Bokeh Test: Canon 35 vs. 35 Asph

Mackinaw · 07-03-2006

I had a few frames left on a roll of Efke 25 I shot yesterday so decided to do a bokeh test of the LTM Canon 35/2.0 vs. the Leica 35/2.0 Summicron asph (on my Leica MP). Both shots were taken wide-open at F2.0. Excuse the slight light leak on the Canon shot, I roll my own film and the cartridge I was using had a bad felt.

The 35mm Summicron has a reputation of harsh bokeh, but I much prefer the Summicron shot to that of the Canon which shows distinct rings around the background highlights.

Just figured folks would find this interesting.

Jim Bielecki

Mackinaw · 07-03-2006

The first (left shot) is the Canon. The second shot is with the Leica.

Jim Bielecki

jaapv · 07-03-2006

The Leica is bound to have less artifacts like rings in the bokeh because of its high state of correction.(Which is, btw, the source of the "harsh" bokeh). I am, however, a bit surprised to see vestiges of double contours in the 'Cron asph. It shouldn't do that. Did you oversharpen in post-processing?

Mackinaw · 07-03-2006

These two pics were scanned on a Nikon Coolscan V and I use the Nikon 4 Scan software that comes with it which has its own sharpening tool. I set the "unsharp mask" to 25% intensity and 25% halo-width with the threshold at 0%. I don't know how this compares to Photoshop sharpening.

Both scans are an accurate rendition of the negatives. I'm still surprised at the relatively poor showing of the Canon, which I don't see myself using much now, at least on my Leica.

Jim Bielecki

Lukak · 02-02-2008

The leica - to me anyway - blows the canon out of the water in this regard. I've heard the rumors too about the 'harsh' bokeh on the asph and it's how i came across your post....

harry01562 · 02-04-2008

Thanks for the interesting test. Since I can't affor the Leica lens, I'll make do with my late model 35/2 (I also paid $25 for my mint example, but that's another story). For ir's time, it was a beautiful lens, and it still makes me happy.

I do envy you with the MP, more than the lens. My M3 and 7s are the most satisfying cameras I own, to hang good glass from. Wow, that set a new record for ungrammatical..

Harry

-vin- · 02-04-2008

nice test, thank you! the canon has a worse bokeh, but the summicron seems to me to have too much contrast...
and the canon out of focus areas aren't that bad.

Captain · 02-07-2008

And people say the 40mm Nokton has bad Bokeh! That horrid, mind you the Leica isn't that great either. I think something is wrong here, every other shot I have seen with the Canon it has tremendous Bokeh. Every lens has a sweet spot and every lens has a point where it will deliver harsh Bokeh, maybe you just hit it with the Canon on this one occasion?

rover · 02-07-2008

Quote:

I think something is wrong here

To a certain point this is a worst case bokeh scenerio for any lens. All would show their weak points with that background.

gnashings · 02-07-2008

L39UK provides the most insightful contribution, logical and astute... and is pretty much ignored. Are we on the internet or something?

Captain · 02-09-2008

Quote:

Your comparison and comments in this unfair test of the performance of the Canon 35mm f2 are ridiculous to say the least.
Did you expect the 30+ year old lens to perform better than the 35 aspheric 'Cron.
I should have thought the outcome would be "bl--dy obvious".

Quote:

L39UK provides the most insightful contribution, logical and astute... and is pretty much ignored. Are we on the internet or something?

I think its perhaps being ignored because its often stated that its the older pre-ASPH and older classic lenses that have a smoother transition from point of focus to the out of focus areas. This is not a comparison of which lens has the greatest resolution in the corners or contrast. As a bokeh comparison, challenging the premise that older lenses have a smoother bokeh than modern ones is far from unfair or ridiculous. In fact it questions that premise quite well.

ampguy · 02-10-2008

I love the asph photo, bokeh aside, the 3D look makes the photo work.

RdEoSg · 02-10-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnashings

L39UK provides the most insightful contribution, logical and astute... and is pretty much ignored. Are we on the internet or something?

It could also be that people tend to ignore posts that sound rude and condescending. Or maybe I just misunderstood.

januaryman · 01-22-2009

Having just picked up one of these Canon lenses I read this thread with interest - all my Canon lenses result in a classic look to the image, and probably this is what we are seeing.

I wouldn't really want to try shooting a scene like the one in the test but still don't feel the Canon frame is "horrible." It's not pleasing, but neither is the Leica's rendition. I'd rather see an example in lower light where the capabilities of either lens would probably shine. I'd sure like to see other comparison shots...

hiromu · 01-22-2009

I like the second one better if both lenses cost the same...
Considering the price difference,,, well, I may still like the second...

Hiromu

Mackinaw · 01-22-2009

As the one who started this thread back in 2006, I was surprised to see that it resurfaced. As an update, I dumped the Canon 35/2.0 a long time ago and now just have the 35mm Summicron ASPH. No regrets at all in selling the Canon.

Jim B.

jmkelly · 01-22-2009

The circles/donuts are less interesting to me than the differences in field curvature - again, something you expect to be corrected in a modern aspheric lens. I bet the Canon makes more flattering portraits than the Summicron.

Mackinaw · 01-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmkelly

I bet the Canon makes more flattering portraits than the Summicron.

Wouldn't know, don't see much sense in using a 35mm lens to take portraits.

Jim B.

Brian Legge · 10-29-2011

Hah, this Canon photo just dramatically lowered my interest in the lens. Given the high praise I've seen so frequently, I expected it to do better in a scenario like this.

Good to have this sort of thing put in perspective every now and then.