disappointed by Summilux 35 FLE

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The introduction of the floating element is the main factor that issued the OOF rendering difference between the old and the new Summilux-M 35 mm Asph lens.

You have no idea what the main factor for the difference in out-of-focus rendering really is. So why are you making such a bold statement?

 

 

How come this is not affecting the OOF rendition?

I never said it isn't.

 

 

So is there any difference in the residual spheric aberrations between the two designs?

I guess there is, or there would be no difference in the aperture-related focus shift.

 

 

I'd like to go deeper into this, but I didn't find any clear statements on this regards from Leica, or any optical engineer (referring to the Summilux-M 35 mm Asph). I'd like to know something more about this.

I also would like to know more about this lens (and other lenses, too). Until then, I know one thing for sure: We must not be too quick in deriving arbitrary conclusions from incomplete information.

[mjh]

So is there any difference in the residual spheric aberrations between the two designs?

There definitely is. I mean, that’s the point of the new design – a better correction of spherical aberration is key to reducing focus shift. On the other hand, an undercorrected spherical aberration is notorious for creating a soft and creamy background bokeh so you cannot have both. This has been covered here before, for example see http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/155416-summilux-35mm-focus-shift.html.

[Mauribix]

You have no idea what the main factor for the difference in out-of-focus rendering really is. So why are you making such a bold statement?

 

Until then, I know one thing for sure: We must not be too quick in deriving arbitrary conclusions from incomplete information.

 

It's like saying there was a relationship between the size of a car's fuel tank and the car's maximum speed.

 

Must have been a bad day, right?

 

Please, laid back.

[Mauribix]

There definitely is. I mean, that’s the point of the new design – a better correction of spherical aberration is key to reducing focus shift. On the other hand, an undercorrected spherical aberration is notorious for creating a soft and creamy background bokeh so you cannot have both. This has been covered here before, for example see http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/155416-summilux-35mm-focus-shift.html.

 

Thank you Michael.

That clearly shows the relationship.

 

I remember a similar discussion with Nikon engineers during the Photoshow, talking about their 50mm f:1.4G lens, which is quite famous for its "nervous" OOF rendering (or bokeh) too.

[Mauribix]

Just found this interesting article on a blog:

bokeh – Ming Thein | Photographer

 

And this one too:

 

http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html

Edited July 3, 2012 by Mauribix

[CalArts 99]

The second article is interesting with its more technical interpretation of the variety of OOF appearances that can occur.

 

The first article is interesting in the fact that it is very subjective in respect to what is 'good' or 'bad' OOF.

 

The author of that first article lists his favorite lenses for good OOF, "Most of the Leica M ASPH lenses; specifically the 35/1.4 ASPH FLE, 50/1.4 ASPH, 50/0.95 ASPH, 90/2 APO ASPH. I don’t personally like the swirly bokeh of the older f1.0 Noctiluxes – caused by uncorrected spherical aberration."

 

And your personal take on the 35/1.4 ASPH FLE is "The OOF area is horrible IMHO. And this is exactly what I think of the 35lux ASPH FLE." Which of course you do go on to admit is subjective.

 

I find that lens versions don't always work in all situations and that having samples that vary in their OOF renditions is worthwhile. Each lens has their plus and minuses. The FLE's OOF can look very nice in certain circumstances but sometimes not so in other instances. It's the same with various versions of all Leica focal lengths. We just pick our poison that works for us.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hard to believe that harsh bokeh may come from corrected spherical aberration folks. The new Summicron 50 apo seems to have a very smooth bokeh for instance and other lenses spring to mind like the last Elmar 50/2.8, the Macro-Elmar 90/4 or the Summarit 35/2.5. Do those lenses suffer from spherical aberration really?

[jaapv]

You would be right if SA were the only factor involved. It is not.

[mjh]

Just found this interesting article on a blog:

bokeh – Ming Thein | Photographer

 

And this one too:

 

Bokeh

And then there’s Harold Merklinger’s classic: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf.

[lct]

You would be right if SA were the only factor involved. It is not.

