I've been using an R8 w/50 & 90mm Summicrons for my portrait work, mainly because of their beautiful bokeh. I have an 80mm Planar and 150mm Sonnar for my Hassy, both of which also have beautiful bokeh. But my 50mm f/2.8 Distagon is somewhat bokeh challenged. Recently I got an 18mm f/2.8 Nikkor for my F100 and it seems to have the same kind of confusing bokeh as the Distagon. My question is, do lenses wider than 35mm (on 35mm) generally have poorer bokeh than lenses of longer focal lengths? (This is obviously not a German vs. Japanese question since the Distagon is a German lens of fabulous quality and reputation). I'd like to hear from the "M" users out there, because both the 50mm Distagon and the 18mm Nikkor are retrofocus designs. How do the wider "M" lenses do with bokeh? BTW, I considered the older 19mm Emarit for my R8, which, used, was about the same price as the 18mm Nikkor, but the pincushion distortion was extremely noticeable.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), February 03, 2002

Answers

I'm sure that a correctly designed wide angle lens will be better in all respects to the retrofocus, even if it is Zeiss. Retrofocus is a compromise, a bit of optical quality one tosses out the window in pursuit of the T-T-L viewing. Want TTL viewing and True- wideangle design. Welcome to LF. Want great wideangle performance? don't need (or want) TTL viewing, in a small and lightweight package? This is the M's forte- I hope you can return the 18mm- those aren't cheap. I think you can get a 15 from voightlander that's real good., maybe some change for a body to put behind it.

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), February 03, 2002.

Actually I think the 80mm Plannar is the worst lens in the Hasselblad line up. I toured Hasselblad's facilities in Sweden. I spoke to a lead person involved with Hasselblad's lenses. I told him I thought the 80mm Plannar was the worst piece of glass Zeiss made for Hasselblad. I told him I thought the 180 Sonnar was the best. He told me the 80mm Plannar was TRASH (TRASH is his own word used to describe the 80mm Plannar)! He told me the best lenses were the two Superacromat 350mm and 250mm then the 180mm Sonnar. I have a picture taken with the 80 Plannar and the Bokeh is so bad you would think the elements were plastic. Personally the 80mm Plannar is my least liked lens out of EVERY lens I have. I don't mean to bash but the 80mm Plannar is my biggest pet peave! I hate it.

-- Rob Schopke (schopke@attbi.com), February 03, 2002.

I have to disagree with you regarding the 80mm Planar. It is not only extremely sharp but the bokeh is excellent. I have owned three versions of this lens--C, CF, F--and this holds true for all versions.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), February 03, 2002.

Hello Peter. In my experience, the classic 21mm Super Angulon f/3.4 (in both M and R versions) shot with wide aperture, give a nice bokeh.These lenses as many Leica owners are aware,are non retrofocus,and despite being a little affected by vignetting, still achieve a lovely contrast and are not barrel distorted closer up as are the retrofocus versions.In my opinion lack of TTL metering in the 3.4's is somewhat inconsequential. Regards.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), February 03, 2002.

Bokeh with wide-angles is sort of incidental, since so much of the image USUALLY isn't fuzzy anyway.

My 21 pre-ASPH f/2.8 has neutral to slightly good bokeh in the background when focused to .7 meters. It is a mild retrofocus (compared to the Super-Angulon and compared to SLR lenses of any format).

My 28 (c. 1982) has somewhat busy bokeh compared to the other M lenses I own.

Maybe 6 months ago someone posted a shot with a 24 Nikkor SLR lens asking what we thought of the bokeh compared to Leica, and I think we were generally favorable in our opinions.

So I'm not sure there is a strong correlation between retrofocus design and bokeh per se.

I think it has to do with the amount and kind of aberration corrections designed in, especially corrections for better resolution near the corners. Older lenses (everything else being equal) tend to be less well corrected - and have 'better' bokeh. Contrast also plays a role - at one point I've shot with the 'blad 50 and the Kowa 55 - but both pre-1975 versions, and as I recall the bokeh was not terribly obnoxious in those less well-coated, well-corrected iterations of retrofocus designs. The 21 S/A is a forty-year-old design - so it's not surprising that it would do pretty well in projecting 'gentle' backgrounds.

Contrasty sharp-everywhere lenses tend to give up something in soft delicate OOF rendition.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), February 04, 2002.

Thanks to all for your replies. They pretty much confirm my instincts on the matter.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), February 04, 2002.

I discovered something about the bokeh of my 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor when I was doing a comparison series against my 35mm Summicron M. Photos made with the pre-aspheric Summicron just looked great at any setting and environment, but the results of the Nikkor were hit or miss. Sometimes they looked pretty good, and sometimes the background was very busy. After I laid out the large pile of slides on a light table it hit me. I started to separate the "good" from the "bad" bokeh shots from the Nikkor and then it was clear what was up. The Nikkor uses a shifting of the elements to compensate at the near range, which is called close range correction (CRC). When I shot interior portraits at f/1.4 from about 5 feet or so, the Nikkor (with a perfectly round aperture) exhibited a pretty nice out of focus rendition. When I really moved in tight, the internal shifting of the elements engaged, and the background blur made a real shift to ugly. The Summicron on the other hand, using traditional focusing movements (simple extension) had a very consistent look.

Incidentally, the Nikkor is sharper than the Summicron at f/2.0 versus f/2.0, but the Summicron photos look better. I was trying to post two shots here to demonstrate the effect of distance and bokeh, but at this time, photo.net is down.

Does your Nikkor have CRC?

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), February 04, 2002.

He told me the 80mm Plannar was TRASH (TRASH is his own word used to describe the 80mm Plannar)!

Some people always try to make the customer feel good, by agreeing with them. It is a classic salesperson's tactic, after all, the customer is always right. Like Peter, I'm afraid, I think it is nonsense.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), February 04, 2002.

I don't know if the 18mm f/2.8D has CRC. The catalog says nothing about it, so I presume not.

BTW, I could post a photo taken with the 80mm Planar to demonstate its superb qualities, but the matter is so off the question, why bother?

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), February 04, 2002.

Al--

Ever tried a 35mm f2 Nikkor (AI or AIS)? Mine is just barely pre-AI, so same optics as later versions, and has very nice bokeh, and image quality overall is somewhat comparable to my 35mm 'cron 4th version. Not identical, but given that I paid $90 for the Nikkor, it's pretty good.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), February 04, 2002.