The 28 Summilux and Shallow DOF: Why the newfound malice toward Bokeh??

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The same critique can be levelled at the f 64 crowd...

A general dislike of ill-taken photographs is understandable and probably shared by most of us.

I think it is  slightly narrow-sighted to single out one aspect.

 

 

I totally agree, but do you really believe we're singling out one aspect? I don't. we're responding to a specific question.

 

Had the OP of this thread asked the same question in relation to HD photography or the heavy application of the LR clarity slider for example, I should have given a very similar response and I imagine many others would too.

[tobey bilek]

 fad that will pass.   Leica is promoting for sales of expensive glass.

[Mark T]

 fad that will pass.   Leica is promoting for sales of expensive glass.

 

Agreed. Why sell a $3000 Summicron when you can sell a $6000 Summilux. After all, the latter will be bigger, heavier and by most measures less practical. Sounds like marketing to me. 

 

I don't know what the top ISO of the M240 is but I am sure is is way higher than 3200 - at which ISO equivalent you can shoot almost anything. Honestly, how often do you shoot in those conditions? 2% of the time? What % of your favourite shots are of/in dark places? Could these photos be made at f2 just as easily as f1.4? Oftentimes I think so.

 

This is my gripe: Somehow people have come to associate Leica lenses with "Wide Open" photography.,The bigger the aperture, the better. This has not been the case for Leica's history. Contrary to popular opinion, Leica's lenses were best known for being small - not for being optically the best at wide apertures. So the modern trend to large aperture, big lenses flies in the face of what made the company famous in the first place. The fact that said modern lenses cost so much more than equivalent moderate aperture lenses further serves to push the brand into "luxury product" territory.

 

You may well suggest that Summarit lenses are still made, although they too have just gotten bigger in their latest iteration. However, I would suggest that Leica sell far fewer of these than they do Summiluxes. Certainly their marketing directs people to the more expensive lenses. Just see some of the condescending things people write about Summarits on this forum (Entry-level lenses, sub-standard build quality, Slow speed, and on it goes). This is also the reason than the Leica Q has come out with an f1.7 lens rather than an f2.8 which would make the camera much smaller. Leica have learned from their experience with the X that modern Leica consumers would rather use large aperture lenses wide open, than they would use a small, high quality lens of modest aperture. So the direction of the company is away from it's roots and towards less practical, more expensive products that serve the needs of "bokeh junkies".

[Exodies]

Products share some of the properties of an evolving system. There is very little to be gained from an incrementally smaller lens until it becomes small enough to fit in a pocket so this won't happen. There is enough to be gained from an incrementally wider lens to make it worthwhile at every step.

[uhoh7]

28 Cron WO the other day in flagrant violation of f64 ethos....but I like my silly trail sign shots to jump a bit LOL

 

Kadletz Creek by unoh7, on Flickr

[Mark T]

Products share some of the properties of an evolving system. There is very little to be gained from an incrementally smaller lens until it becomes small enough to fit in a pocket so this won't happen. There is enough to be gained from an incrementally wider lens to make it worthwhile at every step.

 

I don't think the lenses needed to be any smaller than they have been previously. However, the small size of the system was what Barnack was fundamentally trying to achieve in his original concept and designs. Moving away from this to bigger cameras and bigger lenses is a change in direction and it worth acknowledging that this has happened.

 

On the other hand, and contrary to what you say, the development of ever larger aperture lenses is not always worthwhile. For example. how much viewfinder blockage do you suppose there will be on a 28 mm Summilux? What about the mismatched filter threads of Leica's fastest lenses? You end up with 46mm, 49mm, 55mm, Series 7. It's hard to for me to call this progress.

[Exodies]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Correct, it's not about progress, but fitness for purpose. In this case the purpose is to be sold. In spite of viewfinder or filter issues bigger, faster lenses are selling.

[Mark T]

Correct, it's not about progress, but fitness for purpose. In this case the purpose is to be sold. In spite of viewfinder or filter issues bigger, faster lenses are selling.

