50 or 35 summicron pre-asph

[Crasis]

High contrast lenses yield less detail now!? I thought this contrast obsession was something to do with digital cameras and their linear and limited dynamic range compared to film, with it's 'shoulders'.
I'm not trying to argue, I really do want to understand- i thought detail, resolution and contrast were all different ways of describing things that a good lens should have as much of as possible. Weren't multi coatings, aspheric elements and fancy glasses developed to reduce internal reflections at glass/air interfaces for the express purpose of gaining more contrast? Was all that science in vain?
Isn't it more practical to limit contrast with film/developer etc?
It's been a long time since I printed in the darkroom, before the internet was invented and I could know that I might be doing something wrong!

Resolution and contrast are different beasts. It is entirely possible to have a low resolution image with very high contrast, and vice versa. Yes, all modern lenses seek to increase the contrast and whenever the sharpness of a lens is talked about, contrast is brought up.

Take a less sharp image and up the contrast in photoshop and watch it seemingly get sharper. Has the resolution actually increased?

Now.. lets say a lens has astounding resolution and very high contrast. That astounding resolution is going to be pushed to the limits of the dynamic range of the film itself! Even if you can see the detail in the negatives, the highlight detail and the shadow detail, you may not be able to print all that detail! You may have to print with blown highlights or black shadows simply because your paper isn't sensitive in the same way as a negative.

Now, all of this is moot when it comes to colour photography. With colour, you want high high contrast to bring out the vivid and unrealistic colours. It's rather funny, because digital photos tend to be more saturated in colours. Then again, so is agfa ultra. High contrast brings fuji superia to agfa ultra level. So pretty! or something.

You'll have to understand that what I've said is my opinion on the whole contrast issue and why I prefer moderate contrast to high contrast. It is evident from the way lenses are progressing and being bought up, that people love high contrast. I'm just not one of them.

 

[black_box]

So...

4th version 35 summicron? Haha.

Im still wondering if the thing about 50s having a soft front element is true, Im considering one.

 

[clintock]

Sheesh I just looked and Kodak doesent even make paper any more!
Oh well moot i guess, suppose i'll have to re-learn using digital..
I've been keeping my old summicrons around in case i catch on to this contrast thing. I guess rather than the race car analogy, it's more like a microphone- a low 'contrast' one that compresses is easier to record than one with a huge dynamic range, on things like drums for example.
Each type has it's place I guess, hey- a semi-legit excuse to own multiples of the same focal length!

Oh sorry, I'll shut up now- yes, soft coatings.. on the fifties anyway, some deal with skirting the zeiss patents on proper coatings..but it takes alot of coating damage to yeild any discernable effect, and per the contrast rant, it may actually help!?

 

[Crasis]

So...

4th version 35 summicron? Haha.

Im still wondering if the thing about 50s having a soft front element is true, Im considering one.

No, I am definitely not advocating the 4th version 35 summicron. If anything I'm advocating the 50 summicrons. They have all the resolution of modern lenses, without the high contrast. They have all of the 'good' points of the aspherical lenses while being easily printable in all photo taking situations 🙂

Soft in what way? Do you mean soft coating that's fairly easy to scratch?

I don't think I'm quite understanding what you're asking here!

Also clintlock, I'm not sure that analogy works as well. Actually, a musical analogy that may work well is this: It's well known that people enjoy music more when it's louder, so the music industry records music .. well.. louder. If you actually want to turn up that volume though, it distorts. Classical music is recorded softer so that you can turn up the volume and still hear everything perfectly.

Another bad analogy. I don't think there's a good analogy to this. Well, maybe one of those guys who bought a 40 nokton SC instead of an MC can chime in on why they decided on such a thing.

Also, all those in favor of high contrast should chime in as well. Lets get a good discussion going about it.

 

[clintock]

My attempted analogy was trying to involve compression of dynamic range..
Using a microphone with a heavy element like a dynamic with it's wire coil to move has not so great a dynamic range, the loud sounds can't move it too much, and the quiet ones don't move it much at all. Where a light element microphone like a condenser type can yeild a huge dynamic range, as it's so easy to move the element.
I any case, we're talking about limiting the range of most loud (bright) to most quiet (dark) at the front of the signal (optical) system instead of later on, like at the tape (film/paper).. then there's compressors and photoshop

oh wait , I said I would shut up! sorry..
Back on topic, to answer the original post-
the answer is Konica M-hexanon 50/2.

 

[Crasis]

So...

Im still wondering if the thing about 50s having a soft front element is true, Im considering one.

Did a bit of looking around for you. Apparently the ones that have the soft front element coating that you may want to stay away from are the ones before 1969. The rigid, DR, eyes things. Anything after that shouldn't have that problem.

2 312 751
2 384 700
1969

That is the serial number range for 1969 so anything in that range or after should be without the soft front lens coating. Hope that helps.

 

[black_box]

I still prefer a 35mm though. So why do so many people use the 4th version if its bad?

I still am considering a 50. Found these two-

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...70033878287&rd=1&sspagename=STRK:MEWA:IT&rd=1

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...20036892804&rd=1&sspagename=STRK:MEWA:IT&rd=1

The second one is the latest model 50 summicron right?

 

[Crasis]

I still prefer a 35mm though. So why do so many people use the 4th version if its bad?

I still am considering a 50. Found these two-

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=017&item=270033878287&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=002&item=120036892804&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

The second one is the latest model 50 summicron right?

