I have been a big fan of the last pre-aspheric 35mm Summicron, having owned and used this model for many years before the aspheric version was released. For twenty years it was the top Summicron in this focal length, and I never felt it could be supplanted or rendered suddenly obsolete by the introduction of a newer model. One of the attributes that is given to this lens is the moniker of "the king of bokeh", and indeed I have always found the out of focus rendering unique, even before the"B" word became the new darling of the internet. The one thing about this for me was that I never exploited the look due to several factors. One is the top end of the shutter for the Leica M, which doesn't allow the use of f/2.0 unless the light is low, or you have some very slow film in the camera. The other thing for me is the M viewfinder which is perpetually hyper-focused. I use my Summicron at f/8 or so quite often and enjoy the equivalent of a stopped down SLR viewfinder (as far as DOF) with wide-open brightness. This leads to my using the 35mm Summicron as my grab shot, deep focus lens most of the time. The times I do shoot wide-open, there is a look to the images that is quite different than I get with my Nikon 35mm lens (35mm f/1.4 Nikkor) which I do use wide-open often due to the 1/8000th of a second shutter and the matte finder screen which facilitates visualization of selective focus better.

This weekend, I went out with the intent of proving or disproving that the pre-aspheric 35mm Summicron does indeed have a special look. This first thing that hit me was that regardless of the Leica philosophy that 1/1000th of a second is fast enough (ala the M7), it is not fast enough to allow shooting under good light with anything close to f/2.0. The first two shots were made at f/4.0, my limit with ISO 100 film. These shots have no special quality. The subject of focus is sharp, and the background is blurred, but there is nothing magic to me. Any lens in my bag (Leica or Nikon) could have done a similar shot. shot at f/4.0 , another shot at f/4.0

Next, I shot at f/2.0, using deep shade to allow that aperture. Now I can see the look that made me like my previous wide-open shots. I picked subjects that had distinct planes of focus... expanding out from the camera to a blur. There is a way that the transition of in and out of focus is so gradual and smooth to my eye that blows my Nikon out of the water because of its harshness. I like the highlights in the trees and the way the branches are almost overcome by the light. This look is to me a rendering of the bokeh that people talk about... you can see it, but ten people might explain it differently. I made these images large so that you can see clearly the background blurs. shot at f/2.0 , another shot at f/2.0

Lastly, just as a comparison, I shot two frames with the 35mm and 50mm Summicrons at f/4.0, (again limited by the shutter). I also used my feet to keep the foreground the same relative size. The sharpness of the foreground is pretty much the same, while the background is different due to the focal length. There is however to my eye NO difference in the out of focus look. This backs up my first series in which the "magic" properties of the "bokeh king" are not realized at moderate apertures. The selection of either one of these lenses at this aperture would be solely for the image scale, not the "look" of the bokeh. f/4.0 shot with 35mm , f/4.0 shot with 50mm

So for me, I learned a couple of things. I would find a shutterspeed of something like 1/4000th of a second a good thing to exploit the propertied of these Leica lenses that are famous for the way they render the out of focus areas. Second, the so called out of date and washed up pre-aspheric Summicron is pretty good at the real apertures people use often for critical work. Lastly, yes there is a "look" that is different from this lens to my eyes when shot at full aperture. It can't be quantified or measured, but in the simplest terms, I just like it. I have 6 different 35mm lenses from several systems, and this lens has the most pleasant way of rendering the blurred area. King of bokeh??? I don't know, but I'm keeping mine.

Note: These images are but a small sample from a couple of rolls of film, and judgments are made from shooting under many situation and locations.. Any comments about sharpness is based on the negatives under a loupe, not from looking at a computer screen.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), April 21, 2002

Answers

Your words and your pictures are most informative. Thank you for putting this together. The first of the two f2 shots seems the most vividly expressive of them all, via the medium of bokeh. In this shot the tree really leaps out!...and the background is uniformly bokeh. The other f2 shot (fence) is interesting from the point of view of the optical information it teaches, but less dramatic due to the change from in focus to out of focus being relatively continual. As to the question (about making more use of f2) which you raise, it seems the answer is to make more frequent use of the approximately EI 50 films, such as Pan F+ and Kodachrome 64 (two of my very favorite of all films).

http://www.web-graphics.com/steinerphoto

-- Ollie Steiner (violindevil@yahoo.com), April 21, 2002.

My 35mm Summicron 4th version gives pretty ugly bokeh at f2 -- nasty coma in the foreground corners, jangly double-line effects in the backgrounds akin to the view through crossed eyes, and specular highlights that appear rounded, as if they were shot through a mirror lens. I must close down one or two stops to get nice bokeh, not to mention good sharpness. Whenever I use this lens at f2 I end up wishing I had used another optic, but when stopped down slightly it gives superlative results.

