summaron said:
Roger,
Do you have any general observations on how much more contrast and saturation the new Sonnar has over older versions, as well as the new Leica 2.5 Summarits over v.4 and v.3 Summicrons, both 50 and 35. My impression is that Zeiss began to set up the bar regarding these parameters with the G1 and G2 lenses and Leica followed shortly after.
Dear James,
This question of 'too much contrast' comes up fairly often, and my own view is that it's a red herring.
First, you have to match film and exposure to the lens in use. Underexpose Velvia 50 and you may well get garish, contrasty images: which, astonishingly in my eyes, some people seem to like. Rate Astia 1/3 stop slow and you'll get much less contrast and much gentler colours.
Second, some films are designed to give extra colour and contrast to compensate for low-contrast lenses (especially zooms).
Third, the way that veiling flare fills shadows has long been popular with some users of colour film: in the 50s some photographers apparently preferred uncoated lenses to coated for Kodachrome.
Fourth, the effect of veiling flare is to increase apparent film speed at the same time as reducing contrast. Thus a lens with minimal veiling flare will require more exposure than one with lots, which explains why an uncoated 50/1.5 Summarit (lots of veiling flare) was as fast as a modern 50/1.5 multi-coated lens (very little veiling flare). A lot of light was lost to lack of coating, but some of it ended up in the shadows, boosting toe speed, and besides, you had to over-develop slightly in order to get the contrast back.
A few decades ago, it was widely reckoned that Leica lenses were the equivalent of a paper grade harder than most SLR lenses, i.e. if you exposed half a roll in an M-series and half a roll in an SLR, of similar subjects, you'd need grade 2 for the Leica negs and grade 3 for the SLR.
No, I can't really compare the old and new Sonnars, because I never really liked old Sonnars, my my impression is that the new Sonnar is MUCH more contrasty.
Research by both Zeiss and Ilford, independently, indicates that 'sparkle' corresponds to a very high MTF at quite low frequencies, and more and more lenses are, I think, being designed this way.
My own view is that today's lenses are the best there have ever been BUT that there are times when you nay prefer the look of an older lens: if I could afford one, I'd have a Thambar like a shot. When you get above the 'quality threshold' it's a question of signature and personal preference, not quality. By many objective standards, the Sonnar is no match for most of the other fast 50mm lenses available today -- but I love the look it gives.
Thus my dream outfit might consist of the following: the lenses I have are asterisked, and the nearest equivalent I have is in brackets, and the 'core outfit' is the 35/1.4 and the 75/2.
12/5.6 Voigtländer
15/2.8 Zeiss (15/4.5 Voigtländer)
16-18-21 Tri-Elmar
24/2.8 Leica (21/4 Voigtländer + 21/2.8 Kobalux)
35/1.4 pre-aspheric Summilux*
50/1.5 Sonnar*
50/1 Noctilux
75/2 Summicron*
90/2 Summicron*
90/2.2 Thambar
135/2.8 Elmarit-M*
For my wife it's the Tri-Elmar again and then the 35, 50 and 90 Summarits, plus, for a fast lens, her 28/1.9 Ultron or (if we could afford it) a 28/2 from Leica. She values compactness and light weight even more than I do.
Cheers,
R.
