msbarnes
Well-known
I hear many people prefer low contrast lenses for B&W. I've seen the comparisons with color film/digital but not so much with B&W film. Anyone have any examples of these two lenses on the same roll or a side-by-side comparison?
I'm wanting to get a Leica M2 but I'm unsure on which lenses I should pursue first. It's mostly down to 50mm f2 Planar or 50mm f2 DR Summicron. Then maybe I'd add on a 35mm f2.0 Biogon or 35mm f2.8 Summaron but I'd like to stick with the same brand for consistency and because they have the same filter threads to share hoods(maybe) and filters.
The general consensus is that the difference between the older Leica M's and more modern Hexanon/Zeiss/CV offerings is the lens contrast.
Leica is lower contrast which "should" be better for b&w film and has the name (for whatever that's worth), but the main disadvantage is that clean examples are harder to find and the lenses don't handle flare as well. Zeiss lenses are of higher contrast and cleaner samples should be easier to find and they should handle flare better and are probably sharper (not sure how much I care about sharpness) but the build is a little questionable (Zeiss wobble). The differences in bokeh, I'd imagine are more or less subtle.
It's a tossup between these two really.
I'm wanting to get a Leica M2 but I'm unsure on which lenses I should pursue first. It's mostly down to 50mm f2 Planar or 50mm f2 DR Summicron. Then maybe I'd add on a 35mm f2.0 Biogon or 35mm f2.8 Summaron but I'd like to stick with the same brand for consistency and because they have the same filter threads to share hoods(maybe) and filters.
The general consensus is that the difference between the older Leica M's and more modern Hexanon/Zeiss/CV offerings is the lens contrast.
Leica is lower contrast which "should" be better for b&w film and has the name (for whatever that's worth), but the main disadvantage is that clean examples are harder to find and the lenses don't handle flare as well. Zeiss lenses are of higher contrast and cleaner samples should be easier to find and they should handle flare better and are probably sharper (not sure how much I care about sharpness) but the build is a little questionable (Zeiss wobble). The differences in bokeh, I'd imagine are more or less subtle.
It's a tossup between these two really.
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
hi, actually the 3 modern large lens families are zeiss, leica and cosina voigtlander. older ltm lenses come from a variety of places, eg. canon, nikon etc.
Turtle
Veteran
In general, if you increase exposure and reduce development you get to the same contast vintage lenses offer with your modern lens; however, there are other modern characteristics you cannot alter and the result is a technically 'better' images which can under some circumstances appear more sterile.
The honest answer is that you have to play around and see what you like.
The honest answer is that you have to play around and see what you like.
Moriturii
Well-known
High or low contrast lenses has nothing to do with B&W pictures. You control contrast via exposure/development/contrast grade when printing.
High or low contrast lenses are only with color pictures in mind, especially slides, not B&W negatives, so you can use a Summitar or latest carl zeiss planar if you want.
High or low contrast lenses are only with color pictures in mind, especially slides, not B&W negatives, so you can use a Summitar or latest carl zeiss planar if you want.