Low Contrast Lenses:

leica M2 fan

leica M2 fan

Veteran
Local time
2:23 PM
Joined
Jul 28, 2005
Messages
8,079
I've been reading several posts the last few days referring to "low contrast lenses", can anyone supply me with a link to the names of such lenses or the names of lenses that qualify as low contrast? :)
 
A lot of the older Leica lenses would qualify as low (or medium) contrast, such as uncoated elmar, summar, summaron, etc. The Canon 35/2.8 is also a low to medium contrast lens. There was a thread over the summer (I think) on low contrast lenses for use in bright sunny conditions. A lot of really useful info in that thread.
 
I have a Voigtlander 40mm f1.4 lens of the single coat variety and it appears to be fairly low in contrast.

That's one suggestion....
 
What has been said, anything of before "modern vintage" should qualify, at least to some degree. In my case, I started rangefinders (again) with a nearly fully set of modern Voigtlander lenses. While I enjoyed them, I sold most of them off, and have gravitated back, to the Canon & Leica lenses, of the 50's, 60's, and 70's. That's been a good move, for me.
 
Last edited:
Very enjoyable thread , I know I read it at the time but my new interest makes it more exciting now! Thanks for the link, I have a better idea of the lenses. I'm sure a collapsible Summicron would be a wonderful lens to have.
 
A few comments, if you don't mind, Tony:

1) since a lens is passive, it can only decrease contrast.
2) because of this, for lenses reputed to have low contrast, it usually has to do with flare.
3) I find contrast to be much more affected by film and exposure. Even at identical specs, one lens might have a different transmission than another one, affecting contrast more than the coating, for instance.
4) I have several "lower contrast" lenses that have dramatically different contrast at different apertures. Your new Canon 50/1.5 is a great example. Much lower contrast at f1.5 than f2 and up.

So, for example, your Canon 50/1.5 will look almost identical to a collapsible Summicron at f2.8 or up. I know that at least myself, I can not distinguish the results.

Best,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
35/3.5 or 2.8 Summaron
50/1.5 Summarit
Canon 50/1.5
50/2 Summitar
135/3.5 Hektor

All of these are lower contrast lenses, either because they are single coated and/or older designs. The Canon's contrast improves when stopped down.

Ben Marks
 
I think comments about 35 3.5 Summaron should be taken with a grain of salt. Mine is actually quite high contrast, used with a shade..it's prone to flare, so I would never use it without a shade . Summarons are commonly said to be prone to fungus, so condition may be the issue more than design.
 
ferider said:
A few comments, if you don't mind, Tony:

1) since a lens is passive, it can only decrease contrast.
2) because of this, for lenses reputed to have low contrast, it usually has to do with flare.
3) I find contrast to be much more affected by film and exposure. Even at identical specs, one lens might have a different transmission than another one, affecting contrast more than the coating, for instance.
4) I have several "lower contrast" lenses that have dramatically different contrast at different apertures. Your new Canon 50/1.5 is a great example. Much lower contrast at f1.5 than f2 and up.

So, for example, your Canon 50/1.5 will look almost identical to a collapsible Summicron at f2.8 or up. I know that at least myself, I can not distinguish the results.

Best,

Roland.
Click to expand...

Regarding point one, it seems you’re mistaking contrast for tonal range (i.e., the range of brightness levels in which detail is recorded). True, a lens cannot make a scene inherently brighter or darker (it doesn’t illuminate the scene itself, it merely focuses light emanating from that scene), and in that sense it is indeed passive.

However, a lens can be assertive when it comes to contrast. Two lenses might record detail across identical tonal ranges, successfully transmitting detail in, say, zones two through seven, but each lens, all other things being equal, might yield a tonal curve different than the other’s. The steepness of that tonal curve is what gives the impression of contrast, not the whole range along the y-axis.

I won’t deny that contrast is “much more affected by film and exposure”, but the pedantic side in me couldn’t resist arguing in favour of a lens being assertive via its signature, which is made up of, among other things, the lens’ ability to affect contrast even without suffering from flare (or glare).
 
I agree with you to some degree, J.J. There is a non-linear mapping of image dynamic range to film dynamic range. And it's different for different lenses. For high-contrast/modern lenses this mapping is typically more linear than for classics.

When you consider the many other factors though, the light temperature, the medium (orders of magnitude difference in dynamic range/contrast between negative, slide film, different digital sensors), the exposure parameters, and the parameters of the lens (transmission, aperture, vignetting, etc), the most significant parameter of the lens affecting contrast in the same magnitude as the medium is flare.

Give me any clean lens of the 1940s and I can make you a very contrasty picture; in color or B+W. Give me a modern lens and I can make it look flat.

I'm all for favoring different lenses of different ages, matching lens signatures, etc. But it's mostly aberations, OOF behavior and resolution that make them different to me. Contrast/saturation/etc. is easier to control via light, exposure time or medium/process, IMO. With the correct exposure and process parameters, a lens that is too contrasty does not exist.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
I've tested a couple of Leica lenses (dual range and folding summicrons) against Canon Fd 50. It didn't matter what the apertures were, but it was evident on the light table that the Leica negs were significantly lower in contrast across the board. The dual range summicron had the lowest contrast. However, when contrast levels are boosted in PS, the older Leica lenses could be made to look just as contrasty--and generally with a little more detail--than the Canon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom