Lenses and Grain

[gbb]

I was reading Erwin Putts' reviews of CV lenses and came accross a parameter I had noticed but wasn' sure about for evaluating lenses: how much grain they produce. I had noticed that my jupiter 8 produces grainier photos than my modern glass, all other things being equal, and was curious what other people's experience has been. I can't remember the technical reason for it, but it has to do with resolution and light scattering. Let me know what you've found.

GBB

 

[zeos 386sx]

Erwin Puts makes this statement in his "Leica M-Lenses; Their soul and secrets" comparing the 24 f/2.8 Elmarit-M Aspheric and the Voigländer 25mm f/4 Snapshot Skopar.

“A most interesting phenomenon became evident with these side-by-side shots. The Skopar gives images with a grainier pattern and with grain clumps that are rougher than those in images made with Leica lenses. This is caused by the lower aberration content of the Skopar lens. When aberrations are abundant the light rays emanating from a point source of light do not converge to a point in the image but have a more random pattern around the central core. These more widely spread rays energize more silver grains around the center spot and they do so randomly. The result is a rough clumping. Modern Leica lenses produce a smooth pattern of very tightly contained clumps of grains, which helps to preserve the rendition of very fine details and the smooth gradation of fine light modulations.”

However, Puts qualifies the above by noting, “The fine performance of the Skopar is partly the result of the modest aperture. The higher aberration content will not be detectable in many picture-taking situations, hiding as it were behind the depth of field, among other things.”

Since Jupiter 8's are 50mm f/2.0 lenses and don't have the DOF exhibited by 24/25mm lenses I would be interested to know at what degree of enlargement you notice the "grainier photos ".

 

[einolu]

i dont think you should worry about this, since it is so hard to measure.

just think about it:

-every shot has a slightly different exposure
-not every roll of film is created equal
-there can be differences in development
-by the time you scan or print your negative to a size where you can see the grain, you are dealing with a lot of variables...

just seems a little bogus to me, Im sure he isnt lying, but judging a lens in this manner is a little crazy.

 

[dcsang]

And here I always thought that grain was a "function/side effect/quality" of the film you used and not of the lens.

Go figure... I'm going out and buying some Tmax 3200 and shooting it wide open with my Summicrons and I swear, if I don't get the grain that I would get from Tmax100 or Ilford's PanF, I'm going to scream 😉

Dave

 

[Trius]

Dave: Bring evaluation prints on the 12th! I'd love to see you Leicaphiles stomping your little feet in frustration! 😛

Trius

 

[oftheherd]

And here I always thought that grain was a "function/side effect/quality" of the film you used and not of the lens.

Go figure... I'm going out and buying some Tmax 3200 and shooting it wide open with my Summicrons and I swear, if I don't get the grain that I would get from Tmax100 or Ilford's PanF, I'm going to scream 😉

Dave

Attributed to Erwin Puts:

“A most interesting phenomenon became evident with these side-by-side shots. The Skopar gives images with a grainier pattern and with grain clumps that are rougher than those in images made with Leica lenses. This is caused by the lower aberration content of the Skopar lens. When aberrations are abundant the light rays emanating from a point source of light do not converge to a point in the image but have a more random pattern around the central core. These more widely spread rays energize more silver grains around the center spot and they do so randomly. The result is a rough clumping. Modern Leica lenses produce a smooth pattern of very tightly contained clumps of grains, which helps to preserve the rendition of very fine details and the smooth gradation of fine light modulations.”

I'm sorry, this just sounds like obsfucation trying to substantiate a non-existant fact. How many of our photos contain so many point sources of light that this will make a noticeable difference? That is assuming it is in fact true. If there aren't many point sources of light, how will this condition manifest itself?

EDIT: I guess since I don't own any of the mentioned lenses, I really shouldn't comment anyway.

 

[dcsang]

Dave: Bring evaluation prints on the 12th! I'd love to see you Leicaphiles stomping your little feet in frustration! 😛

Trius

Hehe.. that's just my point.
To me, it's a silly statement that the lens has such an impact on film grain.

Pffffffffffffffffft 😛

I know what I know and what works for me; if Mr Puts has other ideas, then that's fine. If it IS true, then big deal, I can live with grain from my 21mm Skopar and 15mm Heliar for the prices I paid for them 😀

Dave

 

[oftheherd]

Attributed to Erwin Puts:

“A most interesting phenomenon became evident with these side-by-side shots. The Skopar gives images with a grainier pattern and with grain clumps that are rougher than those in images made with Leica lenses. This is caused by the lower aberration content of the Skopar lens. When aberrations are abundant the light rays emanating from a point source of light do not converge to a point in the image but have a more random pattern around the central core. These more widely spread rays energize more silver grains around the center spot and they do so randomly. The result is a rough clumping. Modern Leica lenses produce a smooth pattern of very tightly contained clumps of grains, which helps to preserve the rendition of very fine details and the smooth gradation of fine light modulations.”

I'm sorry, this just sounds like obsfucation trying to substantiate a non-existant fact. How many of our photos contain so many point sources of light that this will make a noticeable difference? That is assuming it is in fact true. If there aren't many point sources of light, how will this condition manifest itself?

EDIT: I guess since I don't own any of the mentioned lenses, I really shouldn't comment anyway.

EDIT again. After being so smart, do I remember seeing photos of with streetlamps with patterns of what appear to be grain around them? Could that be a manifestation of what he is talking about?

 

[zeos 386sx]

I'm sorry, this just sounds like obsfucation trying to substantiate a non-existant fact. How many of our photos contain so many point sources of light that this will make a noticeable difference? That is assuming it is in fact true. If there aren't many point sources of light, how will this condition manifest itself?

Actually, I think that is the point Puts was making when he noted that this phenomenon "will not be detectable in many picture-taking situations". Where it is noticable is in the kind of lens testing in which Puts engages. Most of us don't spend our time examining pictures under a microscope to see how many line-per-millimeter our lenses resolve.