Low Contrast Leica 50mm lenses

L

Lilserenity

Well-known
Local time
7:22 AM
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
1,031
Location
Worthing, W Sx
View My Gallery
Hiya,

I was watching BBC Four last night which had a whole evening on photography which was very interesting (and all the more odd I had seen none of the programmes) and I was glued to the telly for 6 hours or more of great programming. Anyway aside from being a geek trying to 'camera spot' I was interested in the comment on one of the programmes which was a biopic of James Ravilious who documented life in North Devon (where I grew up after we moved from London, I've since moved back to the South East nearly 10 years ago) with his Leica M3.

They made some particular reference to the fact he experimented with low contrast older un-coated lenses (presumably LTMs) and that he preferred this due to the retention of detail in the shadows.

I've had something of a conversion over the past couple of years as I used to look for contrast in the lens but now prefer to shoot with a less contrasty lens, and control the contrast in the print itself (seems more sensible) and this has worked nicely. I mainly use a Voigtlander Ultron 35mm which I have largely found to be a perfect 35mm lens for me.

I'm now seriously looking for a 50mm for my M2, but I am intrigued to look at lower contrast 50mm lenses, probably 1930s/early 40s LTM's from Leica. I am mostly looking at this from a black and white perspective but I will be shooting some slide as well.

What do people here use for a 50mm when they want something of low contrast with minimal flare (I'm going to need a good lens hood)

Fast it doesn't have to be, that's what my 35mm and 90mm are for, but preferably f/2.8 or faster.

Also, I don't want a big heavy 50mm, I'd prefer small size over fast wide apertures.

I've been totally bitten by the M2, it's just a joy to use and not having a 50mm is something that I am missing. I never used to like 50mm, but I've eventually grown to love it though I'd definitely say 35mm aspect is how I believe I see the world.

Many thanks,
Vicky
 
Long ago I had a Summar, but it was a rather poor example. They seem to be popular again now though.

Alternatively, you could find an oldish Jupiter-8. It was an FSU copy of the Sonnar design and would give you some of the results you want, as well as being cheap to buy and easy to resell (for example, here) if it didn't work out.

The FSU Industar range are basically tessar designs, with single-coating, and could also be worth a look without breaking the bank.

For all these LTM lenses you would need an LTM --> M adapter. Perhaps the easiest way to find one is go up to London and ask in a few shops for second-hand Leitz adapters - there are lots about.
 
Last edited:
For black and white photography where you have good control over negative density and gamma a low contrast lens like a Summar can look really outstanding. I've not liked the results in color with either the Summar or Summitar as they wash out color and tend to have an unpleasant hazy look that is not controllable in slides (unless you scan and post process).

If you are trying to avoid flare you will need good hoods for any lens from the 30-40's that would be considered "low to medium contrast". They flare...badly, if you don't take care. The old Elmar was a pretty high contrast lens and probably wouldn't hit the effect you want (they still look pretty modern if they are clean).

The part of the equation that is most important is actually your film and processing. Films years ago were quite different than today and had a much better tonal curve and shadow detail. To duplicate that tonality you need to overexpose films like todays' Tri-x by at least a stop, and pull development slightly. You get a nice, dense negative with the kind of shadows you are looking for...but watch those highlights....start by cutting dev time by 20% with a 1 stop push.

Hope this helps,
Best wishes
Dan
 
By the way, if you don't mind spending a wad of cash there is one lens made new today that exactly fit's your bill...The Sonnar ZM 50. No flare but amazing shadow detail. Not cheap however!

I can get truly vintage looking images from this lens and the negatives print or scan beautifully because of the gentle contrast curve.
 
I used my newly acquired Canon 50mm f1.8 LTM this saturday on the M3 and was surprised by its lack contrast (developed and scanned!). Which was a good thing as you said, was able to retain quite a bit of shadow details! I never thought of it as a low contrast lens, thinking that uncoated lens would be a better bet. I also have a pre-war uncoated Summitar LTM which has been sent for CLA as it seriously needs one, but I dont know how much less contrast it will have compared to the Canon.
 
I keep several low contrast 50mm lenses for some photography settings.

1. pre-war uncoated Zeiss 5cm 1.5 or 2.0 converted to LTM by Brian Sweeney.
2. Elmar 5cm 3.5
3. Summar 50 2.0
4. Summarit 50 1.5

The Canon 50 1.8 should not appear as a low contrast lens. There may be something wrong with your lens, duffader.

Any of the above lenses will do well when you want lower contrast 50mm lenses.
 
