Summilux 35mm and focus shift

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not to jump in on Michael's behalf, but his statement is very open: It amounts to "super boke sometimes derives from undercorrected spherical aberration."

 

"waxing poetic about the wonderful bokeh" = "super boke"

"chances are" = "as like as not" or "often" or "sometimes"

 

As I read the remark, Michael doesn't say that if you like the boke of a particular lens, that lens must suffer from focus shift.

 

Just my two bits.

[Advertisement]

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

[lars_bergquist]

It is true that undercorrected spherical gives rise to a kind of bokeh that many people find pleasant – beyond the plane of focus. But the exact opposite is the case in front of it. The best situation is when spherical aberration is corrected just right. The v.2 Summilux is very close to just right. It has a well balanced bokeh at all distances.

 

Anyone complaining about v.2 bokeh should take a look at Canon's corresponding lens, which is nothing short of horrible. People that pedantic should change over to stamp collecting. Photography is a practical pursuit, where you make the best of conditions that are usually sub-optimal. Remember that the photographer too is pretty sub-optimal!

 

I sold my v.1 and I am now working with v.2. Out there, it is working just fine. The picture below was taken at f:2. It is my fault, not the lense's, that it is not better than that. You are the limiting factor.

 

The aspherical old man

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!

[lct]

Tempting lens (again). Lars, stop to display your pics please my wallet does not like them at all.

[hoppyman]

Erwin Puts has added some additional discussion and controlled comparison to his website under the Leica tab

 

Home

[Peter Lea]

And what have you got against stamp collectors. Lars???

[zlatkob]

Anyone complaining about v.2 bokeh should take a look at Canon's corresponding lens, which is nothing short of horrible.

Yikes, you mean the Canon 35/1.4L? That is one of my favorite lenses, for bokeh and everything else. And a favorite lens of at least one of my favorite photographers. Aspherical element + floating element. A 9.5 rating on Fredmiranda.com (184 reviews). 5/5 stars on Bhphoto.com (177 reviews). 5/5 stars on Amazon.com (28 reviews).

 

Steve Huff posted Canon 35/1.4L samples here:

http://www.stevehuffphotos.com/Steve_Huff_Photos/CANON_35L_REVIEW_files/birdsnest.jpg

http://www.stevehuffphotos.com/Steve_Huff_Photos/CANON_35L_REVIEW_files/IMG_7249small.jpg

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Though this should apply to the new Noctilux as well - from what I have seen you can't say anything against the bokeh of the new one, but it has less focus shift - or not?

While I wouldn’t say anything against the bokeh of the new Noctilux, it is clearly different from the bokeh of the old (and if you had been in love with the latter, your love-affair with the new Noctilux may not be quite as hot).

 

Different people have different views on what constitutes “good” bokeh, but more often than not it is the blurry circles of confusion people are after – undercorrected spherical aberration, in other words, and focus-shift is just the other side of the same coin.

 

If, on the other hand, a good balance between undercorrection and overcorrection of spherical aberration is your idea of a good bokeh, then obviously you are in luck – that’s also a recipe for a lens without focus-shift.

 

Btw, Lars is right: If you think the bokeh behind the plane of sharp focus is good, you will find the bokeh in front of it to be quite harsh, and vice-versa. The equation of undercorrected spherical aberration with good bokeh and overcorrection with bad bokeh rests on the assumption that we usually care most about background bokeh and much less about foreground bokeh.

[Muizen]

Dear Lars,

When I see your picture I am totally amased what you can do with the Sum 35mm! It is almost a painting so beautiful. It certainly is first of all your talent knowing how to compose and also the settings you use.

I would very much like to be capable after my investment in my M9 and the Summilux 35mm to at least to imitate you. What advise can you give me apart from going out and shoot? I also have a small problem with handshake due to age and try to compensate by using the Leica table top resting against breast and shoulders, but this is all kind of complicated!

Thanks for this beautiful photo!

Harry

 

 

 

It is true that undercorrected spherical gives rise to a kind of bokeh that many people find pleasant – beyond the plane of focus. But the exact opposite is the case in front of it. The best situation is when spherical aberration is corrected just right. The v.2 Summilux is very close to just right. It has a well balanced bokeh at all distances.

 

The aspherical old man

[gotium]

 

The aspherical old man

 

Lars -

 

Let me take this random opportunity to thank you for your consistently useful and insightful posts. I don't write much here, as I don't have much to say, but I do read a lot, and I find that I go out looking for your posts; there is a real depth in understanding behind your words, and I am always learning from you.

 

Tack alltså!

 

G

[UliWer]

...

Different people have different views on what constitutes “good” bokeh, but more often than not it is the blurry circles of confusion people are after – undercorrected spherical aberration, in other words, and focus-shift is just the other side of the same coin.

 

....

 

It's true, that there are no generally accepted criteria of "good" bokeh, as the term itsself has no clear definition.

 

Unfortunately we don't often see direkt comparisons of different lenses with photos taken of the same object und the same conditions. This would be necessary to start thinking about if and why the rendering of one lens might be called better than that of another.

 

As long as we are missing this, we can only stick to things we can measure: focus shift can be measured, evaluation of bokeh needs a completely different approach.