Second one is the current version.. or wait.. yeah well it's current enough to be current. Are you going to be shooting MTF charts? If so, you'll want the second one and not the first one 😉

Well anyways, if you prefer 35mm, grab yourself a v2 or v3. They're cheap! If you're going to get a v4, you might as well get an asph, or so they say. I listen to them, cause I'm a good citizen! Seriously though, the v4 is an expensive ****er for not being the asph.

Known people who like the 35 v4 that I could find based on what they've said or online: Stephen Gandy, Tom Abrahammsson, Mike Johnston.

Known people who like the 35 ASPH similarly to the above: Erwin Puts, everyone else.

Just takes a little googling. Basically almost no one prefers the v4 to the asph. The v4 suffers from price inflation due to being overhyped. This is why I'm trying to single handedly bring the price down to normal levels 😀

 

[black_box]

How are the results from a v2/3 35 compared to one of those 50s?

And about those 50s...
"Are you going to be shooting MTF charts? If so, you'll want the second one and not the first one "
Is that the typical comment from the type that thinks a small but noticeable difference doesnt matter, or can you REALLY not see a difference? Cost isnt that far apart.

 

[Crasis]

How are the results from a v2/3 35 compared to one of those 50s?

And about those 50s...
"Are you going to be shooting MTF charts? If so, you'll want the second one and not the first one "
Is that the typical comment from the type that thinks a small but noticeable difference doesnt matter, or can you REALLY not see a difference? Cost isnt that far apart.

Oh, it's surely a noticeable difference.. on a chart. Basically the difference can be seen if you like to shoot with a tripod all the time and never hand hold. If so.. medium format has far more resolution. Seriously, I have an MF camera for shots that I can tripod.

The 50 crons didn't have a jump from non-aspherical to aspherical. THAT is where you can see huge (huge to leica lens fanatics?) differences. Get the newest 50 if it's important to you to have the best. I think that's the best advice I could give.

Pretty much, get the newest version of anything if you want the best. Cept the Noctilux. Same design for 40 years? Craaazy.

 

[black_box]

...
The 50 crons didn't have a jump from non-aspherical to aspherical. THAT is where you can see huge (huge to leica lens fanatics?) differences.
...

I think I might be reading this incorrectly... It sounds like you say there was a very miniamal change, but thats where you can see big difference...?

Really I meant how are the results between say a 2/3 gen 35 and a 50?

Thats what its down to. I found two very nice lenses-- a 50 for $580 (recent CLA) and a 35 for $650.

 

[Crasis]

I think I might be reading this incorrectly... It sounds like you say there was a very miniamal change, but thats where you can see big difference...?

Really I meant how are the results between say a 2/3 gen 35 and a 50?

Thats what its down to. I found two very nice lenses-- a 50 for $580 (recent CLA) and a 35 for $650.

Yeah sorry.. what I meant to convey was that the jump from the non-aspherical to aspherical 35mm summicron is noticeable, as opposed to the different versions of the 50 cron. From a '69-79' 50 cron would be like from a v3-v4 35 cron.

I really wouldn't choose a focal length based on how sharp the lens is. I'd choose a focal length because it's what I wanted. Even if the 50 is better than the 35 on paper.. you're still using a 50 when what you really wanted was a 35, and vice versa.

 

[black_box]

Very true, the reality is I only liked the price of the 50 😎

Version 3 version 4 35... ahh madness. Ill flip a coin.

 

[clintock]

You'll want both a 50 and a 35.
I wasn't kidding about the hexanon.

 

[Dougg]

I've been following along here, and it occurs to me this might be an interesting spot to post a few pre-ASPH 35 Summicron shots for discussion. I'll withhold the specific age/generation for a bit, to add spice... These are all shot on Ilford XP1 (at EI 250) from the freezer with a bit of push in developing. The third pic is at f/2... What do you think?

 

[Crasis]

I've been following along here, and it occurs to me this might be an interesting spot to post a few pre-ASPH 35 Summicron shots for discussion. I'll withhold the specific age/generation for a bit, to add spice... These are all shot on Ilford XP1 (at EI 250) from the freezer with a bit of push in developing. The third pic is at f/2... What do you think?

*shudder*

I think it looks like typical use of the photoshop sharpening tool.

If it's not.. then I think you need to stop shooting Ilford XP1 immediately.

Edit: Alternatively, your scanner is broken.

 

[black_box]

I couldnt judge since Im not particularly a B&W person...

My real style is ultimately noise free, acute detail accuracy, and color accuracy as close to the human eye as possible. I see nice scenes with interesting light and reflections that I keep looking at over and over as If im looking at a photo, and would like to capture it instead of recreating it with excessive artistic flare (not every time at least).

Considering other factors such as budget and lens size, its basically between a 4th ver. summicron or older. I cant make up my mind, it seems like its one or the other following basis--

dont get the 4th its all hype
dont get the 3rd, the 4th is better

 

[Crasis]

I couldnt judge since Im not particularly a B&W person...

My real style is ultimately noise free, acute detail accuracy, and color accuracy as close to the human eye as possible. I see nice scenes with interesting light and reflections that I keep looking at over and over as If im looking at a photo, and would like to capture it instead of recreating it with excessive artistic flare (not every time at least).

Considering other factors such as budget and lens size, its basically between a 4th ver. summicron or older. I cant make up my mind, it seems like its one or the other following basis--

dont get the 4th its all hype
dont get the 3rd, the 4th is better

If you're shooting color primarily, I would definitely push you towards the 35 ASPH. Might cost you more, but I think you'd like it much better in the end.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request