What makes a good "BOKEH" in LEICA LENS.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

I want to know what makes a good "bokeh" in Leica lens. Why we talk about this technical aspect in Leica lenses and not much in Nikon lenses? Any technical considerations are welcome. Thanks. Jean-Pierre Auger.

-- Jean-Pierre Auger (paphoto@videotron.ca), August 29, 2001

Answers

It would be hard to state a straight answer about what makes good or bad Bokeh... just check out the flame wars started in the Leica User Group (LUG) when this subject comes up. It is somewhat subjective, and many people have a different philosophy about what makes the blur attractive.

Regarding Nikon, "Bokeh" is really a recently used word here in the U.S., but I lived in Japan for several years back in the 1980's, and many of the photo magazines not only talked about it, but had actual photographic tests for lens Bokeh as part of the overall performance testing. I didn't understand at the time, but there would always be a "blur" pattern accompanying photo magazine reports... my Japanese was limited, and my Japanese spouse was not able to explain the concept in English. I was later able to find out what was being talked about, but in those days, I just thought..."Who cares?" All I wanted was sharpness.

Today, Nikon offers two defocus control lenses, a 105mm f/2.0 and 135mm f/2.0 which allows the photographer to alter the blur rendition independent of the aperture to a degree. I looked at these, and they are very nice, but just settled on my old 105mm f/2.5 which had great Bokeh before anyone in the U.S. knew what the word was. Compared to my Leica 90mm Elmarit M, this Nikon lens is not as sharp wide open, but in my opinion is the better portrait lens.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), August 29, 2001.


Al:

We will probably get ourselves into trouble here, but I agree with you entirely. I judge a lens by whether it produces something like what I saw when I took the shot. Which lens do I depend on? Amongst the short telephotos, that would be the Nikon 105 f/2.5 [mine is an AI], and not my Leica 90's. It produces what I saw. Sharpness difference; I seldom blow 35mm over 8 x 10, so I doubt that I would see it. Yep, it does what I want done. Who could ask for more?

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), August 29, 2001.


somewhat subjective"

I should say so! We all know what it is, but there is no way to really quantify it or to define "good" or "bad" bokeh. Leica lenses often have "good" bokeh - is this justification after the fact? Some of my R lenses have nice bokeh as do many others (non-Leica). I don't give it a lot of thought. I know it when I see it (I think). Zoom lenses tend not to have good bokeh.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 29, 2001.


Aberration control over the out of focus field is a caracteristic present in most leitz lenses, I belive there is where the out of focus blur or buque can be mesurable, an out of focus background with the same quality all over the frame makes this out of focus area more pleasant to see, than a back ground where residual averrations only solve in the focus plane makes an imperfect blur, this is easily apreciate in focal length from 35 to 90, because in shorter it is masked by deep of focus wile longer it is mixed with the natural copress of longer lenses, hope I can explain what I belive.

So the reason why Leitz always have a perfect or near perfect circle diphragm, I belive they were very conscient of this, my 21/3.5 SA has an almost perfect circle in the wides aphertures but after f/8 or so it becomes square, why?; easy that lens didnīt need such a diaphragm after f/8. And yes I know this is a Schnider lens, but designed for Leitz

A perfect circle diaphragm doesnīt make good blur, but it is designed to work on that part of the focus area.

So they donīt only design lenses to be sharp in the focal plane, but aberrations were controled to have a good blur wile out of focus.

what we all can agree is that this is one of the most dificult topics to talk about in photography.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), August 29, 2001.


HERE ARE SOME EARLIER RESPONSES TO THIS QUESTION.

This is a previous thread on this subject. It saves me having to repeat myself and adds some depth from other people. I personally think it has to do with long tonal range and the fact that Leica lenses are sharp (and therefore useable) wide open.

Exceptional bokeh is most visible in lenses 35mm and longer - wide angles have too much depth of field for anything especially exciting to happen in the OOF parts.

AS to Nikon 'bokeh', I never noticed it much for the 25+ years I shot Nikon - mostly because Nikon lenses are rarely sharp enough wide open for a snappy contrast between 'sharp' and 'unsharp', and because Nikons have so much macro-contrast that the OOF cirlces in the highlights either show up with hard edges like train headlights or blow out completely.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 29, 2001.



mostly because Nikon lenses are rarely sharp enough wide open for a snappy contrast between 'sharp' and 'unsharp', and because Nikons have so much macro-contrast that the OOF cirlces in the highlights either show up with hard edges like train headlights or blow out completely.