These are exactly the type of 50mm lenses that I use also for a low contrast look. Elmar f3.5, FED f3.5, Jupiter 8, Summar, Summitar, collapsible Summicron, and a LTM converted CZJ Sonnar f2. The Elmar and Sonnar are uncoated and give nice "atmospheric" results. For higher contrast, I've got a CV50f2.5 and a '69-'79 version Summicron.
 
The Collapsible Summicron is bareley a low contrast lens. It is of lower contrast than the rigid Summicron, and when used wide open, it can give a softer looking image.

On a scale of contrast:

Low.....below average.......average........ above average..............High



The uncoated old lenses qualify for low contrast. The coated older lenses may fall into the "below average contrast" group.
 
Last edited:
That's what I thought. But its "wrong" in a good way I guess!

raid said:
I keep several low contrast 50mm lenses for some photography settings.

1. pre-war uncoated Zeiss 5cm 1.5 or 2.0 converted to LTM by Brian Sweeney.
2. Elmar 5cm 3.5
3. Summar 50 2.0
4. Summarit 50 1.5

The Canon 50 1.8 should not appear as a low contrast lens. There may be something wrong with your lens, duffader.

Any of the above lenses will do well when you want lower contrast 50mm lenses.
Click to expand...
 
There are some good uncoated lenses out there. The Elmar 50f3.5 with clean glass and a hood is probably the best, though at f3.5 a bit slow.
The Summitar 50f2 - post war samples are coated, but not contrasty.
My personal favorite is the 50f2.5 Hektor from 1930's. It was a small production as it was replace with the Summar 50f2. The Hektor @ f2.5 was in a sense the "fast" lens for the Leica 1. It is a 6 element design, uncoated and surprisingly sharp when stopped down a bit - quite soft wide-open.I just put up some shots done with one on our Flickr. Just tag "Leica Hektor 50mm f2.5". This is part of my regular annual "shoot a roll with every camera and lens" at the beginning of the year!
The Zeiss Sonnar, prewar is another good choice - a bit tricky to find in LTM mount though. Great performance,
Truly "uncoatd" look - the Leica Xenon 50f1.5, again a bit scarce though.
The Summar 50f2 is difficult to find in clean shape - the front element is notorious for accumulating scratches and there is often fungus between the elements. Leica techs are not to fond of working with them either - truly miserable to take apart.
Of course, a classic, clean sample of a Summarit 50f1.5 - they are coated, but as they are the descendants of the Xenon - they still have all the attributes of a vintage lens and they are quite sharp to boot. Need the hood though - they do flare.
In the new lenses, the Nokton 40f1.4 SC meets some of your criterias. More important here is choice of film and developer. Even a crappy Summar looks deceptively sharp with Acros and Rodinal!!! Pick a "vintage" style film (TriX, HP5 or in the slower speeds Neopan SS) and develop it in something like D23 or D96.
 
Vicky -- Didn't James Ravilious use a 50 Elmar mostly? I've got a coated version of the 50/3.5 Elmar and it helps to tame the bright sunlight here in California in the summer. There's also the f2.8 version of the same lens.

There was a British photographer who called himself GeeBee who took gorgous b&w landscapes of Northants w/ a Summitar and a IIIf. I just looked for his website, though, and couldn't find it.

One other thought might be to look for other Tessar-type lenses. I've seen some very nice shots on flickr recently taken w/ a Canon 50/2.8, which is a Tessar-type lens I believe. Sharp, but much lower contrast than the faster Canon LTM 50s. You can see some samples on the Canon RF lens group on flickr.

Edit: Here are some threads that may be of interest:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57334

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58561

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56434
 
Last edited:
The book "The Photographs of James Ravilious" http://www.amazon.co.uk/English-Eye...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223197788&sr=8-1

may well be of value if you can track down a copy. On page 50, it says that he initially used, then rejected modern (80s) Leica glass as being too contrasty. So he moved to lenses designed in the 20s and 30s. They are only described as being 35 and 50 Elmar and 28 Hektor lenses. He also designed his own lens hood and used an auxiliary VIOOH finder on his M3. He used a light yellow filter.

It also describes how he gave his negatives twice the normal exposure and then reduced the development time in "dilute, soft-working compensating developer". No brand given, nor further technical details for his earlier work. In later years, he used Tri-X at 200ASA, processed in Ilford Pereptol diluted 1:2 (no time given, unfortunately). He had an expert printer based in Devon somewhere, who really understood how to get the best out of the negatives.

Info courtesy of a friend: Andy Barton.
 
Not following up my own post but these are from the Summar.
 

