roguewave Posted July 16, 2010 Share #41 Posted July 16, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Do yourself a favor & buy the 35 lux pre asph. Plenty sharp, even wide open. The finest bokeh of any 35 lens Leica ever designed. BTW, it's less than half the cost of the problem child 35 ASPH. It's my favorite M lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Hi roguewave, Take a look here 35 Lux 'M' on the M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ndjambrose Posted July 16, 2010 Share #42 Posted July 16, 2010 The VC 35mm 1,4 has the worst and busiest bokeh at any DOF, aperture or distance. Trully the worst lens I have ever used/owned. Trully horrible, unsharp with al sorts of chromatic aberrations. I was so shocked I thought it was bad. But then I sat back and analyzed size, weight, aperture and price... You can't have it all I guess. Funny how opinions differ, isn't it. I find the 35 Nokton to be very good, in fact it's one of my favourite lenses. The unsharpness is one of the things I like most. It gives an immense creaminess to low light images, especially ones shot on high speed film. And I find it well balanced and capable of great nuance. I often use it in preference to my Noctilux. An astonishing amount of performance for about 10% of the price. Example 1 Example 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFV Posted July 16, 2010 Share #43 Posted July 16, 2010 Funny how opinions differ, isn't it. I find the 35 Nokton to be very good, in fact it's one of my favourite lenses. The unsharpness is one of the things I like most. It gives an immense creaminess to low light images, especially ones shot on high speed film. And I find it well balanced and capable of great nuance. I often use it in preference to my Noctilux. An astonishing amount of performance for about 10% of the price. Example 1 Example 2 Are you using it on film or on the M9? I tested it on my M9 and the results where just terrible, I even lent it to a friend without telling him my thoughts and he was embarased to tell me how bad it was. Maybe the lens needs to be looked at... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicashot Posted July 17, 2010 Share #44 Posted July 17, 2010 Well... Boy, I really dislike commenting on something as subjective or intangible as "bokeh" , but here it goes... First, there are differences between front and rear bokeh (as you can appreciate from the first picture). The front bokeh is shooth and creamy you could say, while the further away the "bussier" it becomes. I have no way to explain this technically but it happens when you shoot 35mm or wider at distances closer to infinity. For instance, retake the shot with the same settings and frame it so that the top part of the picture is not more than 6 or 7 feet away. I am almost certain that your bokeh would be well within smooth range just like the front part. Wide angle lenses are not really ideal as are telepho lenses for bokeh. The bokeh effect in some ways works similarly to DOF. Over time I have learned to awoid having infinity in my frame when shooting at narrow DOF with a wide angle. I have absolutely no facts to back this up, just many rolls of film on my bellowed M6... In any case, there are always exceptions. The VC 35mm 1,4 has the worst and busiest bokeh at any DOF, aperture or distance. Trully the worst lens I have ever used/owned. Trully horrible, unsharp with al sorts of chromatic aberrations. I was so shocked I thought it was bad. But then I sat back and analyzed size, weight, aperture and price... You can't have it all I guess. There is no difference between front/rear bokeh. It appears different due to the distance to camera, and depth of field as well as compression ratio. All lenses will usually look better in the foreground than the background, but it is mostly dependent on the shapes of the objects OOF. No one is trying to use a wide angle lens as a telephoto lens for bokeh, as that doesn't make sense...but people love to shoot wide angles at shallow depth of field for the unique look achieved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicashot Posted July 17, 2010 Share #45 Posted July 17, 2010 Are you using it on film or on the M9? I tested it on my M9 and the results where just terrible, I even lent it to a friend without telling him my thoughts and he was embarased to tell me how bad it was. Maybe the lens needs to be looked at... Besides the possibility of focus issues, a lens on film should be good on digital unless it suffers from digital issues such as CA etc. How about describing what you mean by 'terrible' and providing examples so people understand what you mean? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 17, 2010 Share #46 Posted July 17, 2010 There is no difference between front/rear bokeh. It appears different due to the distance to camera, and depth of field as well as compression ratio. Nonsense. Apart from special cases like the effects caused in catadioptric (mirror) lenses by the central secondary mirror, most bokeh problems are caused by over- or undercorrected spherical aberration. And these effects are indeed different behind and in front. Over-corrected, for instance, produces the famous "rollled-up condom" effect behind the focused plane -- point highlights have a bright perimeter and a more subdued interior -- while the effect is the opposite in front: Bright center, darker periphery. With undercorrection, the effects switch their positions. Other aberrations that do contribute, e.g. coma and astigmatism, do in fact tend to be similar behind and in front -- but they are significant in the plane of best focus too! They are simply more visible in the o.o.f. areas. This is just to pre-empt some arguments. But the very significant part played by the non-symmetrical effects of spherical, is generally recognized. The old man from the Spherical Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicashot Posted July 17, 2010 Share #47 Posted July 17, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Nonsense. Apart