Bokeh, Bokeh, Bokeh

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK, I've read about it for years, but for YOU what M lens has the best bokeh-old lens or new lens.

 

Rate best bokeh lens you own overall--

 

Then for you lucky enough to own 3 best bokeh lenses, rate by--

 

Wide Angle-

Normal-

Telephoto-

 

Opinions wanted. Thanks.

 

Yes, I am looking to buy one, but which one?

 

Is there truly an overall king of bokeh?

[Advertisement]

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

[StephenPatterson]

Are you really going to buy a lens based upon what a bunch of forum members think of the bokeh? Seriously? No disrespect intended, but that's like going to a car dealer and asking which model has the best tires. Bokeh is not unimportant, but far from the top IMHO.

 

Oh what the...50 Summilux ASPH.

[gotium]

I don't have the experience that many here do, but of the lenses I use the 50 lux (latest version) is...can't find the word, but think of something very positive and wonderful.

 

35 lux (latest) I also like a lot, but it does have some funny bendy twisty liney things sometimes. A bit like it is stretching the canvas.

 

50 sonnar (latest) has what I think is a fantastic bokeh, but it is rather busy and I can see why some would not like it. To me it often looks like an oil painting.

[algrove]

Are you really going to buy a lens based upon what a bunch of forum members think of the bokeh? Seriously? No disrespect intended, but that's like going to a car dealer and asking which model has the best tires. Bokeh is not unimportant, but far from the top IMHO.

 

Oh what the...50 Summilux ASPH.

 

Hell no! And your comment is disrespectful.

[algrove]

I don't have the experience that many here do, but of the lenses I use the 50 lux (latest version) is...can't find the word, but think of something very positive and wonderful.

 

35 lux (latest) I also like a lot, but it does have some funny bendy twisty liney things sometimes. A bit like it is stretching the canvas.

 

50 sonnar (latest) has what I think is a fantastic bokeh, but it is rather busy and I can see why some would not like it. To me it often looks like an oil painting.

 

Thanks for your response. Like you, I have limited experience with the subject hence my questions.

 

I also like the bokeh my 50 Sonnar produces, but some people like the older Leica designs over the new and I wanted to get a better understanding of why. I do not own a Leica 50 as yet.

 

As for my 35 lux FLE, it usually produces fairly smooth bokeh, but since I have only been using it a few months we shall see if I feel the same way next year.

 

The stretching you mention reminds me of out of focus foreground images near the edges of the image taken with wide angle lenses that get distorted due to being very close the the lens or tilting of the lens.

[StephenPatterson]

Hell no! And your comment is disrespectful.

 

My apologies. This is a bokehlicious thread. It's motivated me to run out and smear petroleum jelly around the edges of all my lenses to see if I can get the bokeh factor up a bit.

[Lord Fluff]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you really are buying for the bokeh alone (irrespective of focal length even), then I would figure the AMOUNT of bokeh is the factor you care about most - in which case you want as long and as fast a lens as possible.

 

Consequently if you are truly bokeh-mad then an SLR rig will suit you better, along with a 200/2 or similar. Even if the bokeh of say the 21 Lux is great, it will never manage the volume of blur that a longer lens can.

[01af]

... what M lens has the best bokeh—old lens or new lens.

Bokeh is a matter of taste so there is no best.

 

 

Is there truly an overall king of bokeh?

No, there isn't.

 

 

If you really are buying for the bokeh alone (irrespective of focal length even), then I would figure the AMOUNT of bokeh is the factor you care about most ...

Bokeh is not a quantitative concept so it doesn't have an 'amount' ... there is no such thing as 'more' or 'less' bokeh. I guess you're confusing it with depth-of-field (or lack thereof).

[Lord Fluff]

Bokeh is not a quantitative concept so it doesn't have an 'amount' ... there is no such thing as 'more' or 'less' bokeh. I guess you're confusing it with depth-of-field (or lack thereof).

 

No, I'm not confusing it, so much as expressing it as the reverse of DOF. Bokeh (Boke) is Japanese for blurry, so less DOF = more OOF i.e. blurry parts of the image, hence more bokeh.

 

People tend to talk a lot in terms of *quality* of bokeh, but when discussing across focal lengths and regardless of maximum aperture (as per the OP) the distinguishing factor will always be the AMOUNT of blurriness (bokeh) in the image.

