I'm pretty new to Leica but do any non telephoto M mount lenses have truly smooth bokeh compared to the latest mirrorless (large) designs? I spend less time looking at out of focus areas these days so it doesn't bother me but this was one the things that stood out when I started really looking at M mount glass (both Leica and Voigtlander).
In what situation? The bokeh of a low contrast, front-lit background is more likely to look smooth than a high contrast, back-lit background. And most any lens makes smoother bokeh when the aperture is stopped down two stops.
Mystik wrote:
I'm pretty new to Leica but do any non telephoto M mount lenses have truly smooth bokeh compared to the latest mirrorless (large) designs? I spend less time looking at out of focus areas these days so it doesn't bother me but this was one the things that stood out when I started really looking at M mount glass (both Leica and Voigtlander).
The Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH is a non-telephoto and renders smoothly (almost no outlining in highlights)...a bit too smoothly for my preference, it remains a prime example of a classic Leica lens producing that signature character you may appreciate.
Mentioning telephoto, I've rear that LLL has plans for a 135mm APO lens too!
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH is a non-telephoto and renders smoothly (almost no outlining in highlights)...a bit too smoothly for my preference, it remains a prime example of a classic Leica lens producing that signature character you may appreciate.
Mentioning telephoto, I've rear that LLL has plans for a 135mm APO lens too!
Another 50mm lens with quite smooth bokeh is the Voigtlander 50 f/1.2 Asph.
RoamingScott wrote:
You aren't finding the glacial readout of the X2Dii to be prohibitive to your creativity with these lenses? I'd test it if a dumb adapter wasn't $150.
I've mainly used it to shoot cars (not in motion) and people who I instruct to keep pretty still. As you know, when you go down to 14 bit the readout is a teeeeeny bit faster, so it hasn't been an issue. It is FAR from ideal, and won't work in most scenarios, but I've had success adapting lenses. I've got 3 XCD lenses, two of them are phenomenal (25V and 90V), the other is just OK to me (55V), but it's cool to get a different look and feel out of the Hasselblad system.
RomanMF wrote:
I've mainly used it to shoot cars (not in motion) and people who I instruct to keep pretty still. As you know, when you go down to 14 bit the readout is a teeeeeny bit faster, so it hasn't been an issue. It is FAR from ideal, and won't work in most scenarios, but I've had success adapting lenses. I've got 3 XCD lenses, two of them are phenomenal (25V and 90V), the other is just OK to me (55V), but it's cool to get a different look and feel out of the Hasselblad system.
Adapting is definitely the big thing I miss about GFX, but I don't miss it enough to do anything about it. Funny you and I had the same reaction to the 55V. I'm loving the 35-100 so much more in terms of IQ, which I didn't expect. I'd love that 90V someday.
I keep contemplating selling the 55V and getting the 38V, which is way more my speed.
RoamingScott wrote:
Adapting is definitely the big thing I miss about GFX, but I don't miss it enough to do anything about it. Funny you and I had the same reaction to the 55V. I'm loving the 35-100 so much more in terms of IQ, which I didn't expect. I'd love that 90V someday.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'll post samples showing the specular highlights once I get a review copy. None of the "aspherical" LLL lenses have clean inner structure. The LLL 50/1.2 "1966" is the worst offender, but I've learned to like it since Leica's original 50/1.2 also had rough bokeh.
Hi Fred, do you know if you'll be receiving the test copy before the Titanium 9/10 deadline? Really hoping you do!
