Modern (flat) rendering vs. classic (full of character) rendering

[Redseele]

Hello all,

This might seem like a question with an obvious answer but I'm trying to solve what exactly the difference is between so-called "modern" rendering and the "classic" (or "full of character") rendering of older lenses. I feel like I should give a bit of background information:

I have a Summaron 35mm 3.5 that I absolutely love for black and white film. I love how it shows different gradients of grey, how much tonal difference there is between absolute black and whites. However, I've never been very happy with this lens for color work. I have shot it with Portra and Fuji 400h and added contrast in Photoshop. I know that these classic lenses are less contrasty than modern ones, but it's not just that. For this reason, I am thinking about getting another 35mm lens for color work.

I've been a little torn about what to get. A Voigtlander Skopar 35mm, supposedly, has a modern rendering not unlike the Summicron ASPH or a Zeiss Biogon. It is supposed to be as different from my Summaron as my Collapsible Summicron (50mm) is from a Zeiss Planar (which I also own and love for color work). My other option is a Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f1.4, but I'm a bit wary of it since I hear it was specifically made to have a so-called "classic" look.

In short: I know modern and classic are different looks. I can tell from the pictures I scan taken with my Summicron Collapsible and my Zeiss Planar. But what exactly, at least in theory, is that difference other than contrast?

Sorry for the long winded question. I hope someone can help me understand this better.

 

[Mudman]

microcontrast, less chromatic abberations, greater sharpness across the whole focus plane instead of just in the middle at wider apertures, etc. That kind of thing is the difference.

 

[peterm1]

Before answering your question let me say I agree with you about the Summaron 35mm f3.5. It is a gem which renders nice monochrome images with a classic "look". I like this lens so much I own two. Years ago I saw one in a shop at a reasonable price and bought it. It was the first bayonet mount one designed for the M3 and was meant to be used with a separate accessory finder in the M3's shoe. Its only limitation is that if you do not like using an accessory finder, without adjustment it does not bring up correct framelines in any M camera (of course as the M# did not have framelines for 35mm). Later I bought a nice little 111a camera and shortly thereafter found a Leica Screw Mount (LSM) version which is physically a little different but optically the same as the later bayonet one. I like them so much I hung onto both even after selling my LSM camera - just in case I ever needed one for another LSM camera.

Technically I believe (my knowledge is partial) that the main difference between older lenses such as this and newer designs resides in residual aberrations of the lenses. Especially I think, the spherical aberration. More modern lens are more highly corrected and hence render an image differently (and arguably more technically "correct") from older ones. This Summaron lens is from memory a reasonably simple design (I am too lazy to go and look it up in my reference books) and is less well corrected than modern ones. This means it renders differently to a newer computer designed lens which will have eliminated or reduced more of those aberrations. I notice with mine (the bayonet version which I use on my M8) it is not a terribly high resolution lens but it still produces lovely images as you say. It is these residual aberrations that produce the nice rounded "softness" of images - especially in out of focus areas. And of course as you say these lenses are inherently more low contrast.

PS this lens tends to fog. This may be some of the cause of low contrast. I know mine needed a cleaning which I put off for a few years till it got noticeably worse to the point of being just about unusable. You may wish to check yours by shining a bright light through it. If you see evidence of fog inside the lens it is worthwhile having it professionally cleaned if you intend to go on using it. Another thought is that if you do not mind the wider filed of view the Voigtlander 28mm f2 is a very modern rendering and sharp WA lens. I cannot speak for their 35mm offerings as I do not own any of them.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I purchased Color Skopar as only 35 for RF lens. Saturated colors, strong contrast. Should be perfect for digital as well.
But I want lens as yours for b/w film. Strictly based on what I have seen on scans.

 

[FrankS]

Is it spherical aberration that causes that swirly look?

 

[Redseele]

PS this lens tends to fog. This may be some of the cause of low contrast. I know mine needed a cleaning which I put off for a few years till it got noticeably worse to the point of being just about unusable. You may wish to check yours by shining a bright light through it. If you see evidence of fog inside the lens it is worthwhile having it professionally cleaned if you intend to go on using it. Another thought is that if you do not mind the wider filed of view the Voigtlander 28mm f2 is a very modern rendering and sharp WA lens. I cannot speak for their 35mm offerings as I do not own any of them.

I know this bit. When I got it, it was really hazy. So much that flaring was unbearable. So I sent it to be cleaned to Youxin Ye and he did a great job with it!

As much as I like its rendering for black and white, I am still a bit dubious about why I don't like it so much for color. I wonder if the problem is my own perception of color photography being more corrected than black and white photography. Maybe when I look at black and white and color pictures I look at different things.

 

[Redseele]

Is it spherical aberration that causes that swirly look?

I think that this Summaron doesn't have that swirly look. From what I remember this picture was taken almost wide open, but there's no swirl in it (which, on the other hand, is much more prevalent on my Summicron Collapsible, although not at much as older LTM lenses).