WOW! Have you thought of telling the thousands of photographers who have taken great photographs, had them published, hung them in galleries and museums, etc. etc.? It's amazing that they didn't know this yet kept on taking pictures. Hopefully people will get smart, throw out any great photos taken with Nikons, throw out the great books of photos made with Nikons, shut down the museums that hang photos with Nikons, etc. etc.

Regarding the question, lenses are a sum of a variety of characteristics and "good" and "bad" are relative to what a "good" photographer wants a "good" lens to do.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 29, 2001.


Bokeh has more to do with "Art" than technical considerations. Art is in the eye of the beholder. That's why what some people call art, I call simple vulgarity. So it is, IMO, with bokeh. I suppose it also is the softness of the out of focus areas of the photo, that 1/3 in front and 2/3's behind the sharp subject. I don't think much about this when I am considering EV, composition, and subject. PN

-- Paul Nelson (clrfarm@comswest.net.au), August 29, 2001.

From what I've been able to decipher, when a non-Leica lens is less than super sharp it's referred to as "a dog", while a Leica lens is said to have "great bokeh".

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 29, 2001.

Jay:

You risk joining Al and me as Dogs. :)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), August 29, 2001.


I shoot Leica M and R alongside Nikon, not in preference to it, choosing whichever seems to suit my immediate needs better. If it worked for all my photography I'd use a Hasselblad for everything. When I got into medium format is when I stopped nitpicking between 35mm brands.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 29, 2001.


Jay:

I have agreed with you. Don't you love the 40 FLE. Still for small enlargements the Leica is good.

Art

-- Art (AKarr@aol.com), August 29, 2001.


Jean,Pierre,

Getting back to your original question (this thread seems to have rambled a bit), I have the impression, from all I've read in this forum and elsewhere, that good bokeh may be the result of the lens designer's achieving a good balance, or overall compromise, among several abberations, rather than concentrating heavily on correcting mostly for spherical abberation. As a possible example of this, my 55mm Micro-Nikkor, while a very sharp lens, does not have good Bokeh. Out-of focus details tend to be rendered double, so that the background looks confusing and "busy". Probably, it is highly corrected for spherical abberation at the expense of its out-of-focus characteristics (they probably weren't deemed important in a Macro lens).

This explanation may be flawed, though, because I don't see anyone complaining about bad bokeh in the Leica Aspherical lenses, which are, of course, highly corrected for spherical abberation.

Have you looked at the Erwin Puts web pages on Leica lens design? I'll see if I can post a link.

Bonjour,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), August 29, 2001.


Jean-Pierre, Here it is:

LEICA PAPERS INDEX

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), August 29, 2001.


Bob: Just to prove how subjective this all is, I was talking to a guy the other day who said he liked the 55 Nikon macro because "it's the only Nikon lens that doesn't look like a Nikon; it has the bokeh of a Leica."

Go figure....

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 29, 2001.


Art: I do not own the 40FLE, I've thought about it though. I rarely find myself wanting wider than a 50 (or a 28 in 35mm). Luckily I have someone who lends me an SWC if I really need it. It's got a GG back so I avoid the awful finder.

Actually, 35mm is fine for even huge enlargements if your technique is meticulous. I've done many of them. But the difference between 35 and mf is obvious in a 5x5. But photography isn't *only* about sharpness and minute detail--sometimes we forget that.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 30, 2001.



"Hopefully people will get smart, throw out any great photos taken with Nikons, throw out the great books of photos made with Nikons, shut down the museums that hang photos with Nikons, etc. etc."

Jeff: I don't know how you managed to read this into my comments, but in light of the Taliban's recent destruction of Buddhist religious images in Afghanistan I find this interpretation unbelievably offensive. What in the world do you mean?

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 30, 2001.


Andy

Jeff maintains he has no interest in equipment, and any of us who do are not real photographers. I see it has his schtick. I don't think he can really be equated with the Taliban.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 30, 2001.


Images are equated with the Feminine, words with the Masculine, which is why fundamentalist patriarchal religions hate images and are always ranting about "The Word."

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), August 30, 2001.

Andy - Your comments on Nikon lenses, if true, would indicate that the majority of working photographers from the last forty years have been deceived. Well maybe not the last ten years when Canon began to dominate. Plenty of photographers switched from Leicas to Nikons in the early part of those forty years and kept making great photographs.

It isn't that I don't think equipment plays a role. But most of the online talk fails to recognize that a wide variety of factors influence what a photograph looks like and the lens used is just one piece. A great printer will influence what the print looks like far more than a lens, to use the most obvious example.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 30, 2001.


Jeff: I was just a little ticked at the implication that I was a crypto-Taliban devoted to suppressing the non-Leica believers. If I did knock down all the walls with Nikon pictures on them, MY house would have many holes in it, too.

