Not another Canon vs. Lieca threads! - M Lenses Bokeh

[faraz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi folks,

 

I currently own the M9 with new noctliux lens (f0.95) along with 21mm lux.

 

My two observations regarding these two lenses are that with the summilux, there isn't a lot of bokeh (at least not as good when compared to the noctilux or even 50mm 1.2 or 85mm 1.2 lenses from canon), that is definitely something I didn't expect (I mean I sort of expected better bokeh or more blurred background).

 

More importantly even with the noctliux, while the bokeh while it is very good, it is still not as good as the canon lenses (especially the 85mm 1.2 but also several longer lenses some with f2.8 even). This is especially pronounced with sharp elements within the image, especially at focus boundary (grass, steel structures etc.)

 

Notice, I am not complaining about the areas that are within focus (those are crisp and sharp), I am just surprised at edgy bokeh (or in case of summilux, clearly visible areas outside of the depth of field/focus . With canon lenses that are suited to this task, it is nearly impossible to tell what is in the background (which is almost the case with noct, unless there are sharp edged objects involved) but the summilux simply does not cut it in the bokeh department (Even at 1.4, I can make out most of the details in out of focus areas).

 

Disagreements? Comments? Suggestions for improvement?

[Advertisement]

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

[cheewai_m6]

well with 21mm lens, i wouldn't expect there to be too much out of focus with such a wide angle lens.

 

as for the other lenses, i think it's more of a personal preference. someone else may simply like what you think is not as nice. it's also hard for a reader to understand without seeing a photo. but from what it sounds like, you may have a pre-conceived vision of what the bokeh will be like for the leica lenses, and it turns out to be a bit different, and not to how you'd like it exactly. but again, it's a personal preference. cause there's no way of saying 'this is good bokeh, this is not, and this bokeh is so so...' it's whatever you like.

[Jeff S]

As said above, you need to compare apples to apples...same FOVs, same subject, same or similar aperture, etc. Try a 50 Summilux asph (or your Noctilux) against the Canon 50, under controlled conditions, then report back. I'm guessing you'll have a different view (so to speak). Or not.

 

Jeff

[Nikkor AIS]

Taken with Canon 50 1.0 on Canon 5D2. @1.0

 

 

 

 

 

Lecia Noctilux on Leica M7 @ 1.0 on Ektar.

 

 

 

I love them both. Saying one is better than the other really misses the unique and great qualities of each. One thing to consider is that while one would hope that having a F 1.4 aperture or even a F 1.0 where talking about a 50 mm lens. And depending on you lens to subject distance as well as how far away the back ground is, not to mention your elevation all have an effect on the amount of out of focus blur one will get. As far as the quality of the bokeh. Im just cant go there:. It's just to painfull:p. As far getting more blur try shooting from a lower position and or get closer to your subject.

 

Gregory

[elansprint72]

Wrong sub-forum?

[tgray]

More importantly even with the noctliux, while the bokeh while it is very good, it is still not as good as the canon lenses (especially the 85mm 1.2 but also several longer lenses some with f2.8 even). This is especially pronounced with sharp elements within the image, especially at focus boundary (grass, steel structures etc.)

 

Blur in out of focus areas is highly dependent on focal length and camera-subject distance. My 90/4 at f/4 will produce 'better' bokeh (as you are referring to it) than you 21/1.4 wide open at the same subject distance. Because it's a 90, not because the 21/1.4 has bad bokeh.

 

At 5 ft, your 85/1.2 wide open has a estimated depth of field (DOF) of .07 ft, or 2.1 cm. At 5 ft, your 21/1.4 wide open has a depth of field of 1.48 ft, or 45 cm. That's the difference. Even longer lenses, even at f/2.8 and at larger camera-subject distances, will have less DOF than your 21/1.4, or even your 50/0.95. Read up on DOF and play around with this calculator for a bit.

 

As an aside, usually when people refer to the quality of bokeh, they don't mean the amount of back ground blur. In Nikor AIS photos, if you look at the blurred lights in the Noctilux photo, you'll notice that some of them aren't round and their edges are brighter than their centers. Likewise in the Canon shot, the blur of the yellow flowers has an interesting edge to it that makes them stand out a bit from more uniform blur of the greenery. These kinds of characteristics (and others) are what people usually refer to when they talk about bokeh quality.

[faraz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the replies, I think the DOF is definitely the issue here (not an issue as such but the reason). I agree the 85 1.2 has much, much shallower DOF than the M lenses I am talking about here (which in some cases can be a blessing, since I cannot get both eyes in focus with it unless the subject is at exactly the correct angle from the camera i.e. 90 degrees whereas with the noctilux, this is not the case, heck I am getting shots with eyes and ears both in focus at frequently).

[gjames9142]

I venture into this topic hesitantly but I think that the whole question of whether an out-of-focus area of a photograph is aesthetically pleasing or not is a complete dead-end. The truth is that most of the estimable people on these threads know a lot about gear, but do not seem to have much of a clue about what has happened in photography in the past half-a-century or so. I knew Andre Kertesz quite well -- he was the first person really to use Leica to advantage - and I have in my studio a photograph he made of a railway viaduct in 1927 in the suburban Paris town of Meudon. Everything is in focus -- a passing train, a man carrying a mysterious package. I don't think he or H CB drooled about the quality of out-of-focus areas, The picture itself counted -- its visual intelligence, its inventiveness, its connection to its time. I am actually trying to think of photographs of significance that rely heavily on selective focus -- I am sure there are many, but they don't immediately come to mind. One the small pleasures of photographs is their capacity to render deep space in a way that is counter to the constant fast scanning of the human eye that in fact has very little depth of field, By the way, I have never understood how this word Bokeh has come to exist -- it apparently derives from a differently spelled Japanese word, and comes from the editor of some technical magazine.

[faraz]

I venture into this topic hesitantly but I think that the whole question of whether an out-of-focus area of a photograph is aesthetically pleasing or not is a complete dead-end. The truth is that most of the estimable people on these threads know a lot about gear, but do not seem to have much of a clue about what has happened in photography in the past half-a-century or so. I knew Andre Kertesz quite well -- he was the first person really to use Leica to advantage - and I have in my studio a photograph he made of a railway viaduct in 1927 in the suburban Paris town of Meudon. Everything is in focus -- a passing train, a man carrying a mysterious package. I don't think he or H CB drooled about the quality of out-of-focus areas, The picture itself counted -- its visual intelligence, its inventiveness, its connection to its time. I am actually trying to think of photographs of significance that rely heavily on selective focus -- I am sure there are many, but they don't immediately come to mind. One the small pleasures of photographs is their capacity to render deep space in a way that is counter to the constant fast scanning of the human eye that in fact has very little depth of field, By the way, I have never understood how this word Bokeh has come to exist -- it apparently derives from a differently spelled Japanese word, and comes from the editor of some technical magazine.

 

I agree with the sentiment of your post completely and have even tried to convince myself that selective focus is a one trick pony and should be used selectively *but* and that's a big but, I tend to get much better response from non-photographer friends of mine with images that do have bokeh in them and subjectively this response has been much more pronounced with images from canon lenses as compared to the noctilux. This thread is not meant to justify bokeh as a tool so I won't expend more energy on this topic, its simply that I did not expect the noctilux to have sharper (let's say non-rounded) elements in out of focus area (hence the thread).

[John Black]

The 75mm APO produces very nice bokeh, this was taken @ F2 on the M9:

 

 

Some more images here along with some images taken with the 1Ds3 and Zeiss 100 ZE taken at the same time. I use the 50mm Summilux ASPH quite abit and the 75 APO is on a whole other level.

[Nikkor AIS]

Lovely shot John. Wow , the color and expression are striking.

 

 

Leica 50 1.0 Noctilux on M3 @ 1.0 on Ektar 100

 

When you shot @ 1.0 and really nail the focus and the light and the moment it's hard to beat. If your lucky, there is an inner light that seems to come from the inside. Or even @ 2.0 with longer glass like the Nikkor 300 2.0 IF ED AIS . It's funny that some lament for the days of f/64 the problem with is that Iv seen countless example of photo with large format with extremely shallow depth of field as well as those with everything is in focus, and those in between. Wow, it's almost as differnt photographer have used various apertures .

And you know at the end of the day I could really car a rats a** about what other photographer from another erra drooled about. There dead and gone. I mean really who cares:confused:. This is the hear and the now. Lens like the Noctilux and the canon 50 1.0 and the Nikkor 85 1.4 and lecia 75 1.4...OO all give a look that I cant enough of. There is something about images made with fast glass that get me going. They personally hit me on an emotional level. And I have been fortunate enough to use Fast glass with incredible bokeh for most of my photographic career. And I can tell you that there are thousands of photo graphs in my own personal portfolio that simple would of happened without these lenses. I really think there is portion of people I call them "bokeh haters" that dislike the optical effect and even the basic principle, even the word bokeh. I noticed if you say or even write the words three times they go away. Bokeh, bokeh , bokeh..

 

Gregory

[AlanJW]

Disappointment is a function of expectation. I don't think it reasonable to think that a 21mm will render out of focus areas comparably to a 50mm or the 50mm as well as a 85mm (regardless of brand). We all have to deal with the laws of physics.

 

In any event bokeh is so subjective and essentially unmeasurable in any precise way (unlike for example resolving power) that it boils down to what pleases you.

[faraz]

The 75mm APO produces very nice bokeh, this was taken @ F2 on the M9:

 

Wow! That is what I am talking about. This is an incredible example of effective use of selective focus.

 

Nilkkor AIS, thanks for your input and encouraging words, I appreciate it.

 

WeinschelA, while I agree in principal, if you look at the image posted by John above, it would be difficult to argue it as anything but spectacular.

[AlanJW]

It is spectacular. At the same time, 75mm bokeh can't be compared to 50mm or to 21mm. Part of what makes it so good is the perspective of the 75mm. If the shot were taken much closer with a wider lens, it would be a different shot, and if it were taken at 21mm, a suspect it wouldn't be nearly as good eother in the subject or the bokeh because you'd have to be so much closer.

