Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]For what it's worth, the only bokeh I can recognize in a heartbeat is that from a mirror lens. I've never seen a side-by-side test of different lenses aimed at the same subjects and/or light sources (like headlights). There seem to be too many factors (contrast, distance from lens, focusing distance) to quantify anything objectively or subjectively. Jeffery Smith New Orleans, LA > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Henry Ting > Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 7:45 PM > To: Leica-users > Subject: [Leica] Bokeh - proven myth ? > > > > This is going to be controversial. > I read about a lot of Leica lens offering a distinct > "Bokeh" image that's missing from lens of other makes. > I was confused as to how could this be possible, > unless outside of physics' existentialism, Leica lens > have a metaphysical spirit that the likes of Nikon or > Zeiss lack. > > To prove my point, I did some experiment. > I used my Leica M6 with the 35 Summicron and a Nikon > F2 with a 35mm lens. I set them up both on tripods > with the same camera to object distance in shooting my > car head on at a range of only 5 feet. The background > was a cul-de-sac of our neighborhood with florals and > houses and images that I am familiar with. > Then I shot the pictures with Ektachome 64 with the > aperture of both these cameras wide-open. I controlled > the session with everything identical from the 2 > cameras except the lens (Leica vs Nikon). > > I got the slides back right before X'mas and here are > the results : > > I setup my projector against a white screen at 15 feet > distance, the image of the Leica lens show a hint of > warmth and the same amount of details from the > highlights to the shade compared with the Nikon. The > area of the car's hood which were the focal point, > both images are tack sharp. The Nikon image shows a > bit more contrast, but very minor when everything is > in sharp focus. However, the image behind the car's > hood, extending further back from medium distance all > the way back to infinity, the images get progressively > blurry as the distance increase. Using some florals > and our neighbors front yard, the out of focus image > from both the Nikon and the Leica were 100 percent > identical. Even the sizes of the Bokeh images were of > the same size (we all know the image gets > progressively bigger as it comes into focus). At least > from my eyes, I cannot see any differences from the > highlights to the shades. Both these pictures were > taken at F2, 1/1000 sec with the same subject to > camera distance and the same film used. > > The result? No differences whatsoever. I think the > reverse is true. If both lens are of the same focal > length, the graduality from sharpness to blurryness > should not be different at all. Based on the law of > physics this should apply to every lens. > I for once proved to myself there is no difference and > for anyone that claim there is a "Bokeh" difference > between Leica and Nikon lens, my only comment from > here onwards is "More power to them". > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send your FREE holiday greetings online! > http://greetings.yahoo.com > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html