I don't think Nikon or other SLR users were/are deceived. I work for the newspaper that won the 2000 Pulitzer for news photography (Columbine High School massacre) and every one of the contest-entry pictures was a Nikon image.

This string happened to be about bokeh, so I was 'focusing' on that small aspect of the image-making chain. And IMHO, within that NARROW area of discussion, there are technical/optical reasons why a lot of lenses (including many Nikons) tend to be ignored. Specifically, in focals lengths that Nikon and Leica have in common, 35 and 85/90, the Nikons that I used for 20+ years tended to be a little softer wide- open, so there wasn't the clear distinction between sharp subject and very soft background that I see with the comparable Leica lenses. Which addresses Jean-Pierre's question. And doesn't say anything negative at all about the other 98% of the Nikons' capabilities.

I believe you are right that 1. The 'value' of a piece of equipment is totally subjective to the needs of the photographer, and that 2. a good photographer can make effective use of any equipment from view camera to Holga to LOMO to Hasselblad to Leica to Nikon.

Well, Jeanne-Pierre, as somebody mentioned, the concept of bokeh is very subjective and definitely inflammable. Hope you got some useful information here.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 30, 2001.


Jeff does have a way with words, all right. But in this case I read his comment to be ironic. I thought he just meant that there have been a few hundred thousand or so too many good Nikon pictures to decide that Nikon stuff is bad, at this late date.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), August 30, 2001.

"Any technical considerations are welcome." -- Jean-Pierre, a not bad technical introduction is in Harold M. Merklinger’s Article: go to http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk/HMArtls.html and search the words "A Technical View of Bokeh" – it is the link to the article in PDF- format.

About Nikkor bokeh: generally speaking it depends on the lens and aperture used. If somebody want to see examples please look at 1) http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=45609 -- the 80-200/2.8 AF D was used wide open or near wide open (2.8 and 4) 2) http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=68363 -- the 50/2 was used wide open for last two pictures. There is also a good article about some subtle properties of Nikkor 50/2 at http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/society/nikkor/n02_e.htm with some pictures.

Kind regards Andrey

-- Andrey Vorobyov (AndreyVorobyov@mail.ru), August 31, 2001.


Andrey: Good information, good comments, very beautiful photography. The blue print of cherry blossoms sings to me. Spasebo, gospodin!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 01, 2001.

Hah, Bob is right on the money. I'm still not sure how it could be missed.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), September 01, 2001.

I don't feel like sitting in the mystical tent today.

Take a long lens, 50mm or longer, shoot at a wide aperture, use Tri- X, keep the background far away, avoid bare trees in the background, take pictures of people.

You will see "great bokeh", regardless of brand.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), September 01, 2001.


I don't feel like sitting in the mystical tent today.

I do feel like sitting in the mystical tent today, but I don't have one. This has nothing to with photography, but it is important. Can you tell me where you got yours?

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), September 01, 2001.


Jeff, :-)

You can order the mystic tent through your dealer, who will get it direct from Solms (Part No. AUMOM ).

Made of transparent plastic (MSRP $2295)-and similar to a kid's pup tent of the sort you can get at any K-mart.

Sit within and focus your gaze upon the bright red spot/logo embossed on the surface. Soon, all else but the word 'Leica' will be defocused, and you can meditate on the meaning of 'bokeh'. Repeating soft sibilant words such as "asph" or "lux" may help during this process of introspection.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), September 01, 2001.


Mani: I thought the part number was MNTRA..8^)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 01, 2001.

Obviously the overall 'quality' of a lense is apparent in the images that result, [ignoring all of the many other variables]some of these qualities are more easily 'measured' than others. Sharpness in plane and the out of focus rendition are at either end of the measurable scale....for this reason the out of focus rendition is classed as subjective and the sharpness in plane as objective. You may wish to have a slightly softer look in portraits, and therefore dislike images that are too sharp in plane, and this would be classed as a subjective decision. You could also view a lens as being objectively too sharp, but this would be somewhat maverick. Many consider the out of focus performance to be unimportant, probable because it has no standard of measure. I consider it to be very important because it contributes to the final image. Good bokeh maintains contrast and tonality and has a smooth transition in the manner of our own visual depth of field. I believe it supports the impression of a 3 dimensional quality. I believe this is what differentiates Leica lenses form others. All Leica lenses to not exhibit this quality equally however. In my opinion the latest ASPH lenses have an overall quality that is worse than those that came before, and this is with objectively measured improvements in the plane of focus. My advise is to take the opportunity to look at/take as many pictures at wide apertures and make your own judgement.

-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), September 02, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