Best for bokeh?

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Everybody,

 

Interesting discussion.

 

I have a Version I 35mm Summicron which I probably use for 90% of the pictures I take. I am quite satisfied w/ bokeh etc @ 4, 5.6 & 8 where I mostly use it @ all distances up to 1 : 15

 

A lot of people here like this lens for its bokeh.

 

But I must say it in no way compares @ any aperture as far as bokeh or anything else is concerned (given the inherent intrinsic limits of specific focal lengths) to my 1st optical version second mechanical version - knurled not dimpled - removable lens head 135 Tele-Elmar @ all distances up to & including 1 : 1

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[thompsonkirk]

Such an interesting series to contemplate! I found that I would mentally score pluses for the center & lower-right OOF areas, & minuses for harshness in the the upper left area of tree-against-open-sky (visible in shots up to 50mm).

 

I was surprised that the old 5 cm Summarit 1.5 looked so Nocti-like!

 

The shots at f3.4 or f3.5 looked quite nice to me. Given the lens-to-subject distance here, I'd expected the most pleasing bokeh to occur at the wider apertures.

 

In my own mental tabulation of pluses & minuses – adding a dash of intuition – I thought the 50 (pre-asph) & 75 Summiluxes were 'best for bokeh,' as the original poster asked. I'm personally happy with a 50 pre-asph Lux, but don't have the 75. I tried one & its images were gorgeous, but I just couldn't hold it in focus wide open.

 

Dr. Mandler's lenses live on after him.

 

How did others 'read' the images?

 

Kirk

 

.

[farnz]

Thanks, Uli, for providing these shots for comparison.

 

Disclaimer: the following may sound like a definition of 'good bokeh' (whatever that may be). It's not. It's just what appeals to me and what I look for.

 

I look for:

- gradual 'flow' from in-focus to out of focus areas; gentle is good, abrupt isn't, eg 50 Lux asph, 75AA and 90AA are examples of gentle.

- softness in the out of focus areas; melding of adjacent objects is good, eg 50 Lux; visible edges isn't, eg tree at bottom right with 50 Summarit

- maintenance of form; I prefer out of objects to be just recognisable rather than a large, amorphous blob, eg none of these pictures display it so Canon 50/0.95 (not shown)

- clear, evenly-lit disks from specular highlights; disks with brighter or coloured edges indicate lens aberrations and distract from the focal point

- the absence of double edges in out of focus areas

 

To me, the function of bokeh is to lead the eye back to the in-focus area, so out of focus objects and areas shouldn't be distracting or they defeat the purpose.

 

One thing I found interesting was how the lenses treated the patch of light to the right of centre and halfway up, just below the pale yellow leaves of the maple tree in the foreground. Some provided harsh edges between light and dark and others provided a much softer border but each had its own 'signature'.

 

The most suprising thing for me was the huge difference at f/3.5 between the 35/3.5 Summaron and the 35/2.8 Summaron, which is slightly sharper and has far more appealing colour rendition under the same lighting conditions. For me this goes further than just warmer and cooler lenses.

 

Pete.

[thompsonkirk]

Thank you, Pete, for your description of the bokeh you like – which puts words to my own thoughts & feelings.

 

Kirk

[ehegwer]

UliWer -

 

What a great comparison of lenses. I hope you don't mind, but I *stole* the images and lens info. This series of shots will absolutely guide me in some future purchases.

[IkarusJohn]

Thanks UliWer for taking the time to post those pictures - most illuminating (no pun intended).

 

The Summilux 50 Asph looks very good (and I'm pleased I have one on order), as does the Summicron 75 AA (which I picked up second hand). It's a shame you didn't have the Summicron 35 Asph (my current go to lens) - it has the reputation of very fine bokeh.

 

I must say, I found some of the older lenses a bit "blobby", but I guess it is a question of taste.

[JBA]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Great thread! And indeed, thanks UliWer for a series of very instructive photos.

[!Nomad64]

Hi folks!

Here's my contribution to this thread, involving three non-Leitz lenses, namely Zeiss ZM Sonnar 1.5/50, Planar 2/50 and an old glory, the Canon/Serenar LTM 1.5/50, a Sonnar clone of the '50s.

 

Let's start with the fastest lenses at full aperture:

 

Sonnar @ f1.5:

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!

 

Serenar @ f1.5:

 

Then closing all lenses to f2 for the sake of comparison with the Planar:

 

Sonnar @ f2

 

Serenar @ f2:

 

Planar @ f2:

 

IMHO the Sonnar has the sweetest bokeh, however being plagued by the infamous focus shift issue. My lens is optimized to focus at 1.5. Interestingly enough, the Serenar keeps better the focus and, at least at wider apertures, compares very well against the Sonnar, however producing a slightly harsher, busier bokeh. Especially in the pics taken at full aperture, Serenar's bokeh appears a bit obtrusive and distracting. Check the OOF circles towards the left of the pictures. Serenar's ones look like bubbles in sparkling water, the Sonnar's ones however visible stay more discreet.

The Planar has a good performance. It's sharper, has a flatter curvature of field and has a bokeh of an intermediate shape between the Sonnar and the Serenar, a bit strong but still acceptable.

IMHO Sonnar's got the best bokeh and the Planar's got best overall performance, but for sure the Serenar's no slouch. For being almost 60 years old it is truly a remarkable lens!

 

Cheers,

Bruno