35mm: King of Bokeh vs. True King of Bokeh vs. Summilux V2 (with image download)

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Al Brown said:

Let's all stop calling the 35 IV "king of bokeh". Even Mike Johnston who coined the incidental phrase in 1997 has repented...

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!

 

And he now also dislikes the term. and the spelling, ‘bokeh’, which he also popularized in the same magazine he edited in 1997.

Jeff

[bdjackson]

I have owned a long lists of 35s from Leica, VC & Zeiss and the Summicron V4 is my personal favourite. It has the right blend of size and performance imo and I just so happen to have taken some of my most cherished images on it. 

[bdjackson]

17 minutes ago, bdjackson said:

I have owned a long lists of 35s from Leica, VC & Zeiss and the Summicron V4 is my personal favourite. It has the right blend of size and performance imo and I just so happen to have taken some of my most cherished images on it. 

Oh and the bokeh is very pretty too!

[Almizilero]

For the moment, I made made choice, in parts from the heart and in parts from the wallet 😉 

It became clear to me that I really want that F/1.4 over the MFD of 0.7m. I feel that for the things I shoot, 99% of the time 1m will be enough. I'm pretty sure I will use F/1.4 more often for that special look.

So that left the Steel Rim and the Summilux V2. I looked back and forth between the images, took some more shots and most of the time I was drawn towards the V2. Technically, the SRR has more contrast and is sharper, but during the hunt for “my” 50mm I learned that with the M, I prefer to buy my lenses from the heart and not from the brain.

For street, I'll stop the lens down anyways, and for wider aperture shots, I'll just have to learn to use the effects of the lens in a meaningful way. From the 50 I know that can be frustrating at times, but mostly it's incredibly fun to learn to handle a new lens with it's own characteristics. And, of course, despite the V2 being expensive, the SRR still costs way more. Yes, that would be a new lens compared to an over 40 year old one, but I kinda like that it is possible to still use these old lenses. And my 50/1.4 is even older. If I come across a good deal for a SRR, I might give it another shot, but for now, I'm quite happy with my choice!

 

[kraxel69]

Very good decision, congratulations 👍.

[grahamc]

20 minutes ago, Almizilero said:

For the moment, I made made choice, in parts from the heart and in parts from the wallet 😉 

It became clear to me that I really want that F/1.4 over the MFD of 0.7m. I feel that for the things I shoot, 99% of the time 1m will be enough. I'm pretty sure I will use F/1.4 more often for that special look.

So that left the Steel Rim and the Summilux V2. I looked back and forth between the images, took some more shots and most of the time I was drawn towards the V2. Technically, the SRR has more contrast and is sharper, but during the hunt for “my” 50mm I learned that with the M, I prefer to buy my lenses from the heart and not from the brain.

For street, I'll stop the lens down anyways, and for wider aperture shots, I'll just have to learn to use the effects of the lens in a meaningful way. From the 50 I know that can be frustrating at times, but mostly it's incredibly fun to learn to handle a new lens with it's own characteristics. And, of course, despite the V2 being expensive, the SRR still costs way more. Yes, that would be a new lens compared to an over 40 year old one, but I kinda like that it is possible to still use these old lenses. And my 50/1.4 is even older. If I come across a good deal for a SRR, I might give it another shot, but for now, I'm quite happy with my choice!

 

Congratulations. I’ve tried all of the lenses you mentioned and although I kept the KOB, the v2 Summilux is my main lens and most used by far. I didn’t keep the SRR

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 17 Stunden schrieb Al Brown:

for instance hordes of people who overpaid the irrational price for this lens used

I paid € 750,- for my mint German made copy. Ok, that was about 15 years ago, but I don't think that price was irrational in any way. I have no idea about the current going price though.

 

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Al Brown:

The Summicron-M 50 f/2 for instance blows the IV out of the water regarding separation and microcontrast.

I own and use both lenses, and while rendering-wise they are certainly a good match, I have never experienced the Summicron 50 v4/v5 blowing the KOB out of the water. Rather, I have more than once been blown away by just how good the KOB renders (and I am not referring to bokeh here).

[wizard]

vor 47 Minuten schrieb Giacomo Busoni:

To me, though, it doesn't produce a unique rendering like the V4 when everything aligns. 

I completely agree with you.

[Antonio Russell]

I see no practical differfences between the 3 lenses that would have an effect on the final image. 

[costa43]

Tough decision that I also contemplated fairly recently, my vote is for the Summilux. I like the minimum focus of the v4 over my Summilux v2 but f1.4 and f2 on the Summilux give me something a little different and f2.8 and above are more than sharp enough for anything I will ever need. The most interesting summicron for me is the 40mm.

Edited May 17, 2024 by costa43

[rcusick]

7 hours ago, Antonio Russell said:

I see no practical differfences between the 3 lenses that would have an effect on the final image. 

Absolutely not true.  I own both.  
 

Summilux - Cooler temp.  Glow at f 1.4 and 2.  Sharper in the center than corners.

Summicron - Warmer colors.  Very little to no glow.  More uniform sharpness across the frame.  The “bokeh” effect refers to the drop off between foreground and background at f4.  See below (not great pic  - but subject was shot at f4).  

 

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!

[Antonio Russell]

On 5/18/2024 at 1:50 AM, rcusick said:

Absolutely not true.  I own both.  
 

 

I fail to see how you can judge what I see?

[rcusick]

1 hour ago, Antonio Russell said:

I fail to see how you can judge what I see?

A lot of people on this forum don’t actually own or have used the equipment they’re talking about.  If you have owned or used both - then fine… you’re entitled to your opinion as am I.  
 