 

Wow! That is what I am talking about. This is an incredible example of effective use of selective focus.

 

Nilkkor AIS, thanks for your input and encouraging words, I appreciate it.

 

WeinschelA, while I agree in principal, if you look at the image posted by John above, it would be difficult to argue it as anything but spectacular.

[KevinA]

The best bokeh I have seen is from the Kodak portrait lens from about 1940. Bokeh I think is more related to aperture shape than anything else, the Kodak lens has so many blades it's almost circular, the result is beautiful. The trouble is anytime I want the effect I have to drag out the 5x7 and load some film. One day maybe I'll hook it up to a MF digi back and see how it fares.

 

Kevin.

[Mauribix]

Bokeh is subjective I may add, and it's up to the Photographer to know when/how to use a specific lens.

With RF photography it's essential IMHO to know well the equipment, 'cause once you know the lenses as you know your own character, you may take out a striking result from almost any lens on the market, even those credited of a "bad" bokeh.

For example the Nocti bokeh is considered one of the best out there, but how come that the majority of the pictures taken with it by people in the world seems to be absolutely negligible?

IMHO, it's because most of the people can't even know "how" to handle such a lens.

 

As for the O.P., don't expect an OOF area from the 21lux comparable to that of a 50mm lens, matter of fact that's always a 21mm lens!

Anyway, the blur of the OOF area of the 21lux is absolutely awesome in every shot I've seen from that lens IMO.

 

 

P.S.

Gregory, to be clear, that shot of the nocti is terrific! Well done.

[Nikkor AIS]

Thanks Mautizio . I really apprecaite your kind words. I love also love your work and enjoy seeing your images.

 

Faraz, Thank very kindly. Your getting some good input on this thread. I would to see some images from you with your lens wide open in shade at close to minimum focusing distance.

I have had some success with decent bokeh with fast wide primes using this tech. Unfourtantly I dont have the Leica 21 1.4 or 24 1.4 yet , so I will have to show you some examples taken with my Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D on my D3. Although you have significantly wider lens (21 1.4 ) I willing to bet that there is bokeh to be had and that bokeh will good.

 

 

 

 

gregory

[larryk34]

"I am actually trying to think of photographs of significance that rely heavily on selective focus." There are two "portrait" photographs that Cartier-Bresson took that had backgound out of focus qualities that definitely added to the quality of the photograph. One is the hoto of Jean-Pau Sartre on the bridge in Paris (foggy day as well) and the other one is the the one of Simone de Beauvoir on a Paris street, both taken in 1946. I remember being impressed with the prominant backgrounds when I first saw them, which was before I ever saw the word bokeh or read debates about Leica lenses and bokeh. I think it's important for some type of photographs (obviously) but not others. In most of Cartier-Bresson photos background is all in focus or there's no background to be out of focus. He undoubtedly used small apertures to get everything in focus (distant buildings, etc.) but probably had to use the widest aperture to get the portraits just mentioned. "Had to" means that he was not using a Leica just to get those qualities into those particular photographs. It came with the focus and 50mm lens. I'll save you time if you're interested in looking. I found them quickly with google on (very surprised) a Washington Post web site I did not know existed. I also discovered a portait he took of Bobby Kennedy that I didn't know exisited. So why do all the books use the same subset of his photos over and over again? Here's a web copy of the one on the bridge: Washingtonpost.com: Portraits by Henri Cartier-Bresson

Now the one of Simone: Washingtonpost.com: Portraits by Henri Cartier-Bresson

Another Albert Camus: Washingtonpost.com: Portraits by Henri Cartier-Bresson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[gjames9142]

Larry,

 

Thanks for that. No sooner had I posted than I thought of an early HC-B shot of Cardinal Pacelli which has an out of focus background. But my point is that these are few and far between. Nobody spoke about bokeh, because the word wasn't coined until the late 90's by some techie guy; it is a phonetic rendering of the japanese word 'boke'. Some people seem to be shooting everything wide-open, which is fine, though there is probably a reason why we have adjustable diaphragms. Gregory couldn't give a hoot about any photographer who is dead. A bit like saying who gives a damn about Velasquez or Vermeer or Manet. Just look my great water color of a covered bridge...

[Nikkor AIS]

No it's not that. I have respect for all who came before. What Im saying, is that this is are time. And we are making are images of the place things and people around us. . And shooting at F11-64 "just" because notable photographers did so is more to my point that I reject. For me every photo subject is a thing within it self. If "I" feel that wide open is the way than thats what Im going do. The same thing is true with choices in bodies, film lens focus ,printing...00. the entire image chain. Stating that "so and so" did it this way so that the only way is neither helping moving the ball froward photographically speaking or helping create new, creative and exciting images. Now if you want to shoot the same way someone else did. Thats fine. Personally Iv got to many of my own pictures to create.

 

 

 

Nikkor 58 1.2 Nocturnal On D3 @ 1.2

 

 

Nikkor 24 2.0 AIS on F3T Tri-X

 

 

 

Gregory