Attachments

  • RFFsummar.jpg
    RFFsummar.jpg
    129.6 KB · Views: 0
  • RFFsummar2.jpg
    RFFsummar2.jpg
    187.6 KB · Views: 0
yes

yes

collapsible I-22, I-50 (50/3.5), and 50/2.8 rigid I-61 are all FSU lenses widely available with old Leica low contrast "glow" You may have to go through a few to get a good example that is collimated properly.

laptoprob said:
Your question spells prewar Elmar to me. You know, the collapsible one usually found on screwmount Barnacks.
Click to expand...
 
Could the same (low contrast - old lens look) not be gained by:

1) Using a current high contrast modern lens and fine modern emulsion,

2) using a quality scan, and

3) hitting the contrast slider (and a few others if need be) in photoshop until satisfied with the old pre whichever war old fashioned look?

Why suggest such heresy?

Keep your expenses down and your list of equipment to the minimum, is one reason, if you care to save your resources. And at the sama to be be able to have a more lifelike image of the same tecnically dulled scene if you care to look at the world more realistically ...

Another is to manipulate images in the modern, digital manipulation way rather than do daguerretypes nowadays from scratch.
Is any one experienced with this modern application of phshop around here?

Or are we just trying to make the old model T Ford run again?
 
ChrisLivsey said:
The book "The Photographs of James Ravilious" http://www.amazon.co.uk/English-Eye...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223197788&sr=8-1

may well be of value if you can track down a copy. On page 50, it says that he initially used, then rejected modern (80s) Leica glass as being too contrasty. So he moved to lenses designed in the 20s and 30s. They are only described as being 35 and 50 Elmar and 28 Hektor lenses. He also designed his own lens hood and used an auxiliary VIOOH finder on his M3. He used a light yellow filter.

It also describes how he gave his negatives twice the normal exposure and then reduced the development time in "dilute, soft-working compensating developer". No brand given, nor further technical details for his earlier work. In later years, he used Tri-X at 200ASA, processed in Ilford Pereptol diluted 1:2 (no time given, unfortunately). He had an expert printer based in Devon somewhere, who really understood how to get the best out of the negatives.

Info courtesy of a friend: Andy Barton.
Click to expand...

Chris, your last detail is probably the most important. Pulling the film speed and soft developing is the only way to get the tonal scale needed. In the end the lens is probably second or even third behind proper printing papers.

How many examples of Summar shots have you seen with flat highlights and black shadows? Technically thats contrast, but the negs were developed to current modern specs, not to match the amount of contast passing through those old hazy lenses. You really have to over expose most black and white film to get shadows that count for anything, regardless of the lens. Pulling development time to save the highlights is the other side of the trick. This is nothing new as Paul Wolff was doing it in the 30's to keep grain in check. Tonality on his images was remarkable.
 
uhligfd said:
Could the same (low contrast - old lens look) not be gained by:

1) Using a current high contrast modern lens and fine modern emulsion,

2) using a quality scan, and

3) hitting the contrast slider (and a few others if need be) in photoshop until satisfied with the old pre whichever war old fashioned look?

Why suggest such heresy?

Keep your expenses down and your list of equipment to the minimum, is one reason, if you care to save your resources. And at the sama to be be able to have a more lifelike image of the same tecnically dulled scene if you care to look at the world more realistically ...

Another is to manipulate images in the modern, digital manipulation way rather than do daguerretypes nowadays from scratch.
Is any one experienced with this modern application of phshop around here?

Or are we just trying to make the old model T Ford run again?
Click to expand...

The problem I have found is that the lack of density in the shadows can not always be compensated with digital contrast control. At some point there just is not enough on the negative and you get harsh drop offs in detail.

You are right that you don't need special lenses, old or new, to get good prints, just good technique. So much of what created those great prints from the "good old days" was in the combination of factors...lens, films with better tonal range and a generally higher level of the printers art compared to what we accept today.
 
Thank you for your responses everybody. I have a lot to chew on here and it should lead me to a lens I am happy with. I'm going to be quite keen to try out the Elmar 50mm f/3.5, see if any Hektor f/2.5's are around and the Summar f/2 -- which I have seen around for a decent price (some under £100) in reasonable condition (ie: glass is decent but physical appearance isn't 100% perfect)

The reason I don't see Photoshop editing as my solution is that whilst I've been using Photoshop for 14 years, I don't use a digital printing process, I do it all in my darkroom (Well it's my bathroom 🙂) and I shoot film so I can get away and do something not requiring a computer or using Photoshop like I do everyt working day of the week.

I don't have a 50mm lens (for the M2) so this isn't really a question of extraneous equipment, I've just seen a fair bit of black and white work taken with 1950 and earlier lenses and seen something in them that I like immensely.

I'll have to try out the 5cm/50mm Summar and see what happens and also as suggested try adjusting my development technique (which is hardly something to write home about, I've only been doing it for 2 years and I have much skill to build yet!)

Many thanks,
Vicky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom