Bokeh Kings Article in LHSA Viewfinder

[derleicaman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello All,

The current issue of the LHSA Viewfinder has my article entitled "Bokeh Kings, Part 1". I'd like to get constructive criticism from folks here on it. I don't pretend to be the expert on these things, so your input is valuable to me. Bokeh is indeed very subjective and I am trying to systematically evaluate the lenses on an equal basis.

 

I am working on part 2 of the article which will be in the next issue. I will be including the Summarex, 73 Hektor, Thambar and others.

 

Please don't suggest that I re-shoot the lenses as this is not possible at this point.

 

If you are not a member, please email me at lhsaeditor@yahoo.com and I will see if I can send you a pdf of the article:) I can also send a Dropbox link to you of the images for part 2. Warning - they are huge file in JPEG and TIFF format.

 

Thanks in advance for your help!

Bill Rosauer

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Interesting. I have emailed you.

[01af]

Bokeh is indeed very subjective and I am trying to systematically evaluate the lenses on an equal basis.

I'm afraid this will grow way over your head if you're planning to do this really systematically and comprehensively ... simply because one situation's bokeh king can easily be the next situation's bokeh slouch. You'd need a plan to test many different situations—for example, like this:

 

1. Short focus distance

1.1 Background at short distance behind focus plane

1.1.1 Fine-structured backround, low contrast

1.1.2 Fine-structured backround, high contrast

1.1.3 Coarse-structured backround, low contrast

1.1.4 Coarse-structured backround, high contrast

1.2 Background at medium distance behind focus plane

1.2.1 Fine-structured backround, low contrast

1.2.2 Fine-structured backround, high contrast

1.2.3 Coarse-structured backround, low contrast

1.2.4 Coarse-structured backround, high contrast

1.3 Background at long distance behind focus plane

1.3.1 Fine-structured backround, low contrast

1.3.2 Fine-structured backround, high contrast

1.3.3 Coarse-structured backround, low contrast

1.3.4 Coarse-structured backround, high contrast

 

2. Medium focus distance

2.1 Background at short distance behind focus plane

2.1.1 Fine-structured backround, low contrast

2.1.2 Fine-structured backround, high contrast

2.1.3 Coarse-structured backround, low contrast

2.1.4 Coarse-structured backround, high contrast

2.2 Background at medium distance behind focus plane

2.2.1 Fine-structured backround, low contrast

2.2.2 Fine-structured backround, high contrast

2.2.3 Coarse-structured backround, low contrast

2.2.4 Coarse-structured backround, high contrast

2.3 Background at long distance behind focus plane

2.3.1 Fine-structured backround, low contrast

2.3.2 Fine-structured backround, high contrast

2.3.3 Coarse-structured backround, low contrast

2.3.4 Coarse-structured backround, high contrast

 

3. Long(ish) focus distance

3.1 Background at short distance behind focus plane

3.1.1 Fine-structured backround, low contrast

3.1.2 Fine-structured backround, high contrast

3.1.3 Coarse-structured backround, low contrast

3.1.4 Coarse-structured backround, high contrast

3.2 Background at medium distance behind focus plane

3.2.1 Fine-structured backround, low contrast

3.2.2 Fine-structured backround, high contrast

3.2.3 Coarse-structured backround, low contrast

3.2.4 Coarse-structured backround, high contrast

3.3 Background at long distance behind focus plane

3.3.1 Fine-structured backround, low contrast

3.3.2 Fine-structured backround, high contrast

3.3.3 Coarse-structured backround, low contrast

3.3.4 Coarse-structured backround, high contrast

 

Repeat this for all apertures, not just the widest.

 

Then you'll start having an idea how lenses behave with regard to bokeh, and which are good in this situation and which are good in that situation. Maybe, just MAYBE you'll find one lens that is the best in all situations ... but until proven otherwise, I seriously doubt it.

 

You see—this would be an awful lot of tedious work. If, however, you pick just one of the 36 situations sketched out above by chance (as most bokeh testers usually do) then your work will be useless ... err, mostly useless. If a lens has nice bokeh in one situation it still can have poor bokeh in another or a so-so bokeh in yet another.

