to hold back. I'm glad something positive came out of this thread.

Some have written that good bokeh comes from the number of elements in the aperture mechanism. 7 or 8 give good bokeh. 5 gives bad bokeh, and so on. I don't know the answer. Does anyone have a bokeh ranking of the Leica lenses?

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), April 22, 2002.