[01af]

... expressing it as the reverse of DOF.

Bokeh is not the reverse of depth-of-field.

 

 

People tend to talk a lot in terms of *quality* of bokeh ...

... which is nonsense, as bokeh is the quality of the out-of-focus blurriness. So "quality of bokeh" is "quality of quality of blurriness"—a tautology.

[Lord Fluff]

Bokeh is not the reverse of depth-of-field.

.

 

Ok, a semantic argument here is almost certainly pointless, and you may well be 'right' - if so I invite you to re-edit the Wikipedia entry on this subject though, since on a number of occasions it is 'wrong'.....

 

In photography, bokeh... is the blur,[3][4] or the aesthetic quality of the blur,[5][6][7] in out-of-focus areas of an image,

 

and

 

the subjective quality of bokeh

 

 

My point remains though (even if I expressed it contrary to your understanding of the term) that the degree to which OOF areas are present within an image will be a key factor in determining the 'best' bokeh-oriented lens. No-one will likely nominate a wide lens with a small maximum aperture as 'bokehlicious", even if its behaviour regarding highlights etc is very well controlled.

[sm23221]

I have to agree with 01af. Bokeh is a subjective qualitative concept. One can have the same amount of bluriness (a quantitative concept based on aperture and focal length) from 2 differently designed lenses yet have very different bokeh qualities.

 

If we consider the quantitatively "best" bokeh then the f/0.95 would win. If we consider the correct subjective qualitative aspects only then the lens designs with apo/aspheric/hi-index lens elements win, imho.

[pico]

OOF or Bokeh - I don't know if there is a reason for using the terms differently with most of today's lenses, except a couple of SLR lenses which have adjustable OOF/bokeh and the Imagon intended for (expensive) adaptation to MF SLRs, and straight on LF cameras, and of course the goofy Lens Baby.

 

The above are not Leicas. They will not work with your Leica. The Leica Thambar is a soft-focus lens, but it is not as adjustable.

 

What I do know is that the difference of the object in-focus related to background rendering in many, many older lenses is a substantive issue. Many lenses were made with dial-in focus qualities that effected both the subject focus (degree of softness) and OOF largely through degree of aspherical aberration, and also by the design of the lens. But nothing like that is available from Leica. Soft-focus is something of a lost art.

 

So if OOF/Bokeh is a primary objective (pun not intended), then look to the couple of 35MM SLR lenses designed with those qualities with dial-in variations.

 

Otherwise, look at a lot of Leica lens images, know the subject distance and aperture to find what might (just might) appeal to you. There are profound differences.

 

The King of Bokeh is a marketing expression. So is The Dream Lens. Some examples available.

[waileong]

Are you really going to buy a lens based upon what a bunch of forum members think of the bokeh? Seriously? No disrespect intended, but that's like going to a car dealer and asking which model has the best tires. Bokeh is not unimportant, but far from the top IMHO.

 

Oh what the...50 Summilux ASPH.

 

Your comment is disrespectful.

 

If one can buy a decision on sharpness or contrast, why not bokeh?

 

Frankly, most lenses are sharp enough for handheld use, camera shake prevents them from reaching their full potential. Bokeh is a separate matter. Some have really ugly swirly bokeh. Others have very pleasant gradual bokeh. One does not need a tripod to get the maximum out of bokeh.

 

So what's wrong with buying a lens for bokeh?

[StephenPatterson]

So what's wrong with buying a lens for bokeh?

 

Because it's like buying a house because of the color of the front door. It's one part of a lens' character, but far from the whole picture. Subjective at the very least. Taking a poll... Seriously?

 

I found Algrove's opening post, and specifically his comment that he was... "looking to buy one, but which one? Is there truly an overall king of bokeh?"...well, I found this statement comical to say the least.

 

To Waileong's comment that, "If one can buy a decision on sharpness or contrast, why not bokeh?" I would humbly submit that this would be a much more meaningful thread if we were discussing specific lens designs and characteristics, of which bokeh is one, and only one, small part.

 

Waileong further states that some bokeh is "really ugly swirly", while other is "very pleasant gradual". Well thanks a Bunch!!!, that certainly clears it up!!!!

 

If it is disrespectful to disagree with the entire supposition of a thread...then I plead guilty.

