What low contrast 50mm lenses are people using with their M9 (or M8)?
Any new lenses that would be considered low contrast?
Any new lenses that would be considered low contrast?
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
A good bet would be older single coated lenses. Generally speaking the older they are the less contrast they produce. A few I can think of are the Collapsible Summicron, Canon 50/1.5 (the sonnar design), Nikon 50/1.4, Elmar 50/2.8 or 3.5, Jupiter 8, Jupiter 3, Summarit 50/1.5, Summar, Summitar.
Not off the top of my head can I pull out any lenses in current production that would count as low contrast.
If you want to lower contrast on your current lenses try putting on an uncoated UV filter, add more to further reduce contrast.
Not off the top of my head can I pull out any lenses in current production that would count as low contrast.
If you want to lower contrast on your current lenses try putting on an uncoated UV filter, add more to further reduce contrast.
Last edited:
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I would describe some of the above-mentioned lenses (having owned and used the collapsible Summicron, Elmar 3.5 and 2.8, Summarit 50/1.5) as medium-contrast. I do agree that the Summar (I've owned two copies of that one) is low in contrast. MY uncoated 50/3.5 Elmar I would count in the low-contrast group. Two lenses i've never used but believe to be low in contrast are the 50/2.5 Hektor and the Thambar (well, we all know about that one, don't we)!
I think the idea here is to see which lenses could help to offset the dynamic range limitations of digital photography. While not (IMO) low contrast, I concur that the lenses mentioned, although I would call most of them medium-contrast, are good candidates for the job. I will trying out the ones I have on my new-to-me M8.2.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Any would be lower than the ZM gear in your sig line IMHO. I don't shoot M9 rather an M8. The Nikkor S.C. f1.4/50mm is my choice of the moment for a vintage look. The lens wide open has a lovely low contrast Glow. It starts to look quite modern stopped down a bit.
andredossantos
Well-known
You should try my LTM Nikkor HC f2. It's coated, but renders lower contrast than a more modern lens. However, it's got a very sharp signature so it's also got a modern-ish look I find. It's the best of both worlds, IMO. I think it's a Sonnar clone but may be wrong about that.
If you want to try it out I'll bring it next time we go shooting.
If you want to try it out I'll bring it next time we go shooting.
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
Rob, I stand corrected. Most lenses I listed would generally fall under medium contrast lenses. The completely uncoated ones would produce lower contrast.
Here are some samples from a Canon 50/1.5, Nikkor 50/1.4, and Nokton 50/1.5.
Shot wide open
Canon 50/1.5
Nikkor 50/1.4
Nokton 50/1.5
Shot at F/8
Canon 50/1.5
Nikkor 50/1.4
Nokton 50/1.5
Here are some samples from a Canon 50/1.5, Nikkor 50/1.4, and Nokton 50/1.5.
Shot wide open
Canon 50/1.5
Nikkor 50/1.4
Nokton 50/1.5
Shot at F/8
Canon 50/1.5
Nikkor 50/1.4
Nokton 50/1.5
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Well, there is a heck of a difference among these lenses, especially the first two vs. the Nokton. I liked the Nokton. I'd say there is more going on than merely contrast. The Nokton strikes me as having higher color saturation and lower aberration wide open. Nice Bokeh on the Canon, though.
rodl
Established
I would agree that the Nikkor SC 50/1.4 is low contrast. I got one that has a lot of cleaning marks and I thought that's why the contrast was so low but I now believe that's its true nature as mine glows in a similar fashion to the sample above. It's quite sharp and you can adjust the contrast pretty much as you wish.
I don't agree that the Nikkor HC 50/2 is low contrast. I would rate it on the high end of medium contrast. Reminds me more of a Cron. Also quite sharp.
I don't agree that the Nikkor HC 50/2 is low contrast. I would rate it on the high end of medium contrast. Reminds me more of a Cron. Also quite sharp.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Now even the vintage Canon lenses will go up in price, too...
It looks to me like there is something more than low contrast going on on both of the Canon and Nikkor shots wide open. Veiling flare? Whatever the reason causing it, this look *in color* does not appeal to me personally.
JS should check with Brian Sweeney. He has posted numerous shots of vintage lenses here. Especially the long sonnars from Nikon (the 85/2 and the 105/2.5) have made an impression on me.
It looks to me like there is something more than low contrast going on on both of the Canon and Nikkor shots wide open. Veiling flare? Whatever the reason causing it, this look *in color* does not appeal to me personally.
JS should check with Brian Sweeney. He has posted numerous shots of vintage lenses here. Especially the long sonnars from Nikon (the 85/2 and the 105/2.5) have made an impression on me.
