Onion Ring Bokeh ball 50mm Lux ASPH?

[Rus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has anyone also seen onion rings in the bokeh produced by the Summilux M 50mm ASPH?

 

I've seen this in several of the photos taken by my copy (SN starts with 41xx..), and I have also seen the same in quite a number of photos by other users online.

 

In both the follow bokeh comparison threads in the links below, you can also make out the onion ring patterns in the shots by the Lux 50 ASPH.

 

http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2014/10/bokeh-kings/

 

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=666762

 

Just wondering if you have also seen this with your copy? Is this a copy-to-copy variation or a common thing with this lens?

[TomB_tx]

Pretty much a characteristic of lenses with press-formed aspheric elements.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[adan]

I dunno - In that "Kings of Bokeh" article, I see internal rings/circular bands within the blur circles for the 1967 Noctilux - even more than for the 50 ASPH - and the original Nocti has some ASPH glass, but ground, not pressed-formed. Not that I'm arguing that can't be a source of internal bands in bokeh blurs.

 

I suspect the LED light sources used in that article (per the author's text) are emitting nearly monochromatic light, and therefore could be producing some interference patterns - I see obvious onion rings with many of the lenses, some much more obvious that with the 50 ASPH Summilux.

 

Science is figuring out every possible cause of a phenomenon, and then running tests that will rule in - or out - all those variables. Not running one test controlling only one variable (specific lens) and assuming that only the lens accounts for any effects. It could be an effect of a digital sensor vs. film; or one sensor vs. another; or one shape/type of sensor microlene vs. another; or the light source type (LEDs vs. tungsten-filament bulbs); or the size and/or distance of the light source. etc. etc.

 

EDIT - the other test - with what looks like tungsten bulb sources in the background, is a little more definitive - the 50 Summilux ASPH does look like the only one with faint rings inside the blur shapes. OTOH, the 50 f/0.95 (also using pressed ASPH surfaces) doesn't seem to show much in the way of rings.

Edited April 12, 2017 by adan

[NB23]

Let's call them "Magic Onion Rings ™" and let our summilux 50s soar in price.

 

Or even "Magical Leica APO Onion Rings ™".

 

--

Edited April 12, 2017 by NB23

[Exodies]

Which lens would you vote to be Lord of the Onion Rings?

[Guest]

Elmar 2.8/50 + Summarit 35 are out.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Which lens would you vote to be Lord of the Onion Rings?

 

Any lens which is tripe.

[Rus]

I must confess it is a bit annoying to know that the lux 50 asph suffers from this problem. I just wonder if this is common to all the lux 50 asph copies or just seen in some of them.

[lct]

Bokeh depends upon many factors but i have never found "onion rings" so far.

Handheld tests with my 50/1.4 asph below.

Higher (left) and lower (right) highlight settings in PP.

The ovale shape at f/1.4 is due to a slightly different angle of view.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Rus]

Thanks for testing, lct. I do seem to see a faint hint of concentric rings in the lower light settings in your test shots, but nothing as dramatic as those that I've seen in some of my photos.

 

Here are two of them. I only see that most clearly when I set the focus point very close (and thus when the bokeh balls are very large). I do not see onion rings quite as often when I focus to say 3-5 metres, when the bokeh balls are quite small.

 

I also see them more often in dimmer bokeh balls, since the fine lines of the onion rings are masked when the bokeh balls are brighter.

 

 

 

[lct]

I hardly see anything questionable in those pics. My onion sensitivity must not be pronounced enough i guess .

[mmradman]

I hardly see anything questionable in those pics. My onion sensitivity must not be pronounced enough i guess .

Time to go to Specsavers :-) - it is a UK reference to an advert for Optician chain.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pqOwg0dqApY

 

I can see faint concentric rings in you examples and I can see concentric rings in pictures taken with my Summilux 50mm ASPH.

[Exodies]

Is there no software to detect aberrations, I find the forum banter based on the forum's low-fi picture rule to be very unsatisfactory. And our eyes are so easily fooled by content. It must be easier than face recognition.