Which makes even harder to believe that we "cannot have both" corrected SA and smooth bokeh.

[01af]

Which makes even harder to believe that we "cannot have both" corrected spherical aberrations and smooth bokeh.

As a matter of fact, we can. But it won't be cheap ...

[Mauribix]

And your personal take on the 35/1.4 ASPH FLE is "The OOF area is horrible IMHO. And this is exactly what I think of the 35lux ASPH FLE." Which of course you do go on to admit is subjective.

 

Of course it is, in fact I wrote "IMHO".

But that's the old story of what is good and what is not.

Common statement consider creamy=good. I'm in that too.

That said, we may agree on what is not good with a certain margin, don't you think?

I mean, as they agree that rotten bread is not a good meal, I think we may spot with a good margin what a "bad" bokeh is.

For me, a bad OOF rendering, is the one that distracts from the subjects (when the subject is not the OOF area of course).

 

Skilled photographers can make great use of a "bad" OOF rendering too, when they know the lens as their pocket.

Knowing a lens doesn't mean that you know just how it was designed, I believe that it means that you know how to use it when photographing.

 

 

 

I find that lens versions don't always work in all situations and that having samples that vary in their OOF renditions is worthwhile. Each lens has their plus and minuses. The FLE's OOF can look very nice in certain circumstances but sometimes not so in other instances. It's the same with various versions of all Leica focal lengths. We just pick our poison that works for us.

 

Yep, I agree 100%.

 

I'd like to show you some samples.

Just a subjective matter... what is "good" OOF rendering, and what is not in your opinion?

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!

[CalArts 99]

Of course it is, in fact I wrote "IMHO".

But that's the old story of what is good and what is not.

Common statement consider creamy=good. I'm in that too.

That said, we may agree on what is not good with a certain margin, don't you think?

I mean, as they agree that rotten bread is not a good meal, I think we may spot with a good margin what a "bad" bokeh is.

For me, a bad OOF rendering, is the one that distracts from the subjects (when the subject is not the OOF area of course).

 

Skilled photographers can make great use of a "bad" OOF rendering too, when they know the lens as their pocket.

Knowing a lens doesn't mean that you know just how it was designed, I believe that it means that you know how to use it when photographing.

 

Yep, I agree 100%.

 

I'd like to show you some samples.

Just a subjective matter... what is "good" OOF rendering, and what is not in your opinion?

 

I was in agreement with you and was also pointing that you had said 'imho' in your post. The author of the article lists the FLE as one of his favorites for 'good' OOF and you do not. As we know, lenses are somewhat similar to film choices. Some work well in certain instances and some do not. But that decision is also personal. You and I may agree as to what might look 'good' overall (nervous OOF versus creamy OOF, etc.) but not everyone will. And OOF cannot be evaluated outside of its context in a specific image and how it might function to direct a viewer's interpretation of that image.

 

As far as picking from your samples, I'm having some difficulty doing that because the images themselves don't convey much to me; I become too occupied trying to make sense of the context. But in general, when I look at an image's OOF in respect to an overall composition and with some sort of central subject matter that directs my mind's eye, then the type of OOF rendering will certainly have an effect on my reaction and interpretation of the image. In this case however, there is no apparent relationship of the OOF to the image content itself that allows me to make an interpretation of the image and the 'value' of the OOF rendering. I just don't see any correlation in those particular samples between what my brain accepts as the 'subject' and the OOF's function that can allow me to say one is 'better' than the other.

 

And example of how OOF by itself (i.e., an image that is entirely out of focus by intention) works or doesn't work can be revealed in the work of Uta Barth (Uta Barth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Her 'photographic blurs' series is about how memory works and how our brains attempt to interpret an image that is out of focus. For her it's imperative to have a particular OOF rendering. On the other hand someone like say, Hans Richter, might employ what most (including you and I) would consider to be 'nervous' OOF in order to make a specific statement which may include an intentional distraction and uneasiness for the viewer. So it's difficult for me to say that 'good' OOF is something we can all agree upon since it is not only subjective but also related to the specificity of the image and what the author is attempting to convey.