 

Which brings me back to the original question raised in this this thread: "The 28 Summilux and Shallow DOF: Why the newfound malice toward Bokeh?".

Current developments at Leica are, in my opinion, moving to a place removed from the traditional company ethos. It was adjectives like rugged, simple, mobile, minimal, and quality, which attracted me to the brand in the first place. Adjectives like creamy, dreamy, rich, delicious, and smooth should be used for food and not photography. Nothing demonstrates my frustration better than lenses like the 28mm Summilux and more weak photos of bokeh for bokeh's sake.

[Exodies]

Perhaps it's impossible to find words to describe the things which tickle our thoughts ("writing about music is like dancing about architecture" - Frank Zappa). The food words for photographs might be suggested by a boozy meal which accompanies the discussion.

 

Could it be that the bokeh fad has outlived its novelty but the next fad hasn't arrived because it doesn't have a name? Skinnfell's preference, shoot at F4 (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/247677-the-28-summilux-and-shallow-dof-why-the-newfound-malice-toward-bokeh/page-4?do=findComment&comment=2857569) could be just the trend we need to distract us but how do you market it? There are few expressions for un-extremes - whelmed, extra medium, far-fncking-inbetween, well futile, - I've run out. Is there a trendmonger out there who can help turn F4 into the bees knees? Only then will the bokeh malice stop.

[Peter H]

 

 

I've deleted my post about the next trend because it was too boring.

 

Why make an exception for this post you may ask!

[Herr Barnack]

An appropriate use of both shallow DOF and hyperfocal DOF?  That would be one hell of a photograph.

 

If you mean both techniques should be available and used when necessary then it is hardly a statement to cause outrage, an awful lot of people got there before you in this thread.

 

 

Steve

I did not say "in one photograph."  That is something you came up with.

 

You just can't help yourself, can you? 

[nelly]

Agreed. Why sell a $3000 Summicron when you can sell a $6000 Summilux. After all, the latter will be bigger, heavier and by most measures less practical. Sounds like marketing to me. 

 

I don't know what the top ISO of the M240 is but I am sure is is way higher than 3200 - at which ISO equivalent you can shoot almost anything. Honestly, how often do you shoot in those conditions? 2% of the time? What % of your favourite shots are of/in dark places? Could these photos be made at f2 just as easily as f1.4? Oftentimes I think so.

 

This is my gripe: Somehow people have come to associate Leica lenses with "Wide Open" photography.,The bigger the aperture, the better. This has not been the case for Leica's history. Contrary to popular opinion, Leica's lenses were best known for being small - not for being optically the best at wide apertures. So the modern trend to large aperture, big lenses flies in the face of what made the company famous in the first place. The fact that said modern lenses cost so much more than equivalent moderate aperture lenses further serves to push the brand into "luxury product" territory.

 

You may well suggest that Summarit lenses are still made, although they too have just gotten bigger in their latest iteration. However, I would suggest that Leica sell far fewer of these than they do Summiluxes. Certainly their marketing directs people to the more expensive lenses. Just see some of the condescending things people write about Summarits on this forum (Entry-level lenses, sub-standard build quality, Slow speed, and on it goes). This is also the reason than the Leica Q has come out with an f1.7 lens rather than an f2.8 which would make the camera much smaller. Leica have learned from their experience with the X that modern Leica consumers would rather use large aperture lenses wide open, than they would use a small, high quality lens of modest aperture. So the direction of the company is away from it's roots and towards less practical, more expensive products that serve the needs of "bokeh junkies".

What about the Leica APO-Summicron-M 50mm Lens which sells for $7200 and is slower at f/2 than the 50 Summilux but costs an arm and a leg more

[sdk]

One reason I love the 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH and Zeiss 35mm/2.8 C-Biogon is that they are both so small. But of course they are not f/1.4 so their ability to produce lots of blur wide open is limited.

[tobey bilek]

One reason I love the 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH and Zeiss 35mm/2.8 C-Biogon is that they are both so small. But of course they are not f/1.4 so their ability to produce lots of blur wide open is limited.