[adan]

I guess the question would be - do these rings show up in many pictures that are not "engineered" to make them occur (i.e. pictures of blurred point light sources, rather than simple natural-light backgrounds), and at any print size below 1m x 1.5m (3 feet x 4.5 feet)? Do they show up in film images (50 ASPH introduced 2004), or just in pixel-peeped digital images?

 

Given that: the 50 Summilux ASPH is very sharp at f/1.4 (and other apertures) - and it is very sharp at f/1.4 because it uses ASPH elements - and it costs $4800 because it uses press-moulded ASPHs - and could likely cost $10000 or more if made with hand-polished ASPHs (which might eliminate the onion-rings, but involve a huge failure/wastage rate - cf. the 35 f/1.4 "Aspherical") - are they actually a major issue? Or at least a $5000 issue?

 

The shot below is with the 75 Summilux - vaunted for its creamy bokeh in most settings. But with bright pinpoint lights in the background, while it doesn't show any onion-rings as such, it does show the dreaded "bright ring bokeh" all over the place, and in spots, some kind of partial rings inside the blur shapes.

 

Bright pinpoint lights as a bokeh test can be informative, but they are an extremely limited "worst-case" acid test. Who seriously photographs nothing except pictures with blurry pinpoint lights in the background? Who wants a lens designed soley and only to pass the "onion-ring" (or any other ring) test?

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Exact same lens - under more rational lighting, similar subject/background distances. very few bright rings here (except for a couple of point light sources that crept in).

 

Edited April 15, 2017 by adan

[lct]

Lot of "cat's eyes" here but cats don't like onions fortunately. Just kidding.

[NB23]

 

- and it costs $4800 because it uses press-moulded ASPHs - and could likely cost $10000 or more if made with hand-polished ASPHs (which might eliminate the onion-rings, but involve a huge failure/wastage rate - cf. the 35 f/1.4 "Aspherical") - are they actually a major issue? Or at least a $5000 issue?

 

 

Please! This is pure Leica victim nonsense.

 

It costs 4800$ because it is pressed?

Then why do entry level dslr zoom lenses with multiple pressed aspheric elements cost only 100$?

Let's face it, pressing an asph element costs 12.38$. Or even 7.29$.

 

The high Leica prices are based on other factors with a huge premium for the name alone.

[B-A-C]

I'm looking at your pics but I don't understand the question.  Bokeh looks good.

[pgk]

Is there no software to detect aberrations, I find the forum banter based on the forum's low-fi picture rule to be very unsatisfactory. And our eyes are so easily fooled by content. It must be easier than face recognition.

 

Absolutely. These 'onion rings' could all too easily be down to a myriad of factors to do with compression and other processing, and have absolutely nothing to do with the lens whatsoever. I have the 50 Aspheric Summilux and have never noticed such a characteristic. And even if there was this 'onion ring' bokeh, what of it?

[pgk]

Please! This is pure Leica victim nonsense.

 

It costs 4800$ because it is pressed?

Then why do entry level dslr zoom lenses with multiple pressed aspheric elements cost only 100$?

Let's face it, pressing an asph element costs 12.38$. Or even 7.29$.

 

The high Leica prices are based on other factors with a huge premium for the name alone.

 

Depends what glass it is pressed from for a start and the level of failures (out of tolerance, etc.). Difficult for anyone here to be definitive on costs unless they are 'in the know' about actual costs to Leica. But I suspect that in the overall scheme of things the fact that a lens uses aspheric elements isn't a huge factor in its actual cost.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adli]

Please! This is pure Leica victim nonsense.

 

It costs 4800$ because it is pressed?

Then why do entry level dslr zoom lenses with multiple pressed aspheric elements cost only 100$?

Let's face it, pressing an asph element costs 12.38$. Or even 7.29$.

 

The high Leica prices are based on other factors with a huge premium for the name alone.

 

Compare the image taken wih the 50 Lux with same image taken with a 100$ zoom. 

 

You will easily see the difference at any aperture. Not to mention how difficult it will be to find a 100$ zoom with an aperture of 1.4