 

I don't think it's really quite as universal as 'rotten bread.'

[Mauribix]

Thank you for your reply and your sharing.

 

As for the sample I've posted, I know they're not meaningful, they're actually crops of frames in which I found a specific behavior.

The first two samples come from my 35lux ASPH FLE, while the third is the 35lux ASPH (no FLE).

Unscientific test, that's sure, what I don't like of the first two sample, is that kind of effects that doubled lines and circles.

 

More or less, it's similar to the sample posted with the Nikon 50 1.4G that I've seen in this thread, or the sample shown in figure 6 of my previous link:

Bokeh

 

The one that shows the effect of an "overcorrection of spherical aberration" as the writer said.

[CalArts 99]

As for the sample I've posted, I know they're not meaningful, they're actually crops of frames in which I found a specific behavior.

 

It's not that the images aren't 'meaningful' (all images are meaningful), but just that they are out of context. I had assumed they probably were crops. And the fact that they are crops is why I found it difficult to properly assess how the OOF rendering is functioning in respect to the content of the image itself.

 

OOF (whether creamy, nervous, double circles, or whatever) will have an affect on the viewer's response and their interpretation of the image. Images are not innocuous, not even the most banal or romantically aesthetic image. They are all 'loaded' with codes and meaning. And the OOF rendering is part of the image's coding.

 

I find that OOF by itself (cropped and isolated from the full image) is impossible to decipher except in a technical sense. But the images we make are not empirical studies of the OOF of a lens, but are stories and records of our view of the world. The OOF therefore has a social meaning to be used beyond its scientific explanation. It becomes an integral part of the reading of the image (sweet, soft, comfortable, disturbing, hard, cold, scary, etc..)

[Erik Gunst Lund]

The 50mm 1.4 AFS has a rather pleasing Bokeh when stopped down a stop or two also the Noct Nikkor 58mm 1.2 has fantastic Bokeh even wide open and is highly corrected for SA the same goes for 24, 35 and 85mm 1.4 AFS very very pleasing Bokeh...

IMHO there is no direct connection!

 

Sorry for the Nikon sidetrack!

[IWC Doppel]

Mauribix, hi I wish you hadnt revealed the lenses and images. My reaction was 'don't like',' dislike', 'like'. it would have been interesting to see what other people thought.

 

Glad I have the ASPH. and I am lucky enough to have found an ASPHERCAL too. The bokeh of the ASPHERICAL is somehow 'fuller' and possibly a little 'looser' and 'swirly' than the ASPH which to my eyes looks very nice indeed. The rendering, image depth, colour density and tonality are simply wonderful. I have only shot circa 40-50 pictures with the ASPHERICAL so no definitive conclusions.

 

Oh my 1.4 ASPH. was your old lens, so at least I can comment with consistency

[IWC Doppel]

This is worth a read too

 

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_35_Bokeh_EN/$File/CLN35_Bokeh_en.pdf

[Erik Gunst Lund]

This is worth a read too

 

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_35_Bokeh_EN/$File/CLN35_Bokeh_en.pdf

 

Very well written article! Highly recommended

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Mauribix]

Mauribix, hi I wish you hadnt revealed the lenses and images. My reaction was 'don't like',' dislike', 'like'. it would have been interesting to see what other people thought.

 

Glad I have the ASPH. and I am lucky enough to have found an ASPHERCAL too. The bokeh of the ASPHERICAL is somehow 'fuller' and possibly a little 'looser' and 'swirly' than the ASPH which to my eyes looks very nice indeed. The rendering, image depth, colour density and tonality are simply wonderful. I have only shot circa 40-50 pictures with the ASPHERICAL so no definitive conclusions.

 

Oh my 1.4 ASPH. was your old lens, so at least I can comment with consistency

 

Your "ASPHERICAL" is my dream lens. I just tried it a couple of times during the years. Just curious to see some samples if you can.

I can't remember well right now, but you should see quite a difference in the corners, and when shooting against the sun.

The glass used for the ASPHERICAL should be just... awesome!