 

By the way, that's what happened with the Summicron-M 35 mm Mk IV (latest pre-asph version). Years ago, someone gave it the title "Bokeh King" so that demand and hence, prices on the used market skyrocketed for years ... but then, only recently it has turned out that the situation for which the lens originally earned its honorary title was not the situation most users are having in mind.

[Jeff S]

... Years ago, someone gave it the title "Bokeh King" so that demand and hence, prices on the used market skyrocketed for years ...

 

Mike Johnston from TOP, the first guy to add the 'h' to 'boke'. He admits some shortcomings to his Summicron declaration here, consistent with (although not nearly comprehensive as) your issue over chosen circumstance.

 

He doesn't like to use the term bokeh now, generally preferring something like 'blur.'

 

Jeff

[250swb]

By the way, that's what happened with the Summicron-M 35 mm Mk IV (latest pre-asph version). Years ago, someone gave it the title "Bokeh King" so that demand and hence, prices on the used market skyrocketed for years ... but then, only recently it has turned out that the situation for which the lens originally earned its honorary title was not the situation most users are having in mind.

 

Yes it was Mike Johnston (The Online Photographer) who coined the term for the 35mm MkIV, and ever since the market has been insane, the lens is always called the 'Bokeh King' or 'King of Bokeh'. It turns out he originally was referring to the bokeh at f/4, and wide open he thought it was just 'ordinary'. Lets hope no more 'Bokeh Kings' are crowned in the same way, but people must have gone along with it despite what they saw.

 

Steve

[derleicaman]

Thanks all for the comments.

 

I now have a pdf of just the article, not the entire Viewfinder issue.

 

Please contact me if you would like a copy of the article.

[kiemchacsu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks all for the comments. I now have a pdf of just the article' date=' not the entire Viewfinder issue. Please contact me if you would like a copy of the article.[/quote']

 

I am interested in, simply because I have one. Please share the article to my mail kiemchacsu@gmail.com

 

Thanks alot!

[zalozinski]

Thanks all for the comments.

 

I now have a pdf of just the article, not the entire Viewfinder issue.

 

Please contact me if you would like a copy of the article.

 

Yes please! (I have mailed you).

 

Changing the subject to the post by 01af. The effort required is comparable to testing a lens on an optical bench. Has anyone ever done and reported the full set of objective measurements? (The best I have seen is Miljenko Devcic's work).

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Yes it was Mike Johnston (The Online Photographer) who coined the term for the 35mm MkIV, and ever since the market has been insane, the lens is always called the 'Bokeh King' or 'King of Bokeh'. It turns out he originally was referring to the bokeh at f/4, and wide open he thought it was just 'ordinary'. Lets hope no more 'Bokeh Kings' are crowned in the same way, but people must have gone along with it despite what they saw.

 

Steve

 

Yes, and I am sure that all those version IV owners looking to upgrade to the version V or simply cash in on the hype have been more than willing to play along...

[250swb]

Yes, and I am sure that all those version IV owners looking to upgrade to the version V or simply cash in on the hype have been more than willing to play along...

 

You sound very cynical.

 

 

Steve

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

You sound very cynical.

 

 

Steve

 

So are you suggesting people act out of altruism when they sell their gear on ... ? Of course people will act out of self interest in such situations.

[250swb]

 

 

Steve

[pop]

I'm afraid this will grow way over your head if you're planning to do this really systematically and comprehensively ... simply because one situation's bokeh king can easily be the next situation's bokeh slouch. You'd need a plan to test many different situations—for example, like this:

 

1. Short focus distance

1.1 Background at short distance behind focus plane

1.1.1 Fine-structured backround, low contrast

1.1.2 Fine-structured backround, high contrast (..., remainder omitted)

 

I think many members might be more comfortable when you just list the variables you are suggesting to take account of:

 

- Focus distance (short, medium, long(ish))

- Distance from focal plane to background (short, medium, long)

- Background structure (fine, coarse)

- Background contrast (high, low)

- F-stop

[01af]

I think many members might be more comfortable when you ...

It was not my intention to make anyone comfortable. To the contrary, I worked out that exuberant list to make a point—and the point is not comfort.

