Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/30

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Bokeh? Summilux Aspherical?
From: tedgrant@islandnet.com (Ted Grant)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:23:17 +0100

<<<<<Do you think this is what is meant by "bokeh"? It is totally
unpredictable to me but sometimes the photos just seem to pop off of the
page.  Both of these were made with the 35mm/1.4 Summilux - one of my
favorite lenses.>>>>>>

Hi Tina,

I don't think your photographs show "bokeh" as I've been led to believe it
looks. As I understand "bokeh" pertains to the well out of focus
background. It might also be what the background looks like in your prints
can't be seen fine enough on the computer screen. Bokeh is something I
never thought of in the past, as I've always been more concerned with
getting the damn subject sharp and the background as far out of focus as
posssible when the back ground doesn't play a role in the photograph.! :)

<<<<<<<Can anybody tell me if the aspherical version of this lens gives the
same look?  I know it is supposed to be sharper, but I am more concerned
with the "look" than the resolution.>>>>>

I have been shooting with the aspherical 35 1.4 during the past month and
I'm very impressed with it wide open, just my kinda thing.:)  Does it
create the same feeling as the standard 1.4 Summilux? I'd have to say yes,
but with a greater deal of clarity. Does that mean sharper, well I guess so
as the colour slides look crisper and the subject does stand out from the
background nicely.

I didn't really understand how one 35 Summilux 1.4 could be different than
the other until we shot back to back frames of the same subject at night on
the same camera (M6), same roll of film!  That's when you become a believer
in the Aspherical version immediately!

<<<Should I mortgage the house  for an aspherical or not?>>>>>

My gut feeling? Only if you are going to do a considerable amount of
picture taking wide open or a stop or two down. That's where the difference
really shows up. Sure it's a better lens all round and some extra crispness
can be found at smaller apertures, lens to lens, if you have the camera
locked down on a tripod and shoot as we did our test frames.  By hand held
it seems the major difference between aspherical and non can really only be
seen while the aperture is wide open and then it's very obvious. Wait till
you see the slides at the Leica seminar! :)

Does it make a major difference when stopped down that you can see
immediately by eyeball? Nope, I don't think so! You and I are far more
interested in the final slide or print subject look, than the twinky toe
folks who work on tripods and never move an eye twitch while shooting. They
can see immediate differences at the smaller apertures because nothing
moves in the universe while they are doing their thing. :)

Over all, would I buy the aspherical lenses? Yep right away, simply because
they are improved where I do most of my work, wide open lens and highest
possible shutter speed!

There isn't any question the lens is worth the extra dollars, but only if
you work wide open or barely closed down for the majority of your shooting.
I mean we aren't talking about just a "few dollars more here" for the
aspherical, they are big time dollars and if you get one, you want to make
sure it is going to provide a greater dollar in the sale of your
photographs.

By the way I like the new photographs very much, extremely nice use of the
available - existing light illustrating, you just can't beat photographing
people in B&W! :)

ted