RE: [Leica] Bokeh controversy

["Dan Honemann" <ddh@home.com>]

Great post, Martin!

>     Nikon 105mm f/2.5 second version

I knew of the legendary 105 nikkor, but didn’t realize it was this specific
version that’s considered the champ.  I continue keep my eye out at local
swaps and garage sales for a user F3 just so I can put this lens on it.

>     Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron 8-element (first version?)

From the illustrious Mr. Collier:

“The bokeh king is indeed the 4th version with seven elements in six groups;
code 11310, black; code 11311, chrome. Produced from 1979 to 1997 with a
serial number range of approximately 2 970 000 to 3 731 200. It takes E39
filters and uses the 12524 square plastic hood. It can take the hood 12526
from the 35 Summicron Asph which comes with a hood cap 14043.

“Nota bene that this version of the pre-aspheric 35 Summicron has twelve
diaphragm blades as opposed to the ten blades of the aspheric version.  I
own both, but for most purposes prefer the pre-aspheric.”

>     Leica 35mm f/2.8 and f/3.5 Summarons
>     Leica M 50mm f/1.4 Summilux

I keep trying to talk myself out of this lens, especially since I have the
trusty summicron, but I may just have to get one.  Sounds like Joseph has
the entire inventory! :)

>     Leica M 50mm f/2 Summicron (DR generation)
>     Leica R 60mm f/2.8 Macro-Elmarit
>     Leica R 80mm f/1.4 Summilux
>     Leica R 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit (first generation)
>     Leica M 90mm f/2.0 Summicron (first generation)

You might add the skinny te to this list of 90’s, ala Richard Saylor’s
recent post.  The other lenses are compelling reasons to own a Leica R.

>     Leica R 135mm f/2.8 Elmarit
>     Contax 85mm f/1.4 SLR lens (several people have claimed that it's
>         worth buying a Contax SLR just for the bokeh of this single
>         lens alone!)
>     Contax 135mm f/2.8 SLR lens

I knew about the famed 85/1.4, but not the 135, in the Contax line.  I
wonder how the new AF version of the 85 will stack up.  I also wonder if the
two fine lenses you mention here will come down considerably in price now
that their lens mount has been rendered obsolete.

> As a general rule, long and wide tele-lenses seem to have
> smoother bokeh in
> general (I'm thinking of 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, 400mm f/4, 600mm f/4,
> etc).  I guess it has something to do with the lens designs.

I suppose--although some of the harshest bokeh samples I’ve seen come from
teles (typically zooms).

> Another general rule appears to be that lenses with a symmetrical (or near
> symmetrical) design produce smoother bokeh.  Often, focal lenghts around
> 50-85mm will be such a design (and older 35s).  The early 90mm
> Elmarit-R was
> a (near?) symmetrical design.  Yet, the 135mm Elmarit is not, but has
> wonderfully smooth tonal qualities in the OOF parts of an image (check out
> Doug Herr's page on it, or Skip Bolen's Jazz photography with that lens).

Interesting theory.

> The 75mm f/1.4 Summilux-M is an interesting beast.  Sometimes is looks
> fabulous, other times the bokeh is not too brilliant.  I think it is
> sensitive to the kind of background: broken leaves do not seem to
> fare well.

This is the very first detraction I’ve heard in regards to the OOF qualities
of the 75 ‘lux.  But perhaps this unique character is what Jim (or was it
Henry?) means when he describes the 75 as being “sharp and soft all at
 once.”  I have this one on order and really look forward to seeing its
signature for myself.

> The 75mm f/2.5 Voigtländer looks interesting, from seeing some of
> Johnny B's (or D's) shots in Human Traffic.  Again, it appears to be
> somewhat sensitive to the background.

I know very little about this lens; can you point to some images in HT where
Johnny used this lens?

> Zooms are trickier.  They generally seem to exhibit more complex
> bokeh (not
> necessarily "double-eyed", but certainly not smooth) than prime lenses.
> However, what I've seen of shots from the Contax SLR and Leica R
> zooms, they
> seem to have particularly nice bokeh, approaching that of good primes.
>
> If I recall correctly, medium-tele (80-135mm) Canon FD primes have pretty
> good bokeh (the fast ones, that is), and the current crop of fast EOS
> mid-tele primes seem reasonably OK -- but not up to Leica R or Contax SLR
> standards.

I’ve seen some images made by the Canon 85/1.2L that have all the bokeh an
OOF conniesuer could want. :)  I hear the 135/2L is just as nice.

> Nikon doesn't seem to know it exists, or care about it.  Their
> lenses appear
> to be hit-and-miss.  They recently released two lenses with "defocus
> control", the 105mm f/2 and 135mm f/2, which supposedly allows
> you to alter
> the quality of the OOF parts of the image.  I haven't used them.
> Their 85mm
> f/1.4 reportedly has nice bokeh, what I've seen of the 60mm macro looks
> pretty good, but general consensus has it that the 105mm f/2.5 is the best
> they've ever produced with regard to bokeh.  Superb portrait lens.  Wish I
> could get it in Leica R mount.

Well, you can get the 80 summilux or 90 elmarit and never be the worse for
it!

> Minolta issued a lens somewhere around the 135mm focal length with a
> "soft-focus" or "defocus" control.  Their approach is much more low-tech
> than Nikons, and actually rather clever.  They include a second
> aperture in
> the lens design, one that dims the edges of the OOF discs -- producing a
> gradual fall-off of light intensity towards the edge of the disc.  Smart.
> I've seen shots (albeit in magazines) that look pretty good with it.
> Minolta's G series of SLR AF lenses also seem to fare pretty well (what
> little I've seen of it: no-one seems to use Minolta these days).

Minolta may just enjoy a renaissance with its Maxxum 7 bells & whistles
offering.

> In MF, Bronica seems to fair better than Hasselblad, despite the latter
> being Zeiss.  I can't explain it, I'm just reporting what I've seen after
> pouring over images from the two lens systems for hours on end.

Very interesting--never heard this observation before, either.  How does the
famed Fuji and Mamiya glass measure up?

> Bad examples of bokeh (if you like smooth bokeh) are exhibited by:
>
>     Nikon AIS/AF 50mm f/1.4
>     Hasselblad 150mm f/4 Sonnar (yeah -- used for portraits, I know ;)
>     Voightländer 50mm f/1.5 Nokton (I put an 'h' in the name specifically
>         for Marc James Small's enjoyment ;)
>     Pretty much any consumer-grade f/4-f/5.6 SLR zoom from Nikon

The only surprise here is the Hassy.  Do the 80/2.8 and 120 macro fare
better?

May all your bokeh be smooth,
Dan