[pgk]

Its a bit like testing a paintbrush isn't it? Whilst I like and (sort of) have a 35/2v4 (it needs extensive surgery) I actually prefer the pre-aspheric Summilux, but the thought of testing either extensively does not appeal at all. Lenses, are probably like paintbrushes in that you know what you like when it works on the subject matter that you use it for. But trying to ascertain their characteristics in most/all situations is neither easy nor probably particularly productive.

[Exodies]

I think many members might be more comfortable when you just list the variables you are suggesting to take account of:

 

- Focus distance (short, medium, long(ish))

- Distance from focal plane to background (short, medium, long)

- Background structure (fine, coarse)

- Background contrast (high, low)

- F-stop

 

It should be possible to construct a scene containing all of the middle three variables so you would only need to take shots varying the focus distance and f-stop. Not that I'm volunteering.

[derleicaman]

It seems a lot of folks are commenting without having read the article or looked at my test results.

 

If anyone knows how to put a link or host one to the pdf of the article, I would appreciate your help:)

 

I think it would be more helpful to the discussion to be able to share the article.

 

I am the editor of the LHSA Viewfinder journal in which this article appears. Of course, we would love for all of you to join where you can see the entire journal, including back issues of Viewfinder, on line. Or receive the hard copy version, which is much better than the digital version. The reproduction from our printer is outstanding on this issue.

 

We at the LHSA are very active in our outreach to the Leica community. I am very happy to share this article and we also recently opened up our annual raffle to the general public in addition to a special rate for our members. Previously, our raffle and publication were open only to members.

 

Cheers,

Bill Rosauer

Editor, LHSA Viewfinder Journal

[zalozinski]

It seems a lot of folks are commenting without having read the article or looked at my test results.

 

If anyone knows how to put a link or host one to the pdf of the article, I would appreciate your help:)

 

I think it would be more helpful to the discussion to be able to share the article.

 

I am the editor of the LHSA Viewfinder journal in which this article appears. Of course, we would love for all of you to join where you can see the entire journal, including back issues of Viewfinder, on line. Or receive the hard copy version, which is much better than the digital version. The reproduction from our printer is outstanding on this issue.

 

We at the LHSA are very active in our outreach to the Leica community. I am very happy to share this article and we also recently opened up our annual raffle to the general public in addition to a special rate for our members. Previously, our raffle and publication were open only to members.

 

Cheers,

Bill Rosauer

Editor, LHSA Viewfinder Journal

 

It's a really nice article, and I'd recommend anyone who is interested spending some time looking at the images in the article and deciding what you like and want to see in your photographs.

 

I'm tempted to suggest that there is a correlation of "nice portraiture bokeh" and the size and character of the way the point source LEDs are imaged. If you think about the optics that makes sense, since it is related to the Airy disk and how light passes through the lens.

 

Personally, I think the lenses that show the central subject well, and lift it away from the background, while doing something interesting to the surround are 'best'. (And that is hugely subjective).

 

Collecting a variety of reactions to the images would tell us if there is agreement on what is good or attractive bokeh or whether in fact opinions differ widely.

 

To me the Canon f/1.2 and the original 1967 Noctilux create the best images. The Xenon Taylor-Hobson and Summarit f/1.5 over emphasise the background. As far as price/performance goes the CV Nokton may win given a 5-10x difference in price to the Noctilux.

 

And finally, to set the cat among the pigeons. What would this be like if we only considered B&W images? After all the legendary 1930s lenses like the Thambar and Hektor were designed for monochrome photography.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[semi-ambivalent]

After all the legendary 1930s lenses like the Thambar and Hektor were designed for monochrome photography.

 

1930s lenses were "designed" for monochrome film photography, because that's what they had until Kodachrome and Autochrome and similar became widespread. I refuse to believe a purely two dimensional, rectilinear pixel grid can produce natively what a three dimensional completely random distribution of silver halide cystals or organic dye clouds can. If it could one wouldn't need "film" filters for post. This is also why there is always pressure to up pixel density; so you don't see the grid in large "enlargements".

 

Re; cat and pigeons, I wish digital photography would quit stealing film photography's vocabulary to describe its own processes (image "developer" in your computer? Gimme a break, it's a numeric algorithm), and acknowledge it's a very separate technology to achieve a similar goal. Find your own words, make 'em up or something.

 

I'll show myself out...

 

s-a