B&W contrast concerns with ZM

[mcnaldo]

Hi
I've tried a few types of camera since returning to photography after a very long layoff-digital (Canon, Nikon DSLR, compact) and film Nikon F5 F100 and RF Leica M6TTL and Hexar RF. Most recently I tried a Mamiya 645 AFD but for portability and scanning resources I've discounted this. I've never really settled on one - I loved the Hexar but the viewfinder was too small for a spectacles user like me. I had a couple of ZM lenses with the Hexar which I didn't do much B&W with but loved the build quality and the feel much more than the Summicron 35/2 I had. I've now decided to pitch my lot in with the Zeiss Ikon mainly because of the reviews-particularly the viewfinder-and the ZM lenses which are beautifully built and have produced excellent results with the Hexar.

My concern is that almost every example I've seen of B&W shots taken with ZM lenses seem to lack contrast: I've read that the Leica lenses outperform the CZ in terms of contrast but for colour rendition the ZM are tops-which was my experience in colour at least. I am developing B&W at home now and B&W will be my mainstay for mostly informal portrait and journalism work in available light.

Should I go with Leica or CZ-or indeed any other alternative? Sorry I know I sound like a gearhead but I really needed this time to experiment and settle-my last film camera was an Olympus OM1n back in 1982.

Any advice would be appreciated.
Jim

 

[ashrafazlan]

Zeiss lenses should actually have more contrast than cv and leica lenses, especially when it comes to microcontrast.

Of course, this is my experience on the m8, but if you check out bernhard wolf's site you'll find plent of film shots taken with zm lenses

 

[kully]

Have a look at www.reidreviews.com. There is a subscription, but he has in-depth reviews of lenses with 100% crops showing resolution and contrast across different brands.

 

[Jay Decker]

Jim - I wear eye glasses. I like my Zeiss Ikon for lenses with focal lengths 50mm and less. I use a 90mm lens for environmental portraiture, but I use the 90mm lens on a Leica M3 because it is easier to focus.

Returning to the Zeiss Ikon, the two lenses that I use on it the most are a Nokton 35mm f/1.2 and a Sonnar 50mm f/1.5. If find both of these lenses are capable of razor sharp performance at f/8, soft performance wide open, and a predictable soft-sharp performance is possible with some experience.

If I had to choose one camera and lens, I would probably choose the Zeiss Ikon and the Nokton 35/1.2.

Best to you in your search.

 

[snausages]

My ZM Planar 50 is probably my highest contrast, sharpest M lens. Lack of contrast isn't an issue for Zeiss...

 

[sevo]

Forget thirty year old knowledge unless you want to buy lenses that old or older
Unless you plan to use historical lenses, contrast is no concern for black and white - any difference you'll see in a print is a decision of the printer and editor.

Zeiss are among the sharpest and contrastiest ones but we are really talking about variations smaller than one grade of paper or one mouse cursor width on a photoshop slider.


When it comes to contrast, pretty much everything you can buy today, down to no-name zooms made in Korea or China, will be as contrasty as the best lenses made before the eighties. That is, at least to start with - I've had quite a few modern AF lenses (brand and third party alike) eventually lose contrast due to internal fogging caused by outgassing plastics.

 

[Turtle]

ZM lenses are superb for B&W. Higher contrast requires some changes in exposure and development if used to old lenses, but the good thing about Zeiss ZM lenses is that they are all almost identical in terms of contrast. My 21, 28, 35 and 50 appears the same in terms of general look and certainly in terms of contrast.

 

[Papercut]

http://www.flickr.com/groups/86731438@N00/pool/tags/ZeissPlanar50mmf2.0

http://www.flickr.com/groups/86731438@N00/pool/tags/ZeissBiogon35mmf2.0

hit the "slideshow" buttons on those pages and look for a while. I can hardly imagine that these could be generalized as suffering from a "lack [of] contrast". It sounds like you've simply been looking at unrepresentative images. Many people, myself included, have found the need to adjust our film processing and/or printing precisely because the ZM lenses have so much contrast (especially if one is comparing to older glass).

 

[tbarker13]

I've been using a 50 planar for portaits recently. I love the thing. Plenty of contrastin B&W.
You can follow my flickr link below to see some shots.
(though I'm shooting digital, if that matters to you.)

 

[mfogiel]

The Zeiss ZM lenses are contrasty enough. For B&W you might actually prefer something less contrasty than that, but it would depend on the type of photography you want to do. To illustrate the point, I will show a couple of photos, the first made with a ZM lens, and the second with a Leica lens from the sixties:

Biogon 25/2.8

DR Summicron 50/2

 

[mcnaldo]

Contrast ZM concerns

Contrast ZM concerns

Thanks everyone - I'm convinced. I agree that the ZM images I had seen are mostly unrepresentative compared to the outstanding images here. I was looking mostly at review related images where the contributors were perhaps trying to showcase several aspects of the ZM lens and ZI camera qualities. Looking at images from contributors here which are simply fantastic images in their own right really brings home the contrast and quality which can be achieved with time and skill. I also welcome the points about development options and printing and editorial choices as some of the hard copy B&W images I was most impressed by were in books featuring high quality work from well known professionals.

Thanks again for your advice and thanks for the fantastic site.

 

[MCTuomey]

jim, i feel like many that zeiss lenses share a certain look, and also handling, that takes direct experience to appreciate. picking up a 35/2 or a 50/2 is not too expensive used. trying it, and then making a decision, is my suggestion. if you should decide to sell it, you will lose little, if anything, and in any case will have experience to guide you further.

in other words, i think you owe it to yourself to try a ZM 🙂

 

[Tom A]

I use a full complement of Zeiss lenses (the Japan made ones). The contrast is moderate across the board (exception being the 35f2.8 C Biogon - which has a bit more 'snap" in the image). What is truly outstanding with the ZM Japan line is that they are all the same contrast. If you put the negatives on a light table - the only difference is the field of view.
With bl/w the contrast is easily controlled in film choice, developing, printing or scanning - and you can achieve whatever "range" and contrast you desire within those procedures.
Personally I like a medium contrast lens for bl/w - easier to hold values in shadows and highlights. Some of the Leica lenses are almost over corrected for contrast, 35f2 Asph, 50f1.4 Asph and to some extent the 75f2 Apo-Asph. With these you have to segregate the films and process them in a lower contrast developer to get an easily printable negative.
There is several sites on Flicker for the various ZM lenses. Sharpness is difficult to judge on the small files - but contrast is easier to see.
Overall I rate the ZM series as one of the best rangefinder lens "collections" ever available for Rangefinders. Both Cosina and Leica have lenses that are marginally better (but also lenses that are not as good) - the Zeiss is just good across the board. Quite an achievement in optics by anyone.

 

[tbarker13]

Because I am really enjoying this 50 planar, I'll toss up a couple shots I posted last night on my flickr account. These b&w conversions were done with Silver Efex.

 

[Dwig]

ZM lenses probably have some of the highest micro-contrast and general contrast around. What you're seeing is probably the result of developing, scanning or post processing; certainly not the lens' fault.

Seconded ... if your B&W contrast isn't what you desire then you're processing the film inappropriately.