[ezc203]

seafurydriver - I disagree with you. Given modern lenses, most of them very similar characteristics, sharpness, contrast, color rendering etc etc. So when you start to discuss "lens characteristics", bokeh becomes a pretty prominent difference between lenses.

 

Why would someone buy a pre-ASPH Nocti f/1.0 vs a Voigtlander f/1.1? The 0.1 difference in f-stop is insignificant. The Nocti-f1 is arguably sharper wide open (but this can really only be seen when comparing side by side) and it does not have a focus-shift problem (not as severe at least). So now what? The reason why I would not even consider the Nokton is because it renders bokehs TERRIBLY.

 

Leica lenses tend to hold bokehs together more. "CREAMY" if you will. Look at the 21/24mm Summiluxes. Look at the Noctiluxes. The bokehs are "smoothed" out. Where as with some of the cheaper ultra-fast lenses (namingly the Voigtlanders) the bokehs tend to be individualistic. You can really see each and even circle of bokeh.

 

I don't like that. I don't like how they look. How they are distracting. I use shallow depth of field to isolate my subjects, to distinguish them from complex, busy backgrounds. So "busy" bokehs are useless to me.

 

So yes, bokehs are a VERY important aspect when I choose lenses.

 

-

 

Also, nothing wrong with disagreeing with the popular belief, but you don't have to be so aggressive in pointing it out. Some people might find it "disrespectful" and completely disregard the points you're trying to make.

 

I agree, Algrove's OP is kind of "out there". With total disregard for wide, normal, or tele; he's solely asking for bokeh? That's silly. I will use a 35mm lens with shit bokeh a lot more than a 135mm lens with amazing bokeh. So... in that sense, yes. Picking a lens based on bokeh is kind of silly.

 

-

 

Okay... With all that said, here's my opinion on the OP:

 

Wide-angle: 24mm Summilux - I prefer the 24mm view so I never used the 21mm, so I can't comment on the difference between the two, but my gosh. The 24mm Summilux has such amazing bokeh.

 

 

See how the cars across the street "hold" their shape? That's really superb for my taste.

 

 

This is just an excuse to post a picture of Lindsea (she's beautiful isn't she??) But see how the background is slightly blurred? Again, a reason (in my mind) to justify the monstrous price tag on the Summilux.

 

TBH, I shot 35mm (equiv) or wider mostly, so.... can't comment on the others. But the 24mm Summilux is worth every penny. For me, at least.

[tobey bilek]

Bokeh is highly personal. I love my 50 1.4 Summarit,nice smooth out of focus and I have never seen the swirly junk posted on the net. Mine is a pristine sample that spent it`s life with a UV window and I spent good money for the shade.

 

50 3.5 red scale treats backgrounds well, just not as soft as 1.4.

 

My 75 1.4 is quite nice as is my 125 2.5.

 

I have had all this for decades and supply is dried up so I have no idea how you can try any of these.

 

I would look at Zeiss 50 1.4 or 1.5 Sonnar calibrated for 1.4 focus.

 

I am not much of a wide fan, but my 35 2.0 version 4 seems ok as does my Version 1.

 

As far as new lenses, I use 50 2.8 version 2 and current 90 4.0 Elmar. I have most all the 90 mm lenses and the only one I did not like was the first 90 2.0, not the square shaded one, but the slide out shade one.

[StephenPatterson]

Bokeh is highly personal.

 

Exactly my point.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[StephenPatterson]

seafurydriver - I disagree with you. Given modern lenses, most of them very similar characteristics, sharpness, contrast, color rendering etc etc. So when you start to discuss "lens characteristics", bokeh becomes a pretty prominent difference between lenses.

 

My point is this....IT'S COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE.

 

You cannot choose one lens over another and say "this has better bokeh". What is better? Creamyer'r, eh, more creamy, more "together", more "dream like", "more smudgy".

 

The point I'm making is the proof is in the pudding, or rather in the client's opinion. Bokeh is subjective and there is no one perfect bokeh for every photo. Depending on composition any number of lens bokeh renderings might prove advantageous. To limit oneself to "the best bokeh" is ridiculous.

[ezc203]

I agree - and by that reasoning, sharpness and contrast are also subjective qualities. Thus... when anyone asks the forum to "pick a lens" for them, it's ludicrous. So...... Oh well.

 

Point being... Everyone should buy the 24mm Summilux. Don't think, just do it!