Depth of Field of the new Noctilux F/.95

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A lens perfectly corrected for spherical would have blurred highlight circles with an even radial distribution of light both in front of and behind the plane of best focus. Newer ASPH lenses do that, to a good approximation. The v. IV 35mm Summicron did also approach this condition fairly well, and was consequently hailed as a 'bokeh champion'. The preceding v. III did it much less, and is generally acknowledged as having a quite harsh bokeh.

 

Coma and double-contour effects can also contribute to bad bokeh, but strongly over- or under-corrected spherical aberration is certainly a major cause.

 

The old man from the Age of Max Berek

[Advertisement]

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

[Penzes]

Thank you Volker.

[imported_donatellobirsa]

Has the Depth of Field (DoF) of the new Noctilux F/.95 been ricalculated by Leica?

 

In the photo of the The new LNA (leica noct asph) in Puts's analysis of the new lenses,

 

the hyperfocal distance looks to be different .

Infact HD at infinity At F/16 is 25 feet (ca. 7.5 meters)

instead of 5 meters (old Noctilux F/1 and all 50 mm).

 

DoF recalculated by Leica,

 

or simply wrong? :-)

 

If you look at the depth of field table, now available, of the new Noctilux 0.95,

it looks like I was right. :-)

 

They did'nt use a different COC.

Infact the hyperfocal distance has just riturned around the original 5 meters (5.28 m) at infinity At F/16 instead of 25 feet (ca. 7.5 meters)

- the modified (and wrong) references for the DoF in the prototype sample of the Noctilux.

 

But they are still in time to change the dof references in the production samples!

 

Ciao,

Donatello

[rosuna]

I agree with Lars reasonings.

 

I would like to bring here this analysis on the subject:

 

Do Sensors "Outresolve" Lenses?

 

.

[lars_bergquist]

Rubén—and I agree with most of your assumptions and most of your conclusions too. I will not presume to criticize the science either.

 

I have to take exception however to the statement that print size is much larger now. Yes, in absolute terms—centimeters or inches. No, in relative terms—angle of view. Go to the Prado Museum. Observe, not the paintings but the people who are looking at them. You will find that the spontaneously selected viewing distances (i.e. when not restricted by barriers or room size or guards—tend to cluster around a mean value = the diagonal of the picture. The lower limit is of course the close focus of the eye, which is normally 25 to 30cm, but this is relevant only to displays of etchings, pencil drawings and the like. This seems to be the largest a.o.v. at which we can comfortably perceive of the picture as a whole image (which is of course a LARGER angle than that of the retinal yellow spot. The eye is irrelevant. We see with our brains, not with our eyes). When the picture is too large for our comfortable a.o.v., we *increase the viewing distance* if we can. Or we stop looking at what has become an incomprehensible jumble.

 

Now my observations were made not in Madrid but in the National Museum in Stockholm. Maybe the perceptual apparatus of Swedes (non-vegetable) is different from that of Spaniards, but I think not.

 

So the conclusion is that if you can produce an acceptably sharp print viewed at minimum focus, which would be approx. an 18x24cm or 8x10" or A4 print, THEN it is sharp at any larger size. As long as we want to percieve an image in its totality and not a technical specimen. Believe a graphical designer (retd.)

 

The old man from the Age of Printing from Type