[pgk]

Anyone complaining about v.2 bokeh should take a look at Canon's corresponding lens, which is nothing short of horrible.

 

The aspherical old man

If you take a look at 'EF Lens work III' you will find that Canon state that 35mm f/1.4L's ' 9th element is a ground aspherical lens that thoroughly eliminates spherical aberration and distortion. There is also a comment about the 'floating mechanism' used to maintain quality down to the closest focus. You are overstating it to say that they result is 'horrible' and this lens does have a very good reputation amongst users, myself included.

 

From the few images that I have seen posted the bokeh produced by the L lens is less like the v.1 bokeh and would appear to be closer to the v.2 bokeh which, given its design is what maight be expected.

[lars_bergquist]

And what have you got against stamp collectors. Lars???

 

Nothing, Peter. I did it when I was a kid. The point is that stamp collecting and photography are very different pursuits. Photography, again, is a practical business and subject to practical constraints. The philatelist can be as finicky and as arbitrary as he pleases.

 

And even in the analog era, we did not count perforations ...

 

The old man

[lars_bergquist]

[ ... ]I would very much like to be capable after my investment in my M9 and the Summilux 35mm to at least to imitate you. What advise can you give me apart from going out and shoot? I also have a small problem with handshake due to age and try to compensate by using the Leica table top resting against breast and shoulders, but this is all kind of complicated!

Thanks for this beautiful photo!

Harry

Harry, "going out and shoot" is actually the only piece of advice I can give you – as long as you use the occasions to practice your eye and your timing. It's like Zen: It cannot be taught or learned, but it can be intuited.

 

Hand shake is a difficult problem, but one way of attacking it is breathing technique. Be relaxed, breathe in, breathe out partially – and roll the shutter. Also try to use the strap as a support, crossing your left shoulder and wound around your left forearm. Best of luck.

 

The old man

[lars_bergquist]

Yikes, you mean the Canon 35/1.4L? That is one of my favorite lenses, for bokeh and everything else.

 

Well. Late in 2009, LFI and Leica ran a 35mm photo competition. Second place was taken by Richard Humphries, who photographed men icing fish in Pattani in Thailand – with a Canon EF 35mm !:1.4L. And the background bokeh of that image is nothing short of an eyesore, with its double contours and its strange detail distortions. Look for yourself at the picture in LFI 3/2010 (April), on the spread on pp. 24–25. I would never keep a lens with that kind of performance. Did 'richpix' buy a lemon? Not likely.

 

Needless to say, no other 35mm lens whose pictures were published behaved like that. But that was Leica glass.

 

The old man

[Shade]

I would have to agree that the canon 35/1,4L bokeh department can use some improvements. But nonetheless, its a great lens when used carefully. I owned one before, but it just didn't click with me..

 

Back to the leica 35/1,4 Lux, now I'm using the v2, I find the bokeh is more critical compared to the softer nature of v1. The difference is very subtle and only appears in certain condition where the background is filled with many details (such as a tree)..

 

If I never used the v1 before, I would have no complaints at all. The v2 is an all-around superb lens.. I now feel my m9 is a point and shoot without the need of changing its lens. I actually sold all my other leica lenses.

[denoir]

I am certain that the subject of focus shift with the Summilux 35 has been on this forum several times, but I can't find any conclusive information.

I have been offered a really mint Summilux 35mm serial number 3749059 (1996?) but I have read that this lens seems to have a focus shift problem which apparently was the reason for the recent replacement?

I wonder whether this "focus shift" really is a serious problem because this lens has been on the market for over 16 years from 1994 till the middle of this year? Nobody would buy an expensive lens with a serious problem.

I hope that I will find an answer on this forum whether or not to purchase this 35mm Summilux.

Thanks on beforehand!

 

I just bought a MkI 35 Summilux ASPH yesterday. One curious thing is that lens was purchased new by its previous owner in late December 2009 (I have the original receipt). It is 6-bit coded. Yet the serial is 381xxxx which puts the production year at 1997. It's in like new condition and the previous owner didn't use it much. I'm not sure what the explanation for the serial number is - if it is a 1997 lens that was never sold and later 6 bit coded or something else.

 

Anwyay, one of the first things I tested was focus shift:

 

Test scene. Focus @ MFD:

 

 

Closer crop:

 

 

As you can see, there is definitely focus shift but that the desired focus falls within the DOF at all apertures. So I can't complain.

 

So far, I'm very happy with the rendering. My gold standard for fast 35 mm lenses is my Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon (converted from Rollei mount) and I'm happy to say that the 35 Lux ASPH lives up to it.

[Guest mc_k]

I just bought a MkI 35 Summilux ASPH yesterday. One curious thing is that lens was purchased new by its previous owner in late December 2009 (I have the original receipt). It is 6-bit coded. Yet the serial is 381xxxx which puts the production year at 1997. It's in like new condition and the previous owner didn't use it much. I'm not sure what the explanation for the serial number is - if it is a 1997 lens that was never sold and later 6 bit coded or something else.

...

 

Test looks o.k.

 

The dealer may have had the lens coded after it sat on the shelf forever.