from special cases like the effects caused in catadioptric (mirror) lenses by the central secondary mirror, most bokeh problems are caused by over- or undercorrected spherical aberration. And these effects are indeed different behind and in front. Over-corrected, for instance, produces the famous "rollled-up condom" effect behind the focused plane -- point highlights have a bright perimeter and a more subdued interior -- while the effect is the opposite in front: Bright center, darker periphery. With undercorrection, the effects switch their positions. Other aberrations that do contribute, e.g. coma and astigmatism, do in fact tend to be similar behind and in front -- but they are significant in the plane of best focus too! They are simply more visible in the o.o.f. areas. This is just to pre-empt some arguments. But the very significant part played by the non-symmetrical effects of spherical, is generally recognized. The old man from the Spherical Age Sorry again I disagree. A lens cannot determine the difference between front/rear bokeh. Yes they will always look different but designers aren't exactly trying to design with front/rear in mind as far as I know. The bokeh in the rear can be replicated in the front just by focus distance and positioning in the frame. Front will almost always look cleaner due to the way that people shoot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hart Posted July 17, 2010 Share #48 Posted July 17, 2010 Do yourself a favor & buy the 35 lux pre asph. Plenty sharp, even wide open. The finest bokeh of any 35 lens Leica ever designed. BTW, it's less than half the cost of the problem child 35 ASPH. It's my favorite M lens. I agree. And it's less than half the size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted July 17, 2010 Share #49 Posted July 17, 2010 Sorry again I disagree. A lens cannot determine the difference between front/rear bokeh. You're entitled to disagree as much as you like, but you're wrong and Lars is right. It's true that bokeh will vary with distance—but it will vary with distance before and behind the plane of focus in different ways. With some lenses the difference between foreground and background bokeh is small, with others it's very obvious. In most cases where the difference is big, usually the foreground bokeh is nice and the background bokeh is busy ... which is a pity because in most image compositions, the background bokeh is the more important one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndjambrose Posted July 17, 2010 Share #50 Posted July 17, 2010 Are you using it on film or on the M9? I tested it on my M9 and the results where just terrible, I even lent it to a friend without telling him my thoughts and he was embarased to tell me how bad it was. Maybe the lens needs to be looked at... Both film and digital. I've found it equally excellent in both. If yours is "truly the worst lens [you've] ever owned" then you may want to try another for comparison in case yours is defective. Because mine is one of the best lenses I've owned - on a price to performance basis maybe the absolute best - but even on performance alone, I'm happy to use it alongside, sometimes in preference to, many of my Leica lenses. The only notable weakness that bothers me is it's very susceptible to flare. But this can be fixed with a decent hood and/or choosing the multicoated version. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicashot Posted July 17, 2010 Share #51 Posted July 17, 2010 You're entitled to disagree as much as you like, but you're wrong and Lars is right. It's true that bokeh will vary with distance—but it will vary with distance before and behind the plane of focus in different ways. With some lenses the difference between foreground and background bokeh is small, with others it's very obvious. In most cases where the difference is big, usually the foreground bokeh is nice and the background bokeh is busy ... which is a pity because in most image compositions, the background bokeh is the more important one. If you've shot enough, you may realize that there is truth in mine and Lar's comments. I still haven't seen any proof that lenses are designed to have particular foreground/background bokeh. Yes of course background bokeh is always worse but it has more to do with the way people shoot than the way they're designed. Honestly I can't believe I've wasted so much time talking about one of the least important aspects of photography, but one of the most important aspects of gear talk. I should be spending more time learning how to improve my photography, and not my bokeh. In relation to the new lens, I couldn't care less how it looks as long as it's not ridiculous and focus's well. Out of sharpness, distortion/flare control etc I place bokeh last, as most images shot at full aperture I see are usually shot to show the bokeh, and not because it's the best choice of aperture for the image. While I respect that people care so much about bokeh, if people spent more time worrying about how to make their next image better than the last, and not worrying so much about bokeh signatures, they might just improve their photography - and thats why I use Leica. Personally I'd love to see some images worthy of the new Summilux, instead of those designed to show off it's bokeh potential and characteristics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFV Posted July 17, 2010 Share #52 Posted July 17, 2010 Besides the possibility of focus issues, a lens on film should be good on digital unless it suffers from digital issues such as CA etc. How about describing what you mean by 'terrible' and providing examples so people understand what you mean? Yes, I was planing on posting a comparison shots between the new LUX 35 (when ever it arrives...), the Zeiss 35, and the VC 35. Here I depend on my dealer. I will try to post samples of the CV 35 next week when I get back home. