Low contrast lens: Digital friend?

[kevin m]

I'm trying out the R-D1 I just got from the RFF classifieds. I own only two RF lenses right now, a Canon 50/1.2 and a VC 35/2.5. I had a "theory" coming in that older, low contrast lenses might be a better match for a digital sensor than a modern, higher contrast lens, so I did a quick test.

I'm attaching two pics, both straight from the camera JPEGs, no sharpening applied. I cropped one image slightly to make them a closer match. Both shot seconds apart, iso 200, f2.8, 1/250th. (8x ND filters on both lenses, BTW.)

 

[kevin m]

Please feel free to share your observations, and please post any pics that might serve to further illustrate the topic. 🙂

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Which is which?

I feel as though bokeh, sharpness, and overall character are a lot more important on digital cameras than contrast. Most decent sensors, including the RD-1's, give you more than enough highlight and shadow detail to tweak contrast in Photoshop to your heart's content--the other stuff you can't fix in post.

 

[kevin m]

Which is which?

Isn't it obvious? 😀

 

[tomasis]

congrats with "new" purchase. I think too that low/medium contrast lenses are important for digital sensors especially when you're shooting outside at bright sunny weather. One tip: try underexpose about 0,5-1 stop so you can recover up shadows. Once highlights are blown, they are gone forever 🙂 It is really the opposite to that how films work.

 

[charjohncarter]

I like the second image; softer contrast, more color in the shadows. Brian Sweeney pointed this fact (older lenses equals lower contrast lenses) out and it could be used to digitals benefit. I have used my older Leica TM lenses on my DSLR (macro only) and I personally like the 'look' better. I have a really rotten folder with the worst imaginable lenses, but there is zero blacked out shadows with that lens (used with film).

I think the high contrast and linear HD curve is digitals major problem to date. Unfortunately, all new lenses are super sharp and high contrast.

 

[kevin m]

I like the second image; softer contrast, more color in the shadows.

Me too. I find it looks more "natural" to my eye, and it's an easier file to work with. If you look at the bottom side of the leaves, in particular, I think that nicely illustrates the difference between an old, low-contrast lens and a modern high contrast lens. 🙂

 

[yanidel]

Both work to me.
The first one give the impression of flower struggling in the heavy sun. Maybe starting to fade. This can only be the 35mm Skopar
The second one is more harmonious and an ode to sunny days.

So it really depends on the message/impression would want to portray I guess.

 

[kevin m]

So it really depends on the message/impression would want to portray I guess.

Yanidel, I agree with you. I like the "punchy" look of the Skopar pic, but I think the Canon file is easier to work with in the digital darkroom. It's easier to make the Canon file look like the Skopar than vice versa.

 

[yanidel]

Yanidel, I agree with you. I like the "punchy" look of the Skopar pic, but I think the Canon file is easier to work with in the digital darkroom. It's easier to make the Canon file look like the Skopar than vice versa.

correct, i use lightroom and it is much better to add contrast or blacks than increase shadow detail without deteriorating image quality.
Did you notice the Skopar to have better resolution/sharpness than the Canon, difficult to see on a these reduced size Jpg. I would expect so.

 

[kevin m]

I'll come back with some 100% crops in a sec... 😀

...and here they are.

I think the focus might be off a tad on the Canon shot; the petals are sharper than the center. 🙁

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Personally, my favorite lens so far on the R-D1 is the Canon 35/1.8. It is supposed to be less contrasty than the pricier 35/2, and perhaps this is a good thing!

 

[yanidel]

looking at this, seems the Skopar has much better resolution. Especially since the Canon crop is magnified a bit more. With that cropping, I now clearing like picture #2 more. Probably because the flower is now isolated and therefore the eyes focuses more on IQ.

 

[kevin m]

looking at this, seems the Skopar has much better resolution....

Are you sure about that? As I said, I think the focus is off a bit on the Canon, the petals are in focus, but the center is not. Also, DOF comes into play more with the Canon. The forward-most petals are already going out of focus, but the Skopar 35 shots aren't. 🙂

 

[kevin m]

Older, "lower contrast" lenses are typically that way because of single coatings or not even being coated at all.

Hmmm...I don't know if I can agree with that. I had one of the latest, pre-aspherical Summilux 50's (e46, built-in hood) and it had multi-coating, but being an "old" design still had lower contrast than, say, a Summicron of the same vintage. It was a much better lens for photographing people, I thought, for that reason.

 

[kevin m]

Well, what you said is true of the Canon 50/1.2; if the sun's in the frame, you're going to get flare. 😀

 

[thirteen]

Interesting article here about different lenses - older and newer on the R-D1. The section "Sunny Day Lenses" speaks to your theory.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/fastlensreview.shtml

 

[pphuang]

Interesting article here about different lenses - older and newer on the R-D1. The section "Sunny Day Lenses" speaks to your theory.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...nsreview.shtml

Sean Reid has always been a big proponent of low contast lenses on digital cameras for many of the reasons already discussed. I also prefer lower contrast lenses on my RD1 - my Canon 35/2.8 basically lives on my camera. It definitely gives you many more options with your post-processing, and its always easier to add contrast later when you need it. I found most of the VC lenses were just too contrasty for my tastes.

Zeiss lenses are also reportedly higher contrast than Leica lenses, although I've only have personal experience with the Sonnar on my RD1, and I'm not sure that you can generalize the look of the Sonnar to the rest of the Zeiss offerings...

 

[kevin m]

It's not bad, really. The flare I'm talking about is if the actual glowing ball of the sun is in the frame.

The Summilux 50 handled that with ease, if my memory serves. 🙂

 

[deepwhite]

I also read Mr. Raid's article, and from my own experience, quite agree with that.