Leica asphs & contrast variations/ diff opinions

N

notturtle

Well-known
Local time
3:15 PM
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
342
View My Gallery
I am curious about the variations in peoples perceptions of the contrast of the various Leica asphs. Some regard the 28 2.8 as quite harsh, the 28 f2 asph as lower in contrast.... some the 50 lux asph as moderate etc.

People often say that the Elmarit 24 2.8 asph is lower in contrast than the 25 biogon, yet I am pretty sure Tom A says he often found the Leica asphs too hot, yet v much likes the 25 biogon, which has a reputation for v high contrast. I am confused.

Of general interest, if the 24 Elmarit asph has lower macro contrast, yet higher micro contrast (than the 25 biogon for example), how does a lens achieve this (explanations for idiots please!)? I know sean Reid, whose testing methodology i regard as thorough, suggested that the contrast of the 24 asph was lower than the 25 biogon. He also appeared to show that the 21 2.8 asph was lower in contrast than either of the Zeiss biogon 21s (Tom A once again saying that he finds the asphs have high contrasts that can be tough in B&W, but uses the 21 4.5 as a favourite lens. Confused? I am!!!!

What is the contrast of the new 24 Elmar 3.8 asph like compared to the 24 Elmarit 2.8 or 28 2.8 asph (the latter quite a few people seem to regard as having high contrast and a harsh tonality, but as usual, opinions vary)? Does anyone have both and been able to compare them?

The MTFs for the new 3.8 are simply staggering (if my reading is correct at 3.8 it outperforms the 28 elmarit 2.8 asph at f5.6/8. Wow... not that is neccessarily means much in practice looking at prints, but still its an impressive feat.

I suppose none of this matters much, but I am curious as to what the real contrast differences are between these lenses. I for one don't find the ZMs tough to use in B&W at all. I tend to need to print on G3-4 on my soft colour head so hardly getting blown highlights.... if that is so, Leicas current crop of asphs should be no different, right?
 
I have 21mm 2.8 ASPH, 35mm 1.4 ASPH, 75mm ASPH and 90mm ASPH. Frankly they are the sharpest Leica lenses ever available and I suppose higher contrast but I don't fret about those things and simply use them to take pictures which I can't take with other equipment. -Dick
 
All modern Leica and Zeiss lenses are high contrast lenses. (maybe excepting the new Sonnar 50). Only the placebo effect and a lack of scientific direct comparison makes people see differences that are not really there. Check the MTF data for the lenses and you can see that they all have extremely high macro contrast in the 5 and 10lp ranges.

Your choice of film, motif and exposure will determine more than the extremely small differences in modern lenses.

Best wishes
Dan
 
Dan is correct, there are too many variables to make meaningful comparisons. That also includes sample variation, despite what Leica may tell you. 😉 My personal experience as the user of several ASPH and pre-ASPH lenses is that the ASPH lenses seem a bit more contrasty than the older lenses. But to my eye the differences are nowhere near as big as what is described on the internet.
 
Peter,

That is in line with mine too. If I print my ZM negs a grade softer than those of some less contrasty lenses (such as canons) they look similar in contrast. I frequently shoot my ZMs in strong summer sun in Afghanistan and I have no real problems. I just ensure there is enough shadow exposure and reduce development a little.

However, although there are variables, comparing contrast between lens A and B should not be rocket science. I know other variables come into play, such as developer, film... of course, but they are not the same thing because, for example, acutance developers impact grain structure, tonality etc. I am not suggesting that conclusions to any of this matter much, but to understand what is going on, we have to limit the variables. And we can if we choose in order to see what is going on. I don't have a whole list of lenses to hand to see withg my own eyes though!

One factor which might make quite a significant showing of itself is macro vs. micro contrast. If a lens A has higher macro contrast but lower micro contrast than lens B, if lens A is shot under contrasty conditions and the usual increase exposure reduce development technique applied, this will reduce microcontrast further, along with microcontrast. This is at the crux of what I am trying to understand. If lenses with higher macro contrast also tend to have higher micro contrast, then reductions in development wont matter much. I remember reading a post by Jackal who said that he felt his 25 biogon had very high macro contrast but low micro contrast compared to his Leica 24 asph. I have to say that my ZMs seem to have plenty of microcontrast too, but thats not a comparison, just my view from one side of the fence. They seem great to me, even the 21 2.8 which is known for high contrast like the 25. Tonnes of microcontrast if you ask me!
 
I have no problems printing or scanning negatives from the 28/2 or the 50/1.4 ASPH lenses. They print/scan just as fine as the ZM 35 I had and the CV 15. The only lens I have which is significantly different to my eye is a 50's Nikkor 50/1.4, and thats only wide open.
 
notturtle said:
Peter,

That is in line with mine too. If I print my ZM negs a grade softer than those of some less contrasty lenses (such as canons) they look similar in contrast. I frequently shoot my ZMs in strong summer sun in Afghanistan and I have no real problems. I just ensure there is enough shadow exposure and reduce development a little.

However, although there are variables, comparing contrast between lens A and B should not be rocket science. I know other variables come into play, such as developer, film... of course, but they are not the same thing because, for example, acutance developers impact grain structure, tonality etc. I am not suggesting that conclusions to any of this matter much, but to understand what is going on, we have to limit the variables. And we can if we choose in order to see what is going on. I don't have a whole list of lenses to hand to see withg my own eyes though!

One factor which might make quite a significant showing of itself is macro vs. micro contrast. If a lens A has higher macro contrast but lower micro contrast than lens B, if lens A is shot under contrasty conditions and the usual increase exposure reduce development technique applied, this will reduce microcontrast further, along with microcontrast. This is at the crux of what I am trying to understand. If lenses with higher macro contrast also tend to have higher micro contrast, then reductions in development wont matter much. I remember reading a post by Jackal who said that he felt his 25 biogon had very high macro contrast but low micro contrast compared to his Leica 24 asph. I have to say that my ZMs seem to have plenty of microcontrast too, but thats not a comparison, just my view from one side of the fence. They seem great to me, even the 21 2.8 which is known for high contrast like the 25. Tonnes of microcontrast if you ask me!
Click to expand...

I believe you are vastly over complicating a rather simple procedure in your analysis whether your analysis is valid or not. I have a complete set of pre ASPF M RF lenses and corresponding M ASPH lenses. I shoot K64 almost exclusively and over time have frequently taken the same shot at the same time with same exposure on the same roll of K64 with sets of lenses. Usually I see no discenable difference bewteen families/generations of lenses under 7x magnification except that the 35mm Lux ASPH and 75mm ASPH just seem sharper quantatatively to me. Frankly I feel a discussion of micro versas macro contrast a waste of time whether or not the concepts are even valid. I just use the equipment to take pictures.-Dick
 
Funnily enough I use my kit to take pictures too... and not of coffee cups in Cafes. The question to do with macro/micro contrast is simply something I have heard a lot about but do not know to be a real phenomenon. If I considered it a waste of time I would not have written the OP. If you do, please do not feel obliged to respond!

I do not understand how a lens could produce less macro contrast and more micro contrast than another. I would have thought that as macro contrast goes up, so would micro contrast i.e. the whole deal. This is a much discussed topic amongst lens aficionados and I am curious to know whether it is a real phenomenon or simply 'hype.' Its not a complicated concept at all and I am confused as to what my procedure is/should be seeing as I do not have lenses available to make comparisons. Nor do i have the time; however, if there is anyone out there who has an understanding of this I would be interested to hear more on it. There are plenty of people who have owned Biogon 25s at the same time as 24 asphs etc, 28 2.8 asphs along with the f2 asphs.

If the macro/micro contrast concept is valid, why is a discussion on it a waste of time? Sometimes learning things, even if you do not find ourselves needing to apply that knowledge, is a good thing, even enjoyable. if it weren't we would spend far less time in school than we do!
 
I was tring to be polite and point out that since you are not even sure of the concept "If the macro/micro contrast concept is valid" that further discussion is a waste of time. EOT-Dick
 
RichardB said:
I have 21mm 2.8 ASPH, 35mm 1.4 ASPH, 75mm ASPH and 90mm ASPH. Frankly they are the sharpest Leica lenses ever available and I suppose higher contrast but I don't fret about those things and simply use them to take pictures which I can't take with other equipment. -Dick
Click to expand...

Hi Dick, I have a late model 75 Lux made in Germany and it is still the same non-ASPH, Mandler design. I thought there was no ASPH version made of the 75/1,4 Lux? I read that somewhere here on RFF. Best regards, TW.
 
RichardB said:
I was tring to be polite and point out that since you are not even sure of the concept "If the macro/micro contrast concept is valid" that further discussion is a waste of time. EOT-Dick
Click to expand...

I was hoping someone could explain whether it is a real phenomenon or not and then explain it, this being linked to the frequent claims made on various lenses but rarely by people who one might naturally trust to objectively assess such things. There are so many references to it that I am amazed nobody can explain how it works. That in itself is quite interesting! Maybe it is like postmodernism in that lots of people talk about it but virtually none can explain it properly 😀
 
Certainly an interest in optical issues is valid; absent that we'd have no modern lenses to use. I think Turtle has raised an interesting question, and while I don't "fret about" the matter I'd enjoy being better informed myself... while continuing to enjoy making pictures and using critical eyes on the results.

My understanding from reading commentary and reviews is that microcontrast is not linked closely to a lens's macrocontrast, and is desirable for detail and a kind of snap even absent high overall contrast. It's also said that higher contrast arises through lower flare and means more data is recorded. Is this in the context of greater macrocontrast, or greater microcontrast, or both?
 
The whole macro/micro contrast thing sounds like a load of wacky crap, but once you read about them, they do make sense. All macro contrast is is what you think of when you think of contrast - the spread between darkest dark and the lightest light in the frame. Micro contrast deals with detail and how well tonal values are separated at the local level. A lens can have good micro contrast, and render textures very cleanly for example, yet still have poor macro contrast because of flaring and other issues. I think classic examples of this are old LTM/M lenses, like the Nikkors and Canons. They can be very sharp lenses, but aren't as contrasty across the whole frame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom