Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Bokeh King?? A Quick Comparison.

Lloyd

Lloyd

Active member
I have (and LOVE) a 35 Summicron version IV; the so-called "Bokeh King". It certainly produces a lovely bokeh, but then so do a number of other lenses I own (e.g., my 50 Summicron, my Nocti, my CV 50/1.5 Nokton, my 28 'Cron, just to name a few, as do as a number of Nikon lenses I use regularly).

So, for the sake of a closer comparison, I shot the 35 'cron, pre ASPH, v.IV against the 35 'cron ASPH. Nothing special about the shots, but the conditions were the same: Tripod mounted M8; self-timer; both have a Leica UV/IR filter attached. Both shot wide open. (I should note that the 35 ASPH lens is not coded, and it shows.)

There are, to my eyes at least, some clear differences... and more than just the bokeh. The ASPH lens seems to control flare better, as there are ghost spots on the lower portion of the shot with the pre-ASPH, but none with the newer lens. Also, there is a slight difference in perspective; the pre-ASPH being just a bit wider. (This difference may be accounted for by the fact that the ASPH lens is about .5cm longer. It also weighs 120 grams more than the weight of the pre-ASPH.)

Here are the resulting images:
35 Cron pre-ASPH version IV:


35 Cron ASPH:



Here, for comparison, are a couple of crops from the upper left corner at 100%.
35 'cron ASPH:


35 'cron pre-ASPH v.IV:


(I noted a bit more noise in the ASPH shot, which may result from the vignetting from the uncoded lens.)

And a couple of crops from the upper right corner at 100%.

35 'cron ASPH:


35 'cron pre-ASPH v.IV:


I know it's all a matter of taste, and as I said, I love me pre-ASPH 35 'cron, but here there is a decided difference. The ASPH looks to be smoother; less busy looking. Both work, just different. Which is the "Bokeh King"? Your call.
 
N

nei1

Guest
do you have access to the 35mm summiluxes?that was a good straightforward test Lloyd, well done...............nei1
 
Lloyd

Lloyd

Active member
I have the 35 Lux ASPH, but not the Pre-ASPH. If I can get my hands on one, I'll do a comparison.
 
J

JWW

Member
I have all three and the v4 in the right settings such as at f4 or f5.6 with a evenly lit background, it tends to have great bokeh.
 
Lloyd

Lloyd

Active member
JWW said:
I have all three and the v4 in the right settings such as at f4 or f5.6 with a evenly lit background, it tends to have great bokeh.
Click to expand...
I agree. That's why I can't bring myself to part with it. That, and the fact that it's a great lens for shooting IR.
 
Lloyd

Lloyd

Active member
Here's a comparison of the two lenses at f4. I turned off the overhead light to get more even lighting.

35 Cron ASPH:
View attachment 13494

35 Cron pre-ASPH ver. IV:
View attachment 13495

The pre-ASPH has bokeh more similar to my eyes here than wide open. The image is brighter, probably due to the fact that this lens is coded, and thus there is less vignette.
 
Last edited:
G

gero

New member
You can also look at it "objectively" in that they are very different objects; not only in size and shape but also in optical design etc... If I had both I would keep them.
 
C

cmb_

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Some people say the 35 ver. IV bokeh is not always creamy smooth and can be clumpy. At times I see this as well in backgrounds but I think where the "King" really excels is not in the far distant backgrounds but in the area about 10 feet from the subject (this varies of course depending on your distance to the subject). It also has a softness or "glow" (aberrations that are much better corrected in the newer ASPH designs) which adds some character that some like or dislike depending on the quality you are after in your images.
 
Lloyd

Lloyd

Active member
cmb_ said:
Some people say the 35 ver. IV bokeh is not always creamy smooth and can be clumpy. At times I see this as well in backgrounds but I think where the "King" really excels is not in the far distant backgrounds but in the area about 10 feet from the subject (this varies of course depending on your distance to the subject). It also has a softness or "glow" (aberrations that are much better corrected in the newer ASPH designs) which adds some character that some like or dislike depending on the quality you are after in your images.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with that... on both ends of your comment.

I've been looking at Carsten's images, and plan to do some different types of comparisons. Just for fun.:)
 
C

cam

Active member
in my humble opinion, the best bokeh of all the Crons is actually the one with the most aberrations -- the version 1, 8 element. much lower contrast that the two you tested, which renders colours more muted and the OOF more creamy.

somebody asked about the Summilux pre-asph. i have one (1983) and it is probably my used lens. however, i find it's bokeh harsher than the Crons in most situations. at night, or in dark places with high ISO, though, it is gorgeous. wide open you get the "glow" but it can be flare-prone: it holds its own. in those situations, the v.1 Cron turns to mush, a veritable pea soup.
 
Lloyd

Lloyd

Active member
I heard a number of people express the same opinion of the Cron v.1. I've never used it, but have seen some nice shots taken with it.

As for the Lux pre-ASPH, your assessment mirrors what I saw on Carsten's thread on LUF (referenced above). Jack Flesher posted a number of examples from his pre-A in that thread, and the glow (as well as the at-times harsh OOF rendering) was very much evident.

I'm planning a few more comparison shots (and hoping to find more interesting subject matter), and may do some on the M6 as well. It's all just for fun, and out of curiosity for me, as I enjoy both lenses, and find one works better in some situations than others. "Horses for courses."
 
S

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Interesting shots Lloyd. I think the general idea that the ASPH lenses have bad bokeh is quite untrue. It tends to be very neutral in my opinion. Every once in a while it can be jarring, but I think that is more because they have strong contrast even in the unfocused regions -- the older lenses tend to be a bit less contrasty in the bokeh.

I did a fairly similar sort of thing a couple years ago if anyone is interested. It has other focal lengths as well, but 35mm there is the 35/1.4 ASPH and a 35/1.8 Canon:
http://www.stuartrichardson.com/cuwo.htm
 
Lloyd

Lloyd

Active member
Thanks Stuart. Some very interesting comparisons. I need to spend a little more time with them, and I will.
 
ElvisKennedy

ElvisKennedy

New member
Maybe it's just me but I find the out of focus areas of the ASPH more pleasing.

A sharply focused subject popping out of the smooth and creamy unfocused portion of an image is an effect I attempt often. The lens that's provided the highest success rate in achieving this effect is the 35 cron ASPH (for me, on an M8).

For whatever reason the 35 Cron ASPH doesn't get the respect it deserves. Lightweight, sharp, small, fast, no back-focus issues and a very useful focal length (on film or M8). I guess it's faults are that it doesn't boast of a 1.4 aperture and a 2009 re-design.

One more thing, it's effective 47mm focal length on an M8 makes it much more useful than an effective 50mm length. Just enough extra FOV that one doesn't have to back up too far and yet still excellent at portraits.
 
Lloyd

Lloyd

Active member
I do like that about the 'Cron ASPH. But the lens that accomplishes that effect most consistently for me is the 28 Cron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top