Every other week comes a thread with "bokeh" in the title. Is there a place (a link) where I can compare Leica bokeh to non-leica bokeh with the same picture taken under the ssame condition at the same time? Is the difference so obvious that you could determine which pictures in a given set was done with Leica and non leica? Also, is the R bokeh comparable an M bokeh?

-- Angelique (abischop@earthlink.net), September 20, 2001

Answers

I think you are opening a can of worms here! The answer to your first question is, I think, no. Same for the second question although many will argue with me about this. Third question, given my earlier answers - difficult to say.

We know what nice Bokeh is, but there is no objective way to compare and contrast it with other lenses unless you buy all these lenses and do exhaustive tests and look at it yourself - even then what is nice to one person may be less so to someone else. At least with resolution and contrast you can actually measure it!

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 20, 2001.

IMHO, the bokeh of many if not most Leica lenses is either satisfactory or pleasing, while ugly bokeh pops up more often with competitors' lenses. "Good" bokeh isn't found only in Leica lenses.

I've been very pleased with the bokeh properties of my R lenses but I have not had an opportunity to compare with M. It should be able to quantify bokeh by measuring the light distribution across the circle of confusion. Lenses with greater light intensity toward the edge of the COC will have "bad" bokeh, with mirror lenses an extreme example.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), September 20, 2001.

Perhaps this will help:

http://fox.nstn.ca/ ~hmmerk/ATVB.pdf: "A Technical View of Bokeh," describes what makes the out-of-focus images different for different lenses. Originally published in the May/June 1997 issue of Photo Techniques.

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), September 20, 2001.

It is an interesting article - still the fact remains that it is going to be a difficult job to differentiate the bokeh of similar lenses that all have nice circular apertures such as the various Leica 35mms. Also no one seems to systematically test for it in this way. As for comparing the bokeh of Leica with non-Leica lenses...The article uses rather exaggerated tests (triangular apertures etc.) to discuss it all in general terms, which is interesting - but does it help answer Angelique's question? I guess we have to be guided by user's preferences.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 20, 2001.

I like the article but really my question relates to availability of pictures that one can directly compare, more Leica vs Non Leica (and personally I would be curious to compare Leica vs Carl Zeiss).

-- abischop (abischop@earthlink.net), September 20, 2001.

As far as Zeiss goes. I know of no direct comparisons but the bokeh in Zeiss are mixed. Of the lenses that I have used the worst is the 50 1.4 then the 50 1.7 but on the other hand the zooms like the 35-70 and 28-85 have beautiful bokeh, especially the 35-70 in close focus situations. It just makes you want to look and look at it. The 100 2.8 is beautiful. I was stunned at how nice the photos turn out from this lens. Now these are all SLR lenses.

-- Artur (Aciesi8872@aol.com), September 20, 2001.

I had the same impression for the Zeiss 50 mm 1.4. I prefer the 45mm 2.8 Tessar. The 85mm 1.4 gives mixed results...but I would say it is good... I never tried their zoom.

-- abischop (abischop@earthlink.net), September 20, 2001.

I think Robin's first point is right on track. Bokeh is such an subjective term, that defining what is good Bokeh versus what is bad Bokeh is going to be based mainly on personal interpretation.

That being said, I will emphatically state that the Bokeh from my Leica lenses is superior (smoother) to any other 35 or medium format lenses I have used, and is on par with the Bokeh of my LF optics. Of course, there are those who have criticized us Leica users on this subject in the past, claiming that we only swoon over the great Bokeh in our Leica lenses simply to justify the money we've spent on the equipment...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 20, 2001.

Surely there is someone on this forum who has the time and proper equipment to perform a bokeh test.

I suggest shooting two pictures WIDE OPEN at f/2, one with a Summicron 50mm, the other with a Japanese 50mm f/2 lens. (A Nikon 50mm f/2 would be ideal.) The point of focus should be relatively close, say 5 to 7 feet, and the background should fall off slowly to near infinity. (A cemetery with a row of headstones might serve perfectly for this.)

Someone with the right equipment could do this in an hour. I would do it myself but I haven't got the Japanese camera/lens.

Let's see if there's any difference! And if so, if the members of the forum can agree upon which is "better."

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), September 21, 2001.

I and others have performed comparative tests and you can of course conclude what you like form these, depending on what criteria you adopt for an opinion of superiority, but the issue with bokeh for me is so much more fundamental. It really illustrates the lack of conviction we all seem to have in our own subjective opinion, and the need we feel for measure or objective quantification of what we believe or feel. Quite often we will adopt a set of criteria that does not really fit what we are trying to measure because it is either the norm or just plain convenient. For years Leica lenses have had a reputation that transcends the measure of sharpness in image plain and measurable contrast, and bokeh appears as a convenient vehicle to attach a hope of measuring what is better or what we feel may be the secret of our feeling of superiority. I am as guilty as others in this activity. I would say this: use a lens for a period of time and look and feel what the quality of images you get form this and then make your own personal and real view of what is better. Measure really is only a consensus of subjectivity if you want a philosophical view, and when you accept this you can feel comfortable in your own opinion, because the only real measure is this.

-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), September 21, 2001.

I am sure that measures alone cannot explain observed differences (wheather we like them or not). My husband will not contradict me on this as he says that the most musically satisfying audio systems probably have the worst technical specifications. It seems that nowhere pictures can be found for a visual comparison.

-- Angelique (abischop@earthlink.net), September 21, 2001.

If you look to a later thread you can see a comparison of the oof performance of the old 35/2 and new aspherical, and some comments and discussion. This is one Leica against another though. The only way to answer YOUR question is for YOU to capture some Leica images yourself and to see how YOU feel about them. I am guessing you are not a Leica user yourself, otherwise you ashould not be asking the question? The mystique surrounding the camera and the emotional link that many Leica users have with the Camera I believe also significantly contributes to the 'quality' of images produced.

-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), September 22, 2001.

WILL SOMEONE PERFORM THE DAMN TEST ALREADY!

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), September 22, 2001.

> simply to justify the money we've spent on the equipment...

testing? just what assessment would you value from those that claim Leica metering is superior, ignore the inane loading scheme, dismiss viewfinder flare and hood obstruction, and clamour about lens sharpness from their 1/30 second handheld images.

testing just might expose the emperor. and if it did, there are myriad additional arcane parameters to target and help justify the expense and incite frivolous discussion.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), September 22, 2001.