I know the above comments may be sacrilege, since this lens is the reputed "king of bokeh," but that's how my pics come out.

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

Here's an example of the wonderful Boken available from the Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8. Aperature 2.8; focusing distance .7 meters (or so). I just rank to the closest focusing distance and then move until it's in focus. Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W KR1.5 MRC, Fuji Sensia II 200

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.

Glen's Photo is obviously a French Paris Metro staircase.

But I have no idea of which one.

May someone defines in words "bokeh"?

Cheers. X.

-- Xavier d'Alfort (hot_billexf@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.

"bokeh"; The pleasing quality of the OOF (out of focus) areas in an image.

By pleasing, most folks mean something like:

1. smooth transition from the in focus areas to the OOF areas and/or;
2. lack of "clumpiness" in the OOF areas and/or;
3. lack of circular "rings" or "swirls" in the OOF specular highlights.

The above is all subjective and thus open to personal interpretation...

Hope this helps! Cheers,

-- J Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 21, 2002.

Sorry, forgot to "sign" the above...

-- J Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 21, 2002.

bokeh= quality of out of focus image image.

Out of focus degradation along the entire frame, double image, are some of the points to qualify bokeh.

All this can be very subjetive.

Thank´s Al, your pictures are a clear example of bokeh definition.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.

Thank you.Really nice shots showing what you see and feel.i notice that the older lenses better at "bokeh" than the new!The exception the 35mm Summilux.Its results in "out-of-focus"areas made me nauseous. i sold it and purchased a 35mm Rf Summiron(one with spectecales)sadly stolen.My Rollie with 75mm Tessar and Pentax 50mm Super Takumar-Macro lens also have great "bokeh".All based on the Tessar formula.The Summicron though is Gauss formula.

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.

Are you guys serious? I thought the pics posted here sucks..

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), April 21, 2002.

Al & Glenn,

Thanks so much for the very informative posts. I am also amazed by the quality of your scans. What scanner/ software do you use? Any tricks? Thanks.

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 21, 2002.

hey, Al.

did you use Reala for these shots?

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.

You sound like an expert on sucking Yosslee. Though I don't go that way myself, I still think there are those who might profit from your sucking advice. Perhaps you'd like to share with the forum some of your sucking expertise.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.

I have no basis for comparing the v.4 35 Summicron to either the 50s or the other versions of the 35.

But I do find the v.4 lens to have a 'comfortable' bokeh that does a nice job of separating the background smoothly at most apertures.

I think the big difference at f/2 is just that there is MORE softness simply due to the larger aperture.

A lot goes into bokeh besides the pure imaging qualities of the lens - subject/background distance, lighting, the tonal scale of the lens and film. A nice long highlight tonal scale will make ANY image look smoother.

35 'cron preASPH at f/2

35 'cron preASPH at f/2

35 'cron preASPH at f/8

Different lighting, different films (Pan F, Velvia converted to B&W, and FP4). Even different cameras - the Hexar RFs 1/4000th did have its uses.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 22, 2002.

Christopher,

I am a computer idiot, and I don't have a scanner. I just shot some Kodak gold 100 and had the lab process the film and scan the negs right to a CD. I upload them to my hard drive and post them to photo.net. I don't have any photo imaging software on my computer.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), April 22, 2002.

Appart from the shot of the kid at the water fountain,none of the shots in this whole thread show even half decent examples of this wonderous 'Bokeh'.I'm not saying they aren't good photographs(but to be honest some of them are dull beyond belief)so don't bother e- mailing me with your angry comments.

If you want the best examples of 'Bokeh' then go out and buy a copy of Magnums 'In our Time' or come and have a look at my portfolio.OK?

-- Phil the Eye (philkneen@manx.net), April 22, 2002.

Agree with you Phil. Some posted pictures here that are not even demonstrating anything.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), April 22, 2002.

I'd love to see your pictures, Yossi. How about posting the link on this thread so that we may learn something?

-- Fred Sun (redsky3@yahoo.com), April 22, 2002.

I agree with you Phil,but we all can't be Members but we all can strive for it. Example: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=714892&size=lg Regards,Richard Brown

-- Richard Brown (rubyvalentine@earthlink.net), April 22, 2002.

whooo/ http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=714987

-- R (rubyvalentine@earthlink.net), April 22, 2002.

i think the photos tried to demonstate lens characteristics not art, which they do.

yosslee aka phil seems to have a lot of time on his hands.

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Al,

try using neutral density filters - will help you shoot wide open even in bright conditions.

-- Anam Alpenia (aalpenia@dasar.com), April 25, 2002.