Hazy lenses and high contrast scenes

[Horatio]

I'm considering a cheap Canon 50mm 1.8 LTM lens with haze of the middle elements. Does anyone have experience using a lens with known haze in high contrast lighting? I'm curious as to whether the reduced image contrast caused by the lens haze can positively affect the dynamic range, i.e. yield better mid-tone gradations.

Are there any scenarios where lens haze can enhance image quality?

 

[charjohncarter]

I have a Canon 35mm Serenar f3.5 that had a tendency to haze. I'll post a couple of pictures that show the effect. But first, I clean my lens before every use. I've got it down to 8-10 minutes. Just a simple rubbing with a micro cloth.

With haze:

Puerto Vallarta 2010 by John Carter, on Flickr

Puerto Vallarta 2010 by John Carter, on Flickr

With cleaning:

Fujifilm 200 by John Carter, on Flickr

 

[aizan]

Haze can be a benefit if you’re seeking a special effect, but it’s a nuisance for general purposes. I’d buy one if your style calls for it.

 

[GarageBoy]

charjohncarter - why does it continue to haze after you clean it?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Is it the Black version of the 50/1.8, or earlier Chrome version?

Both develop haze. The haze can typically be removed from the glass of the chrome version. Haze on the Black version can cause the newer type of glass to Etch.

Light haze will cause loss of contrast, colors to dull.
Heavy haze/etching - like shooting through wax paper.

 

[Horatio]

Is it the Black version of the 50/1.8, or earlier Chrome version?

Both develop haze. The haze can typically be removed from the glass of the chrome version. Haze on the Black version can cause the newer type of glass to Etch.

Light haze will cause loss of contrast, colors to dull.
Heavy haze/etching - like shooting through wax paper.

It's the black version. The seller says it's only bad in strong backlighting, but I think I'll pass.

 

[charjohncarter]

charjohncarter - why does it continue to haze after you clean it?

I think Brian answered some of the question. But I heard oil from the aperture leaves or something about the glass being the problem. It really doesn't need to be done every time I used it. I just do that because I can't remember how long it has been since I last used it.

One time I didn't use it for a year and I thought it was a little hazy so now I do it whenever I'm going to use it.

The Serenar isn't in the Leica class glass, but it really isn't as bad as Camera Quest says it is ( 35/2.8 or 3.5 Canon: or Serenar. OK but not great reputations, chrome or black versions):

Wide open with Acros 100:

Neopan Acros 100 expired by John Carter, on Flickr

and center:

Neopan Acros 100 expired by John Carter, on Flickr

and this mounted on a digital camera (macro):

Coffee Cup by John Carter, on Flickr

 

[KoNickon]

"Black version" means, which? The large focus ring is black? I have one of those and I've cleaned the haze (which forms on the surface just behind the aperture) more times than I can remember. I can't understand what's causing it, or why it keeps fogging.

The good news is that it does come off easily without damage to the surface, and what's more it's easy to get at. Remove the optical block from the focusing mechanism with a spanner wrench, then unscrew the rearmost optics from the rest of the optical block (you should be able to do this with your hands without needing a piece of grippy material). This exposes another lockring that you unscrew with the use of a spanner. At that point the hazy surface is accessible.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

"Black Version", black focus ring, also indicates the new type glass that is prone to damage. SN above 200,000.

I've read the problem is the type of lubricant used for the helical. It must be removed completely. I need to do this on two of my Canon 100/3.5s.

 

[Horatio]

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I picked up a very clean "Black" Canon 50/1.8 for $50, "Ebay Gamble". No haze.
This one is an early SN for the Black version. The first of these had 13 aperture blades, then 11- which mine has. Later versions of this lens went to 8 blades. There is a good chance the haze will clean off. The closer it is to $50, the focus mount is worth that much. $100, average for these lenses coming out of Japan listed with haze. $150- better be perfect.

 

[retinax]

... positively affect the dynamic range, i.e. yield better mid-tone gradations.

Of course haze will theoretically help compress high dynamic range, by lowering contrast first in the shadows, in more severe cases also in the mid tones. Whether that's a "better" mid tone gradation is a matter of taste, but most people try to expand mid tones, not compress them.
I've got some charming pictures from a lens with slight haze, but I'd rather avoid it. You probably don't want it all the time. When you need it, it's easy enough to introduce artificially.

 

[Horatio]

@charjohncarter, thanks for posting those examples.

 

[peterm1]

"I'm curious as to whether the reduced image contrast caused by the lens haze can positively affect the dynamic range, i.e. yield better mid-tone gradations."

My impression is that it can. But it is at the cost of a significant risk of also getting flare where there is any backlight. I have not tested this systematically but I have observed it when I have shot with lenses with some haze. It also depends on how "heavy" the haze is and how evenly it is spread. The heaviness issue is self explanatory. But I can also say in relation to the evenness issue that I bought an old Canon FL 100mm f3.5 which was advertised as having haze so was cheap. When received, I disassembled it and cleaned the inner elements. But the haze in one patch was much more resistant and I was unable to remove it. Shooting this lens is somewhat more problematic as there is a tendency to produce flare in a distinct patch of the image which is harder to cope with.

In general though, in the right setting, I rather like shooting with lenses that produce low contrast results either because of the lens' design or because of something like haze because it seems to help by toning down some high contrast scenes. Just as long as I can keep bright areas out of the scene. As shown by charjohncarter's first set of images it can otherwise produce objectionable results. One final thought on this. I recently purchased a second hand low mileage Sony A7s which is famous for its ability to shoot in low light at crazy ISO's. But what is often not mentioned is its ability to cope well with high contrast scenes at normal ISO's. I have found it is relatively easy to fix RAW images shot with this camera even when areas of the image or whole images even are seriously under or over exposed. The thought occurs that this capability lowers the utility of low contrast lenses in these cameras (and presumably all cameras eventually as technology advances).

The following was shot with a Canon 50mm f1.2 in LTM which is famous for requiring regular cleaning to rid it of a build up of haze. The low contrast outcome (which is due entirely to the lens not post processing) is evident. But others I took in the same series had daylight in parts of the images and these were much less satisfactory.

Those Eyes - Color by Life in Shadows, on Flickr