p.2 #1 · Leica 50mm Summilux close focus vs previous version.
sebboh wrote:
no, your above explanation of how SA works explains why ninja stars help reduce focus shift (you let more of the marginal rays through for a given aperture size). the idea is to reduce focus shift without changing the optical design.
I see what you mean, but the way SA works isn't changed by the blade shape. A ninja star aperture doesn't let "more marginal rays through" in a way that meaningfully shifts focus. It only changes the shape of OOF highlights. Focus shift is determined by the optical design and how well aberrations are corrected, not by the aperture blades.
I don't know how to be any clearer about this, but we can agree to disagree. The core point is still that aperture shape affects bokeh, not focus shift, which is determined by the lens design.
p.2 #2 · Leica 50mm Summilux close focus vs previous version.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Ok, I can sort of see that, but with the 50 lux Asph it has a floating elements design and therefore very little focus shift, so shouldn't this be a lens in which they abandon the ninja star aperture shape? Still seems like a major screw up to use that aperture shape on this particular lens.
you'll have to ask karbe about that. as a liveview shooter shooting at working aperture, there is no value to the ninja stars for me. shooting a rangefinder makes focus shift a much bigger problem. having an FLE doesn't necessarily mean focus shift is minimized, it depends on your design goals. i believe the lens was designed just a little before people really went crazy for bokeh (at least in Europe), but i'm not certain.
p.2 #3 · Leica 50mm Summilux close focus vs previous version.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I see what you mean, but the way SA works isn't changed by the blade shape. A ninja star aperture doesn't let "more marginal rays through" in a way that meaningfully shifts focus. It only changes the shape of OOF highlights. Focus shift is determined by the optical design and how well aberrations are corrected, not by the aperture blades.
I don't know how to be any clearer about this, but we can agree to disagree. The core point is still that aperture shape affects bokeh, not focus shift, which is determined by the lens design.
according to leica the ninja stars were used to "reduce focus shift". whether that is meaningful has always been doubtful to me, but your mileage may vary.
Aug 17, 2025 at 07:02 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · Leica 50mm Summilux close focus vs previous version.
sebboh wrote:
you'll have to ask karbe about that. as a liveview shooter shooting at working aperture, there is no value to the ninja stars for me. shooting a rangefinder makes focus shift a much bigger problem. having an FLE doesn't necessarily mean focus shift is minimized, it depends on your design goals. i believe the lens was designed just a little before people really went crazy for bokeh (at least in Europe), but i'm not certain.
I have used the lens on a rangefinder a lot and I don't recall focus shift ever being a problem with it. I think when this lens was designed, there was just a lot less concern with aperture shape among both lens designers and users. It really isn't the best shape for this lens, but it really isn't worse than the stopped shaped octagons that were common among many lenses that were being used at that time.
p.2 #5 · Leica 50mm Summilux close focus vs previous version.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I have used the lens on a rangefinder a lot and I don't recall focus shift ever being a problem with it. I think when this lens was designed, there was just a lot less concern with aperture shape among both lens designers and users. It really isn't the best shape for this lens, but it really isn't worse than the stopped shaped octagons that were common among many lenses that were being used at that time.
i find it a lot more distracting at f/2.8 and f/4 than octagons (or even hexagons). it's too bad they didn't put the pre-asph aperture blades in the retro styled version of the asph.
p.2 #6 · Leica 50mm Summilux close focus vs previous version.
I compared the new version directly to my ASPH black chrome and the new one had better mid-zone performance, it was clear to see. I wasn’t expecting that so I tested it again and got the same result. Center sharpness was exactly the same. Could be copy variation, but my newer CF version is clearly a better performing lens in the mid-zone
p.2 #7 · Leica 50mm Summilux close focus vs previous version.
rsolti13 wrote:
I compared the new version directly to my ASPH black chrome and the new one had better mid-zone performance, it was clear to see. I wasn’t expecting that so I tested it again and got the same result. Center sharpness was exactly the same. Could be copy variation, but my newer CF version is clearly a better performing lens in the mid-zone
did you focus with with live view or with the rangefinder? my recollection is that the lens has kinda sombrero shaped field curvature so that midzone performance varies a fair bit depending on calibration (or focus point if using liveview).
p.2 #8 · Leica 50mm Summilux close focus vs previous version.
sebboh wrote:
did you focus with with live view or with the rangefinder? my recollection is that the lens has kinda sombrero shaped field curvature so that midzone performance varies a fair bit depending on calibration (or focus point if using liveview).
p.2 #9 · Leica 50mm Summilux close focus vs previous version.
rsolti13 wrote:
would have been live view on an M11-P
hmm, i haven't heard about that before, so probably sample variation or the FLE on your OG version wasn't properly calibrated. it'd be exciting news if it is consistent across copies though.
p.2 #11 · Leica 50mm Summilux close focus vs previous version.
I was a bit skeptical at first with summilux. I had an older asph version that was great but never really give those bokeh balls the credit they deserved. A bit lack luster.
I had a change of heart with the close focus version. And this details why.
