Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]<<<<<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