Edited May 19, 2024 by rcusick

[evikne]

I've owned both, a couple of times. I finally settled on the Summilux. The main reason was simply that I think the Summilux looks cooler, with its larger front element, and feels a bit more classic, in a way. I don't have a strong opinion about their image rendering, but I think the Summilux is perhaps a little more "relaxed", which I like a lot.

[dpitt]

Well, I happen to own both the Summicron 35 v3 and Summilux 35 v2 at this moment. my Summicron 35 has been with me longer than I remember. I sold my first one because I was disappointed with the performance and because I got a 'good' price for it. Then I bought the second one hoping it would perform better, and found out it was the same. So I had no regret selling that also.
This Summilux is my third one... long story, I actually thought I would never buy a third one. But only very recently, I was offered a trade that I could not refuse. My initial intent was to sell it without using it too much, but now I think that I want to revisit this lens. 

My 'fault' when evaluating the Summilux 10 years ago on my M8 was that I wanted it mostly for the F1.4 extra stop. The main reason was to use it in low light situations with my M8. But I did not like the glow and softness at F1.4 all the time. Also, it was harder to focus with a rangefinder than the Summicron 35 because of focus shift issues.

Now, I often use my Summicron 35 on the TL2 and sometimes on the SL. In both cases focus shift is off the table and low light is never an issue compared to shooting with M8/M9 because I can shoot much higher ISO values without penalty. So I can now completely disregard the F1.4 and use F2.0 and up when I want sharpness and contrast. Then I will only use F1.4 for artistic reasons. I might be in trouble, because I will have to find something else to sell if I decide to keep both the Summilux and Summicron 🤔

[Antonio Russell]

7 hours ago, rcusick said:

A lot of people on this forum don’t actually own or have used the equipment they’re talking about.  If you have owned or used both - then fine… you’re entitled to your opinion as am I.  
 

You seem to be obsessed with owning lenses.

For all intents and purposes, the lenses take identical images. Nobody cares about the very subtle differences when viewing an image.

Photographing brick walls to asses lense shaprnss misses the entire point of photography. At least for me anyway.

Think composition, light, colour, subject. Story.

Nobody is looking in the corners FFS! They are looking at what you are photographing.

 

[rcusick]

37 minutes ago, Antonio Russell said:

You seem to be obsessed with owning lenses.

For all intents and purposes, the lenses take identical images. Nobody cares about the very subtle differences when viewing an image.

Photographing brick walls to asses lense shaprnss misses the entire point of photography. At least for me anyway.

Think composition, light, colour, subject. Story.

Nobody is looking in the corners FFS! They are looking at what you are photographing.

 

Antonio - 

I am sorry you have to resort to being insulting and or lecturing.  It’s none of your business as to what motivates me in life.

As for my love of photography - I encourage you to look at the many photographs I have posted in this forum that demonstrate my passion for the hobby. 

This is an equipment discussion forum so by its very nature is about equipment.  I try to be helpful to people and answer the questions posed based on my actual use of equipment.  
 
For the sake of everyone here I suggest we close out this meaningless back and forth.   
 

Thx. 

Edited May 19, 2024 by rcusick

[Robert Blanko]

Having watched a lot of photos on the internet shot with the SRR, the original SR, the V2 and other 35 mm lenses, the „glow“ at f/1.4 of the SR(R) and the V2 definitely tell them apart from modern lenses and Summicrons.

Whether the object in the photo lends itself to undergird said effect is a different story. But if so, the difference is pretty obvious and can destroy or improve the photo - depending on the object and personal preferences.

So far, my favorite is the SRR.

Edited May 20, 2024 by Robert Blanko

[Antonio Russell]

7 hours ago, rcusick said:

Antonio - 

I am sorry you have to resort to being insulting and or lecturing.  It’s none of your business as to what motivates me in life.

As for my love of photography - I encourage you to look at the many photographs I have posted in this forum that demonstrate my passion for the hobby. 

This is an equipment discussion forum so by its very nature is about equipment.  I try to be helpful to people and answer the questions posed based on my actual use of equipment.  
 
For the sake of everyone here I suggest we close out this meaningless back and forth.   
 

Thx. 

My point is that the equipment doesnt matter! Much as people like to obsess over it. Are we not allowed to say that in an equipment forum?

You instantly slapped down my personal observations as being "not true" and now take offence when I respond to your argument?

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[hansvons]

On 5/17/2024 at 5:55 PM, Antonio Russell said:

I see no practical differfences between the 3 lenses that would have an effect on the final image. 

 

Yes, that's generally true for lenses of the same focal length, especially if the evaluation is done by a general audience. Content trumps everything. From that perspective, 90% of conversations on these forums are moot. However, gear plays a role in motivation. 

I can't add enlightening insights into this topic regarding the mentioned particular lenses because I don't own them. However, as 35mm is my 95% focal length, I shot with a lot of different 35mm lenses, and there are three major properties that interest me.

1. How does the lens render faces in a medium closeup? Is it on the flatter or more dimensional side? I prefer flatter. The Summicrons tend to be on the flatter side. 

2. How does it render colours? I like to have it slightly cooler because skin tones tend to look better. Summicrons, including V5/6 ASPH, have a nice balance in that.

3. Has the lens the ability to render sharp corners near infinity at a moderate aperture? 

4. How well is vignetting controlled? This isn't of great importance when shooting digitally but on film it makes all the difference. Why is that? Lenses that show considerable vignetting expose the corners easily 1 and more stop lower than the centre. Underexposure is a real issue when shooting negative, bringing out grain and in the shadows funky colours. To avoid that one has to factor in the consequences of vignetting into the EI (exposure index), ultimately losing precious film speed. That's why I’m generally not interested in f1.4 high-speed lenses because most of them strongly vignette at full aperture. Please note that this very different with digital sensors.