I was shooting this week at a motorcycle gathering in town and used both Leica M and Nikon systems on different days. I was able to see a distinct difference in the performance of the Leica 90mm Elmarit M and the Nikon 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor in the way that out of focus highlights are rendered. The aperture blades on the Nikkor never quite form a circle unless wide open, while the Elmarit M with only one more blade does a pretty good job of maintaining a round aperture. These two shot were made on the same film type, with a similar subject distance and in very similar light. Both lenses were used at f/4.0, so both had the same chance to perform as close as possible to each other. Overall, both subjects have a good overall sharpness and the same level of selective focus effect.

Where they diverge is in the way they render the out of focus highlights in the background. The Nikkor image shows a distinct geometric shape with corners and sides. The Leica has more or less a clean circular image. If you look at the Nikkor shot, you can see the beginning of flare at the points of the highlights, while the Leica rendering is clean.

Please... no critique is required on the two photo's artistic merits, because there are none. They are simply "throw away" snap shots from a group of better photos. They are presented only to see the bokeh difference between two lenses that are often compared. The effect is more clear when viewing the shots at the largest magnification.

Bokeh comparison for Nikon and Leica lenses

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 11, 2002

Answers

I see what you mean by the geometric shapes from the Nikkor. As for the beginnings of flare, do you think it might possibly be due to a slight difference in the angle of the reflected highlights?

-- sunil (yatsunil@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Very clear demonstration, AL. Just to add something to the mix, here's a shot taken with my $75.00 ebay special Nikon 100/2.8 series E lens...wide open. it has the same shape highlights as the Leica, but it does show a bit of flare. Hope I get the attachment right.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), March 11, 2002.

Nice shot Jim. The 105mm Nikkor has a similar look wide-open. It is just the way the highlights look when the aperture is closed a bit that make the backgrounds look busy, when compared to the Elmarit.

Your photo is a good lesson in the fact that lack of money doesn't always get in the way of good photos.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 11, 2002.

Good point about being wide open, Al. I overlooked that sentence in your original post. More than likely the 100/2.8 would render the same shapes as the 105 when stopped down a bit...I believe it has the same number of blades, and the same octagon-like shape. I'll try to round up a shot from my Zeiss Sonnar 90 for the Contax G to see how it compares.

Yes, 100/2.8 is a bargin. My main reason for owning it is that it's the same size as a 50mm lens.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), March 11, 2002.

Al, I'd love to see a comparison of the 2 lens from a fixed point, say a tripod. The slightest change in position handheld can alter the Bokeh due to reflectance & anglular changes. Probably a slightly more rigid testing of the 2 lens would make more sense. But nice comparison & I suspect that the differences we're seeing are due to the actual lens themselves, & not angle. But it would be nice to affirm...

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), March 11, 2002.

Patrick,

This wasn't really a test. I just loaded a couple of hundred shots onto my hard drive from this weekend, and saw this effect. In the past, I had a Nikon shot negatively criticized in another forum for the octagons in the background, so when I saw the Leica and Nikon shots side by side, I though I'd post the comparison. You always hear about bokeh, and it seem like a intangible thing, but I can see a difference here.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 11, 2002.

You're not comparing Bokeh.

-- Wilhelm (wmitch3400@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

FWIW, I definately see the difference in the shapes of the specualar highlights, as influenced by the shape of the respective aperture rings. However, the difference in Bokeh of these two lenses seems very minor to my eye -- at least by viewing the images on my computer screen. There exists a sense that the Leica image has a slightly smoother oof area than the Nikon, but I'd be hard pressed to prove it. Interestingly, the Nikon shot looks sharper to me -- probably a slight contrast advantage. But comparing the hair on the two women looks like the resolution edge goes to Nikon. I suspect actual prints might exhibit more notable differences.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 11, 2002.

and to add...105/2.5 is soft and low contrast at apertures greater than f4...at least for the MF-AI version...

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

When I took a very quick peek at highlights from the two examples at the same magnification in Photoshop, it seemed that--while it did give a more circular impression of the out of focus highlights--the Elmarit showed a much brighter periphery to those highlights, which seems to often accompany a less smooth, double-line effect.

-- Brian Walsh (brian.walsh@sbcglobal.net), March 12, 2002.

Interesting comparison Al,
This shows that you can achieve excellent results with a less than 400 $ Nikkor lens (vs 1200$ for the Elmarit).
I do see the difference in the bokeh when presented side by side, but I doubt that I would notice if they were presented to me individually (and not told what to look for). The average viewer surely wouldn't - and even if you explained, they probably wouldn't care.
I am not dismissing the subtle qualities of the Elmarit, but merely saying that much of our obsession with lenses has to do with satisfying ourself -the rest of the world probably dont't care.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), March 12, 2002.