[Leica] Bokeh a Leica advantage?

["Frank Dernie" <Frank.Dernie@btinternet.com>]

Pascal I think all of this is an over simplification.
I believe one's sensitivity to so called boke depends strongly on the type
of photographs one takes. In sports and macro photography much of the frame
is oof, usually the majority in fact, and if there are highlights in this
oof area the amount to which they draw the eye away from the subject is
important.
If one uses 35 and 50 lenses wide open and at relatively close distances the
requirements are the same. If you shoot at smaller apertures and wider
angles - or mainly flat subjects orthoganally - there will be less of the
photograph oof so that its nature, if noticed at all, will be of less
importance.
OTOH perhaps one could just avoid all subjects with "messy" backgrounds!

Canon seem to have studied the whys and wherefores and in their book EF Lens
Work II they simply say that the closer together the Meridional and Sagittal
curves are on the MTF curve on the lens the "more natural" the background
blur will be. I have only seen their MTF graphs though so comparison with
other manufacturers is difficult using this parameter. Their long lenses are
sharp with lovely boke. Some say the fast long Leica lenses are better but
I've only seen pictures from the slow ones.

I do not personally have a very great experience of many different lenses
having used Agfa, leica screw, Leicaflex SL2, Contarex, Olympus OM, Leica M
and Canon EOS in 35mm, I have just bought a used R8 but stupendous
ergonomics (cf EOS) apart I haven't got enough experience of it yet. I did
however try Nikon and found despite much prefering their quality of
manufacture over Canon I could not get on with the "wrong way" focussing
direction! I have bought several of the Cosina/Voightlander lenses
(12,15,50,75). The only one I don't like is the Nokton 50, it is unusable
wide open for me so a bit pointless as a fast lens on a rangefinder, not
even brighter for focussing! Thankfully I only got it whilst my 15 year old
summilux had a cla. I love the others (which anyway have no Leica
equivalent) In Leica I use 21 asph., 24asph, 35f1.4 aspherical (old type),
50 f1.4, 75, and 90 thin TE. You can see from this that I am not a
particular supporter of the old lenses but, boke is VERY important to me. I
have not noticed the poor boke Dan Honemann mentions for the 35f1.4 asph
perhaps the newer version is in this case less good than the original?
My summary of mu lenses is 12 to 21 not really relevant, 24 magic, 35 magic
(used 75% of time), 50 & 75 same & lovely, 90 fine. I tend not to use the 75
f1.4 much because of size & weight.

I do not think we should use boke, important or otherwise, to fuel the
debate as to whether the more modern lenses made by Leica are superior. I am
sure they are, though it is also clear that earlier in Leica's history new
lenses were released because a less expensive way has been found to achieve
the same performance.
In any case I don't question the lens unless there is something I don't like
about the photograph which wasn't clearly the photographer. I find the
biggest reason why my Leica M pics are my favourites is that I take it with
me. I look at the EOS and think too big and leave it behind - I'm afraid the
R8 is falling into the same category.

happy New Year to all,
Frank


>
>>Not the first thing that would occur to most people;
>>but it seems to definitely occur to some.
>>For many of those it's a great excuse to use older cheaper optics while
>>denigrating the current expensive ones.
>>The less you want to spend, the more the "ground" assumes dominance over the
>>"figure" in the figure/ground was of viewing things.
>
> very well said, I think you made the point eloquently
> ;-)