 

True.  I bought the 28  2.8 ASPH because it is small.  Also bought a 35 2.0 ASPH, but would have bought a 2.8 if there were a Leica one.   My favorite 50 is the 2.8 collapsible, last version.   There is also a 90 4.0 macro.   Also 75 APO, nice pics, but too large.  Also current 50 1.4.  Really nice pics,  but again somewhat large.

 

Guess I am still rooted in the past.   There are also other lenses, all wonderful on film, but lack on digital.  I can`t seem to sell them.

[cpclee]

David Alan Harvey picked the same 28mm lens you did. So I think you will be fine.  Take a look at his more recent photos taken with (presumably, according to the text) the Monochrom and 28/2.8 ASPH. I rather like two pictures with the couples kissing / hugging 

 

http://m-magazine.photography/ceemes/en/publications/david-alan-harvey-m-magazin-no.-2.html

 

FWIW he had the depth of field exactly where it should be in my option. 

 

True.  I bought the 28  2.8 ASPH because it is small.  Also bought a 35 2.0 ASPH, but would have bought a 2.8 if there were a Leica one.   My favorite 50 is the 2.8 collapsible, last version.   There is also a 90 4.0 macro.   Also 75 APO, nice pics, but too large.  Also current 50 1.4.  Really nice pics,  but again somewhat large.

 

Guess I am still rooted in the past.   There are also other lenses, all wonderful on film, but lack on digital.  I can`t seem to sell them.

[algrove]

Can of worms thread. I shoot what I shoot because I like what I am shooting and if the background is blurred, so be it.

[Overgaard]

Some times it is dark:

 

 

Some times you can get rid of the background:

 

Some times you get a special artistic look:

 

Some times just for the sport of nailing the focus:

 

Some times for isolating the subject:

 

 

 

In the beginning wider aperture was made for darkness and most wide aperture lenses were really bad wide open (but could get the shot), then designers began optimizing them for wide open use. Leica being one of the few that had the knowledge to do so and the customers willing to pay for it. Peter Karbe (who made the Noctilux said, "Never stop it down. Aperture is not for light control but control of depth of field." by which I think he meant that is was designed for wide open use, and you would only stop it down if you actually wanted something more to be in focus (like a group portrait). 

[MarkP]

Thorsten, lovely photos as expected.  

I agree with all of your sometimes examples - it goes without say that shooting wide open is an important option, and as Leica users we are very lucky that our fast lenses are so good wide open.

 

I think that the point many are making here is that shooting wide open because one can is not necessarily leading to the best photograph.

Sometimes, if not often, more DOF is the better option.

Often, shallow DOF is inappropriately and excessively used (IMHO) as it's own artistic endpoint to the detriment of the photograph.

 

We often see photos where it is as if the thoughts of the photographer have been

"Where can I photograph anything in isolation from the background to make it pop with glorious Bokeh behind to demonstrate my fabulous lens", rather than

"that's a really interesting subject to photograph. Should subject isolation from the background at maximum aperture give me the best result?"

[MarkP]

Could it be that the bokeh fad has outlived its novelty but the next fad hasn't arrived because it doesn't have a name? Skinnfell's preference, shoot at F4 (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/247677-the-28-summilux-and-shallow-dof-why-the-newfound-malice-toward-bokeh/page-4?do=findComment&comment=2857569) could be just the trend we need to distract us but how do you market it? There are few expressions for un-extremes - whelmed, extra medium, far-fncking-inbetween, well futile, - I've run out. Is there a trendmonger out there who can help turn F4 into the bees knees? Only then will the bokeh malice stop.

 

Agreed  .

 

Well if Group f/64 could do it so could we with a Group f/4 thread here in the Forum as a counterpoint to Group f/0.9-1.4  .

We may have to allow f2.8 and 5.6 as outliers?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[cpclee]

sometimes you want shallow (first image f2.0)

 

sometimes you want not so shallow (second image f5.6)

 

so I say let the situation, not your equipment, dictate the depth of field you use.

 

just want to add that f2.0 is already enough to isolate your subject nicely (3rd image)

 

 

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!