Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It is a myth that "bokeh" is an inherent or intentionally-created characteristic of any Leica lens. What we call bokeh is a complex of aberrations in out of focus areas. As Erwin Puts is quick to point out, for about 75 years, Leica has attempted to design all aberrations out of their lenses. As they become more and more successful at eliminating them, the bokeh gets worse and worse. If a Leica lens has bokeh at all, it is either the product of technology limitations (in the past) or aberrations that just can't be killed (present line). Perhaps the most obvious evidence that bokeh is not a Leica concept is that we use the Japanese word coined when nostalgic Japanese lens designers wanted to resurrect aberration complexes whose product on film was reminiscent of that of old lens designs. Otherwise, we would call it "Hintergrundunschärfe," or something like that. > From: Henry Ting <henryting10@yahoo.com> > Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 17:44:35 -0800 (PST) > To: Leica-users <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > 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