Low Contrast 50mm Lenses for M9

kermaier said:
I have that one too, and it's a keeper. :)
I'm currently lusting after a 35/2.5 with black aperture ring, and a late black 85/2.
::Ari
Click to expand...

I'm looking fo a 35/2.5 also. Already bought a second CV Version one LTM adapter that happened to be the last one. I was told that these LTM adapters that fit lenses with infinity locks is being discontinued. Already they were out of the adapter for 50's and I bought the last two for 35's. Photo Village tried to order more, but was informed of they are no longer being made.

You might want to secure an adapter from Camera Quest pronto.

Good Luck.

Cal
 
Back on topic for the OP, you can also try:

The Canon LTM 50/1.8 is medium contrast (a bit higher with the later black barreled lenses, which have newer gold-tinted coatings). It's a really good lens, nice color rendering, no particular character/flaws (as opposed to the Sonnar look that the Nikkor has, or the crazy bokeh you can get with the Canon 50/1.2).

The Summicron collapsible is low-contrast and Summicron rigid is low-medium contrast. Both of these are wonderful lenses.

The CV 50/2.5 Color-Skopar is of moderate contrast for a modern production lens -- *much* more restrained than the latest Elmar-M 50/2.8 or the Summarit-M 50/2.5. (Of course, the Skopar isn't technically in production anymore either, but it shouldn't be impossible to get one).

::Ari
 
The Summarit is lower contrast than the Nikkor and other Sonnar formula lenses.

I found that it is optimized for F2.8, which agrees with Dante Stella's assessment.

I will be shimming one for wide-open use on the M9, leave the second at F2.8.
 
One thing you can see from Darren's post is that contrast changes strongly with aperture. Hard to distinguish 50 year old lenses from modern ones when stopped down.

My pre-asph 50 Summilux is clearly lower contrast at f1.4 than at f2. However, it's never labeled "low contrast" in related RFF discussions ....

What will be your shooting condition ? Will you always shoot wide open ? Do you want soft corners and low contrast ? Etc.

If you shoot stopped down, classic vs. modern lens doesn't matter so much, it's much easier to control contrast via exposure, filters and light, of course.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Veiling flare can affect contrast significantly. A lens very prone to it will show quite different contrast characteristics when it flares than otherwise.

I like the 50 lux-pre as it's kind of a variable-contrast lens, and it'll flare like crazy in the right/wrong circumstances. Same with plenty of older lenses, too...
 
ferider said:
What will be your shooting condition ? Will you always shoot wide open ? Do you want soft corners and low contrast ? Etc.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm looking for that lens that gives me better control in very sunny contrasty situations. The planar can look just plain ugly at times on digital (better on slides). I do shoot wide open at times, but not always...especially in the conditions in question.

However, I could take better care to just under-expose by 2/3 of stop, control my highlights, and PP my way to lower contrast that way or just deal with the fact that harsh light is harsh and hope for the best.

The problem is that I do like sharp and modern (even wide open with the expection of my Sonnar which is optimized for 2.8, but I still love the look at 1.5). So many of the lenses shown here are not my thing.
 
Sharp and modern means contrasty i'm afraid.
Something in between could be the Summarit 50/2.5 possibly but i have no experience with it. Now you won't see a lot of difference contrast wise if it behaves like the excellent Summarit 35/2.5.
Amongst my own 50s, i would forget the last Elmar 50/2.8 (very contrasty) and the Skopar 50/2.5 (too soft under f/4). An early Elmar 50/2.8 could be a better idea, a collapsible Summicron 50/2 (HCB's favorite lens) or a Summilux 50/1.4 v1. Hard to get modern rendition with them though.
My advice FWIW: keep your favorite lens, bring ND filters if need be, meter on bright areas and use a good raw converter to recover shadows in PP.
 
JS, from what you said, I suggest:

Wide: 35/1.7 or 28/1.9 Ultron (find a good copy)
50: Hex 50/2 (actually lower contrast and smoother than Planar, IMO) or CV 50/1.5.
Long: 90/2 v3 (in a way similar to your 50/1.5 in signature - few people know that it's an Ernostar).

Wide open, these are medium contrast, relatively sharp lenses in the corners. Stopped down 1 stop, they are all outstanding in every respect.

Best,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
ferider, it is funny you mention the CV 50mm 1.5 (and 35 1.7)... I've owned both and you are right...they are close. Perhaps I'll grab another 1.5 while they are still cheap. The only thing I have against it is it is big.
 
Roland, I hadn't thought of the CV 50/1.5 but, now that you mention it, it is a bit lower contrast wide open than many other modern lenses. I just received a 50/2 M-Hex yesterday -- wonderfully made lens, and seems quite sharp, but I haven't looked into its contrastiness yet.
 
I find the Nokton 50 1.5 pretty low contrast wide open, as shown here. Contrast picks up considerably at smaller apertures, but it's never above medium, when compared to a ZM, for example. The Nokton is a great choice for BW, in my view. Although I'm not a fan of the ergonomics, on balance I enjoy the lens.

John

L1000148.jpg

L1000148.jpg
 
See, that's the problem. In bright contrasty sunlit days, I'm not going wide open. I think I'll just use a 35mm Summaron 3.5 as my vintage lens and use my regular 50s for now. I'll figure out work arounds.
 
List that I either own or have owned and used with the M8:

Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM (only between f/1.2 and f/1.4 it's low contrast)
Canon 50mm f/1.5 LTM (only between f/1.5 and f/2)
Nikkor 50mm f/1.5 LTM (only between f/1.5 and f/2; even at f/2 it can be contrasty if the scene itself is already well-lit and contrasty)
Leica Summar (uncoated) 50mm f/2 LTM
Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4 (First version; depending on your version, up to f/2 or f/2.8)
Leica Summarit 50mm f/1.5 (talk about low contrast, through the whole range; one of my favourites; not for the faint of heart)
Leica Summilux 35mm f/1.4 ("pre-asph" from f/1.4 through about f/2.8 or f/4)
VC Ultron 35mm f/1.7 LTM (low- to mid-contrast f/1.7 through about f/4)


Of those that I never owned but got a chance to try:
VC Nokton 35mm f/1.2 (at f/1.2; mild-contrast)
Canon 35mm f/1.5 LTM (definitely at f/1.5)
Leica Summarex 85mm f/1.5 (loveliest lens I've ever tried; heavy; not for the faint of heart either)
 
You want low contrast? Here are some from a hazy Canon 50/1.2 taken with an M9. Straight B&W JPGs from camera at ISO 1600 (I think).

110515_M9%20Digital%20Camera_1001328.JPG


110515_M9%20Digital%20Camera_1001352.JPG


110515_M9%20Digital%20Camera_1001364.JPG


110515_M9%20Digital%20Camera_1001366.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom