Jump to content
250swb

'The King of Bokeh' killed by its father!

Recommended Posts

Well I recently acquired a lovely, late production 2.0/35 v4 Summicron as I wanted something to render sympathetically with my 1.4/75 Summilux.

Most of my lenses, are relatively new designs except for a 2.0/40 Summicron-C on my CL and 1.0/50 Noctilux v3, neither of which are wide enough to practically pair with the Summilux.

 

I couldn't be happier with the 35 Summicron. It' is getting more general use than I expected, including on my film M cameras. 

 

 

Agree! I keep on picking my 35cron iv and 75lux for my Monochrome1, the perfect trio for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At 2.5 it's already intriguing. But I agree, around f4 it's very special, also 3.5 and 4.8 are great

How can you come up with stuff like this, please?

 

What about f3.3 and 6.3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must I write 2.8/4.0 and 4.0/5.6 then?

Don't you get my meaning btw?

Are we getting meticulous here? You mean you didn't understand that I was talking about half stops?

'Please… please… please… please…' (James Brown)

 

PS: Leica changed the new Summarits from 2.5 to 2.4. Is that for you a reason write them comments?

Edited by otto.f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must I write 2.8/4.0 and 4.0/5.6 then?

Don't you get my meaning btw?

Are we getting meticulous here? You mean you didn't understand that I was talking about half stops?

'Please… please… please… please…' (James Brown)

 

PS: Leica changed the new Summarits from 2.5 to 2.4. Is that for you a reason write them comments?

If I am to be serious for one minute, I'll answer you this;

 

First of all, the "king of bokeh" is the King of nothing, and especially not bokeh.

If it absolutely had to be the king of something, it would be the king of size. Maybe.

 

I would call it the overhyped King.

 

Second of all, aren't you tired of the Leica glass overglorification? I am.

Sure, I play the game, often tongue in cheek. But in reality, there is no real optical gain to plain old minolta glass, for example. That's what my 20x24 darkroom prints tell me.

 

Actually, some prints made with an old 28-70mm f2.8 Nikkor zoom are so glorious, one would swear it was shot with Leica.

 

Do you see what I did there? I tricked you. How can one swear it's shot with Leica glass, anyways? It is because of the overhypification. Like if it was automatically better. We could verse into deep philosophy but let's spare us the bullsheet. The fact is that its all an illusion that we nourish and nurture. We want our Leica glass to be better.

 

The fact is that in real life, you'd probably choose my Nikon prints to be the Leica prints, and my Leica prints to be the Nikon prints. And that's because you fed yourself the bullsheet (like most people) that a Leica print must necessarily look better.

 

Now about the 2.4 vs 2.5, yes there was a lot of discussion about it. But it seems that you weren't there.

The immediate conclusion was that it was a marketing move. And it was. Because in real life, there is no way a manufacturer can manufacture a 0.1 difference (in absolute terms, not in f-stops terms). And indeed, the lend wasn't changed. So tes, in other words, it was only marketing.

 

In conclusion, all this lens talk is mostly bullshiite. I do not accept stuped terms such as micro contrast, macro contrast, foot print, finger print, and so on. Who created those terms?

 

I can come up with my own expert words that mean absolutely nothing: median-contrast, multi-gamut, dryness of the image, chroma-transition between warm and cool colors, edge dimensionality (i.e. the edge dimensionality of Leica glass is, in average, 1.4 points better than Canon L glass, according to blabla measurements. The edge dimensionality is an advanced method of measuring micro contrast. It is the Micro-contrast of the Micro-contrast itself.).

 

It is maybe my experience of having shot over a few million shots, and having printed over 20,000 prints, or maybe simple common sense, but all this is only blabla. The more I thibk about it the more I am certain: the Leica experience is a fondling experience. Just like sex: all about fondling and only fondlig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I am to be serious for one minute, I'll answer you this;

 

First of all, the "king of bokeh" is the King of nothing, and especially not bokeh.

If it absolutely had to be the king of something, it would be the king of size. Maybe.

 

I would call it the overhyped King.

 

I would agree with this summation, especially the price

 

 

Second of all, aren't you tired of the Leica glass overglorification? I am.

Sure, I play the game, often tongue in cheek. But in reality, there is no real optical gain to plain old minolta glass, for example. That's what my 20x24 darkroom prints tell me.

 

Actually, some prints made with an old 28-70mm f2.8 Nikkor zoom are so glorious, one would swear it was shot with Leica.

 

Do you see what I did there? I tricked you. How can one swear it's shot with Leica glass, anyways? It is because of the overhypification. Like if it was automatically better. We could verse into deep philosophy but let's spare us the bullsheet. The fact is that its all an illusion that we nourish and nurture. We want our Leica glass to be better.

 

The fact is that in real life, you'd probably choose my Nikon prints to be the Leica prints, and my Leica prints to be the Nikon prints. And that's because you fed yourself the bullsheet (like most people) that a Leica print must necessarily look better.

 

Plenty of over-glorification out there in the WWW.

Plenty of hype as well. 

 

Perhaps we all need to take a chill-pill every now and then

 

 

Now about the 2.4 vs 2.5, yes there was a lot of discussion about it. But it seems that you weren't there.

The immediate conclusion was that it was a marketing move. And it was. Because in real life, there is no way a manufacturer can manufacture a 0.1 difference (in absolute terms, not in f-stops terms). And indeed, the lend wasn't changed. So tes, in other words, it was only marketing.

 

In conclusion, all this lens talk is mostly bullshiite. I do not accept stuped terms such as micro contrast, macro contrast, foot print, finger print, and so on. Who created those terms?