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFV Posted July 17, 2010 Share #53 Posted July 17, 2010 Both film and digital. I've found it equally excellent in both. If yours is "truly the worst lens [you've] ever owned" then you may want to try another for comparison in case yours is defective. Because mine is one of the best lenses I've owned - on a price to performance basis maybe the absolute best - but even on performance alone, I'm happy to use it alongside, sometimes in preference to, many of my Leica lenses. The only notable weakness that bothers me is it's very susceptible to flare. But this can be fixed with a decent hood and/or choosing the multicoated version. Hmmm, I will post pictures as soon as I get back. The more I hear, the more I am starting to believe that there is something wrong with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted July 17, 2010 Share #54 Posted July 17, 2010 Hmmm, I will post pictures as soon as I get back. The more I hear, the more I am starting to believe that there is something wrong with it. Why not just buy the Summarit 35mm? You'll get a fantastic lens and will save a lot of money too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted July 17, 2010 Share #55 Posted July 17, 2010 I still haven't seen any proof that lenses are designed to have particular foreground/background bokeh. No-one said anything to this effect. Yes, of course background bokeh is always worse ... Neither said anybody anything to that effect. Seems you're having a serious problem with your reading comprehension ... Why not just buy the Summarit-M 35 mm? You'll get a fantastic lens and will save a lot of money too. Unless a faster speed is desperately needed, I very seriously second that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicashot Posted July 17, 2010 Share #56 Posted July 17, 2010 No-one said anything to this effect. Neither said anybody anything to that effect. Seems you're having a serious problem with your reading comprehension ... Unless a faster speed is desperately needed, I very seriously second that. Yes I must need my eyes checked, as I have a tough time deciphering what someone is implying when they're not speaking directly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFV Posted July 17, 2010 Share #57 Posted July 17, 2010 Why not just buy the Summarit 35mm? You'll get a fantastic lens and will save a lot of money too. Speed is the main reason for this choice. Most of what I use the 35mm focal is indoor and low light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFV Posted July 17, 2010 Share #58 Posted July 17, 2010 Honestly I can't believe I've wasted so much time talking about one of the least important aspects of photography, but one of the most important aspects of gear talk. I should be spending more time learning how to improve my photography, and not my bokeh. In relation to the new lens, I couldn't care less how it looks as long as it's not ridiculous and focus's well. Out of sharpness, distortion/flare control etc I place bokeh last, as most images shot at full aperture I see are usually shot to show the bokeh, and not because it's the best choice of aperture for the image. Can't agree more. That is why I dislike talking about something as intangible, subjective or secondary as bokeh. Surprisingly, I see that it is one of the most appreciated feature in fast glass and perhaps has too much attention. Sometimes if you concentrate too much on details it can stop you from seeking to improve and take better pictures. I am certain that is the goal of everybody here. I usually enjoy bokeh it when it manifests itself adding to the picture. It is only a few times that I recall forcing that effect on purpose when making a picture. What is fascinating is the technical aspect (which I have little knowledge of... and I plan to read more in this this afternoon.) as it is commented here. The question maybe is whether your LUX is wrong or if the design just makes an "unattractive" bokeh. If it is the design of the LUX that is at fault then I am certain it is a matter of compromise. Why compromise? Simple, you just can't have it all; size, weight, speed, definition, contrast, sharpness up to the edges at al apertures, price etc... there is a moment where you just have to compromise and choose your priorities. As far as I am concerned I only encountered horrible bokeh twice in my life that struck me enough to notice (the VC 35 f1,4 and a Nikkor 24-120mm). Oddly, both displayed that horrible "busy" bokeh that has been described before. They also have almost identical characteristics and are the worst lenses I have ever owned. In any case, after reading some comments here (especially on the VC), I have decided to have them looked at if they are indeed flawed individually and not just a characteristic of the model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted July 17, 2010 Share #59 Posted July 17, 2010 I Love the 1st generation 35 lux asph, never lets me down at any aperture. Some of the images I'm seeing from the new one have a "look" that reminds me of my 21 lux asph, and other's 24 lux asph that I have seen. Intangible, hard to describe, but there seems to be a common element of signature in these latest leica lenses. best....Peter from my 1st generation 35 lux asph..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted July 17, 2010 Share #60 Posted July 17, 2010 In any case, after reading some comments here (especially on the VC), I have decided to have them looked at if they are indeed flawed individually and not just a characteristic of the model. It is indeed possible that a lens is individually flawed in a way that only slightly affects sharpness but at the same time affects bokeh significantly. In particular, mild de-centering of lens elements has the potential to do that. Some lenses can be adjusted at customer's service, others (mostly cheap ones) cannot. That said, in most cases unpleasant bokeh is not so much an individual problem but inherent to a lens' design. Still, having a lens looked at can't hurt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.