Thanks all. As many of you know, I spend a lot of time here geeking out and looking at photos from everyone's lenses. I'm well aware of BS's photos with vintage lenses. However, it seems to me that most of the focus is on longer lenses. If you see the lenses in my signature, you will realize that I have high contrast lenses. I love them on overcast / soft light days, but wrestle with them on bright contrasty days... and summer is coming, so it'll be even worse. I'm not the type to schedule my photography around nice light, I go out whenever. That is why I am looking for a low-medium contrast 50mm lens.
I absolutely hate the summar. The 50mm 2.8 Elmar was ok, but I will not use collapsable lenses that cannot be collapsed into my camera (just a quirk of mine, I hate rig jobs).
So, these Nikkor 50mm lenses (namely the 1.4)... they seem hard to find in LTM. What are the typical prices for these in LTM?
My other option is to just deal with it and pick up one of two lenses I've been interested in for awhile... a CV 50mm Heliar 3.5 or Elmar-M 2.8 (newest one).
I absolutely hate the summar. The 50mm 2.8 Elmar was ok, but I will not use collapsable lenses that cannot be collapsed into my camera (just a quirk of mine, I hate rig jobs).
So, these Nikkor 50mm lenses (namely the 1.4)... they seem hard to find in LTM. What are the typical prices for these in LTM?
My other option is to just deal with it and pick up one of two lenses I've been interested in for awhile... a CV 50mm Heliar 3.5 or Elmar-M 2.8 (newest one).
Last edited:
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
My Nikkor 35/1.8 displays the veiling flare you mentioned at F1.8, but at F2.0 it is gone. Also my 50 Rigid displays similar behavior wide open.
John,
My single coated glass is a 28/3.5 Canon/Serenar; a Nikkon 35/1.8 and a 50 Rigid. You are welcome to try any or all of them the next time we shoot.
BTW I find the Nickel Heliars to have about the same contrast as my Bokeh King which I think is rather moderate contrast.
Cal
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Tiffen's Ultra Contrast filters reduce contrast, and won an Oscar for it. Will that do?
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
That could be a very cool low cost solution Roger. Thanks. Have you personally tried them with good results?
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is definitely low contrast in the wide apertures.
My rigid and DR Summicrons are both much lower contrast than my newer lenses.
The J-8 is low contrast but I've seen some incredible images made with it that are much more contrasty. Could be done in post, could be sample variation I guess.
You might try some of the lower cost alternatives to the big names by checking out the offerings from Acall, Bittco, Komura, Schacht, Ross, Sun, Steinheil and a few other third party names. The Komura thread here in RFF is a great resource for identifying lenses and finding out what they can do.
Phil Forrest
My rigid and DR Summicrons are both much lower contrast than my newer lenses.
The J-8 is low contrast but I've seen some incredible images made with it that are much more contrasty. Could be done in post, could be sample variation I guess.
You might try some of the lower cost alternatives to the big names by checking out the offerings from Acall, Bittco, Komura, Schacht, Ross, Sun, Steinheil and a few other third party names. The Komura thread here in RFF is a great resource for identifying lenses and finding out what they can do.
Phil Forrest
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes. They're astonishingly good. Contrast is reduced with little or no loss of resolution. Not so sure about 'low cost', though. Except of course as compared with Leica lenses. If you were nearer, I'd lend you a set.
Cheers,
R.
squinza
Established
A nice summitar will do, I have an uncoated version and is as low in contrast as possible 
It has good resolution (in the center) and nice OOF rendition too!
It has good resolution (in the center) and nice OOF rendition too!
f16sunshine
Moderator
Here are is a comparison on HP5 of the NK Japan Nikkor f1.4/50mm ltm lens. Then a pic I put in the gallery last week showing more of that glow this lens is known for in some circles.
f1.4
f4 or so
Glow
f1.4
f4 or so
Glow
kermaier
Well-known
Nice, Andy -- I love all the old LTM Nikkors I have, and continue to lust after more.
::Ari
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Nice, Andy -- I love all the old LTM Nikkors I have, and continue to lust after more.
::Ari
+1
Only own a 35/1.8, but what a great-great lens.
Cal
kermaier
Well-known
The Nikkor 50/1.4 fairly hard to find in LTM these days, and prices are going up (it seems like daily). There are two main versions and a few variations within version (e.g., black aperture ring), with price varying with rarity (and condition, of course). Prices seem to go from around $400 for a user-condition middle-of-the-run NKJ to more than $1000 for a very clean NKT 5005xxxx serial number lens.
The Nikkor 50/2 is considerably easier to find in LTM, as it was commonly packaged with Leica copies of the day, like Nicca, Tower, Leotax, etc. Prices for that lens run from about $225 to $450 depending on condition and rarity of variation. The f/2 lens is higher contrast than the f/1.4, which gives the subjective impression of being more "sharp", though I think the f/1.4 has better resolving power.
::Ari