 

It is about bull-shite as its about marketing and advertising to sell what you don't need. 

 

Though I am still teaching and in the studio we still teach 32, 22, 16, 11, 8, 5.6, 4, 2.8, 2, 1.4, 1.2 etc half-stops, third-stops, full-stops et al. Then we relate this back to digital. Same with shutter speeds.

 

 

I can come up with my own expert words that mean absolutely nothing: median-contrast, multi-gamut, dryness of the image, chroma-transition between warm and cool colors, edge dimensionality (i.e. the edge dimensionality of Leica glass is, in average, 1.4 points better than Canon L glass, according to blabla measurements. The edge dimensionality is an advanced method of measuring micro contrast. It is the Micro-contrast of the Micro-contrast itself.).

 

It is maybe my experience of having shot over a few million shots, and having printed over 20,000 prints, or maybe simple common sense, but all this is only blabla. The more I thibk about it the more I am certain: the Leica experience is a fondling experience. Just like sex: all about fondling and only fondlig.

 

Gotta love this comment.

The only thing I'll add is that we still teach - live, breathe, sleep get to your your camera as if your camera was the extension of your eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I am to be serious for one minute...

Yes. No one minds if you can't tell one lens from the next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I thibk about it the more I am certain: the Leica experience is a fondling experience. Just like sex: all about fondling and only fondlig.

 

The incentives may be varied, but sex is about procreation as, to a degree, is photography.  If all one gets from it  is fondling, than perhaps they've chosen the wrong partner.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. No one minds if you can't tell one lens from the next.

Oh, you think so?

 

My fingers recognize and differenciate any lenses you give them.

 

 

Accuracy: 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The incentives may be varied, but sex is about procreation as, to a degree, is photography. If all one gets from it is fondling, than perhaps they've chosen the wrong partner.

Sure. Procreation. Kill me but Johnny won't respond to unappealing woman. Thankfuly. Imagine the disaster.

 

Photography: why pay 12,345$ when you can shoot the same image for 5$. Nikon L35AF comes to mind.

 

The 12,340$ difference is the Joy of ownership factor. Same as for strict p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] aren't you tired of the Leica glass overglorification? I am. [...]

 

Why do you use Leica lenses?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you use Leica lenses?

.

For the extra joy of fondling.

Snobbism.

To get me closer to HCB.

To be part of an exclusive brotherhood.

 

And you, what's your reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not one for the Leica mystique anymore - especially as these days I use my Olympus and medium format cameras much more. Every now and again I consider selling all the Leica equipment, but then when I look at the pictures from those lenses I just can't do it - I know I'd need to buy it all back again sometime, and probably at a massive loss. 

 

I have no idea what it is, and don't care for all the terminology, or the 'experts' saying the lens is best at f/4.x or whatever - but the Summicron35 v4 creates some ethereal images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and the funny thing is, Dr. Mandler was not trying to make anything "ethereal."

 

He was just trying to make a practical, competent, compact 35mm lens for photojournalists, that made the best of the limitations of the double-gauss formula through a careful balancing of the unavoidable aberrations (and improved - slightly - on the v.3), and was simple and inexpensive enough (for Leica) to help revive the dying M system (and thus the life blood of the Midland factory).

 

I find it an entertaining intellectual passtime to try and figure out what it is that makes some lenses do what they do - but it is a bit like attacking a Stradivarius (no direct comparison intended) with oscilloscopes and microphones and x-rays and analysis of wood and varnish chemistry, to figure out what makes it a Stradivarius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and the funny thing is, Dr. Mandler was not trying to make anything "ethereal."

 

He was just trying to make a practical, competent, compact 35mm lens for photojournalists, that made the best of the limitations of the double-gauss formula through a careful balancing of the unavoidable aberrations (and improved - slightly - on the v.3), and was simple and inexpensive enough (for Leica) to help revive the dying M system (and thus the life blood of the Midland factory).

 

I find it an entertaining intellectual passtime to try and figure out what it is that makes some lenses do what they do - but it is a bit like attacking a Stradivarius (no direct comparison intended) with oscilloscopes and microphones and x-rays and analysis of wood and varnish chemistry, to figure out what makes it a Stradivarius.

 

 

Great post. Nice lens, better than what came before. Bokeh unique at f4, but surpassed now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and the funny thing is, Dr. Mandler was not trying to make anything "ethereal."

 

He was just trying to make a practical, competent, compact 35mm lens for photojournalists, that made the best of the limitations of the double-gauss formula through a careful balancing of the unavoidable aberrations (and improved - slightly - on the v.3), and was simple and inexpensive enough (for Leica) to help revive the dying M system (and thus the life blood of the Midland factory).

Oh well 'ethereal' was obviously the wrong word. I should've stuck to something neutral like 'great microcontrast' but I don't really know what that means. I guess I chose the word because I'd been looking at pictures of my daughter taken during a summer party. Had I known Mandler intended me to only take pictures of gritty journalistic subjects, then I'd never had made such a dumb newbie mistake.
 
In any case, apparently the bokeh has been "surpassed" now - whatever that means...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe yes the 35/2 v4 was considered one of the very best 35mm lenses available at its launch and the word ethereal was not used then because the lens was perceived modern compared to its predecessors. It is still a contrasty lens in my book and it remains one of my favorite lenses bokeh wise certainly. What is new is i now attribute to focus shift the feeling that the lens was sometimes sharper on borders or corners. The word focus shift was not usual them and was totally unknown by yours truly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...