BTW, this is more contrasty because it was shot on Tri-X pushed to 1600. With these less contrasty lens I've found the perfect balance of contrast by pushing film two stops. Even with that, I still add contrast in Photoshop.

Outside by Mahler_seele, on Flickr

 

[FrankS]

My favourite image was taken with a Summaron 35f3.5 which I don't have anymore.

 

[peterm1]

My favourite image was taken with a Summaron 35f3.5 which I don't have anymore.

Yes a nice image that is typical of the rendering of this lens. I like the vignette too. I always find that a touch of it adds to a lot of photos. Another reason to love older classic lenses.

 

[peterm1]

I know this bit. When I got it, it was really hazy. So much that flaring was unbearable. So I sent it to be cleaned to Youxin Ye and he did a great job with it!

As much as I like its rendering for black and white, I am still a bit dubious about why I don't like it so much for color. I wonder if the problem is my own perception of color photography being more corrected than black and white photography. Maybe when I look at black and white and color pictures I look at different things.

I cant speak for you but I shoot a great deal in color these days. But here is the thing, I almost always post process images to get what I think of as an "old or classic" look. In other words some vignette, a little "glow", low saturation etc - although I tend not to reduce contrast too much (but still a little) in color shots as this works better with mono for producing a classic look. So in short I personally do not mind what I think of as a classic look when shooting color. However, because I am post processing it does not matter to me if I shoot with modern lenses (which I often do simply because I find DSLRs much easier to use now that I am older and I struggle with manual focusing.) In any event I still try for a classic look in the final outcome as I much prefer this to a more modern rendering which I find a bit boring.

Samples of color images I have "adjusted" to give what I think of as a more classic lens look (although others may disagree). More on my Flickr page - linked below. The interesting thing to me is that more often than not editing in this way involves taking information out of the image - e.g. by adding some blur etc. This is consistent with what we have been saying about the older lenses - they have an interesting "look" but lower resolution as a general rule.

Cafe Study 1 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

Singing it by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

At the Bottega by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

By the Lake by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

And some in Mono where I do reduce contrast more - some images which almost could be from the Summaron.

Alla at rest by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

At Raffles by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

 

[Richard G]

Peter the skin tones in that last one through the window are wonderful and typical of the subtlety of this lens as mentioned in the original post to this thread. I have been using it on the Monochrom, but I am no less happy with the M9 colour shots with it. Maybe a bit cool??? It is very sharp.

 

[leicapixie]

And some in Mono where I do reduce contrast more - some images which almost could be from the Summaron.

Alla at rest by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

I really like your photographs!
They are great, the post production neat.
They don't resemble my Summaron 35mm f2.8 Goggles. nor my Collapsible Summicron, due to soft focus effect.
I found my Summaron simply disappointing with color, being not really sharp, simply something missing..
I appreciate your samples and also do this soft focus thing, in a Photoshop or actual use of filters on a SLR and Film.

 

[rscheffler]

The Nokton 35/1.4 comes in two versions. There's a single coated version which will have somewhat lower contrast, saturation and possibly greater tendency to flare. The other version is multicoated. The 40/1.4 also comes in two versions. Of which, I have the multicoated version. The other 'classic' aspects of these two lenses, independent of the coating options, is aberration correction and degree of field curvature. Wider open, there is a degree of spherical aberration that takes the edge off details, giving a bit of that character 'glow' and I believe is also responsible for the fair amount of focus shift as the lens is stopped down. The field curvature is strong and means these lenses aren't great for technical applications where across frame sharpness at wider apertures might be desired.

As to whether spherical aberration is responsible for background swirl... I don't believe so, though it will influence background rendering. Field curvature may also be a factor in the swirliness. The lenses I have that exhibit the most swirliness also are the the least well corrected: 5cm/1.5 Summarit, Nikkor 5cm/1.4 (a Sonnar design), Zeiss Opton 50/1.5 Sonnar, as well as the Nokton 40/1.4, Canon 35/2 LTM. Of those, I think the best color saturation is from the Nokton and Zeiss Opton, though the Nikkor is also good stopped down (it's glowy at 1.4, and changes dramatically at f/2). The Canon becomes razor sharp by f/5.6 across the frame, but never achieves a modern level of color fidelity.

If you want a balance between 'classic' and modern rendering, then probably look at lenses from the 80s. They'll have better coatings resulting in higher contrast and saturation, yet won't be as 'hard' as modern designs, especially the Zeiss and Leica ASPHs. If you don't care too much about field curvature, then the multicoated Nokton 35/1.4 may be an option. Wide open it will be a bit glowy, but should clean up stopped down. I think the 35/2.5 will be a bit less wild than the Nokton. Neither Voigtlanders will be as high contrast as something from Zeiss. Leica will be somewhere in the middle, with rich colors.

 

[tunalegs]

Is it spherical aberration that causes that swirly look?

I've read a lot of different theories about what causes swirly boke' effects, and probably the effect is achieved by a combination of optical problems. It's often described as being a result of field curvature, or astigmatism, or spherical aberration, or well just about any aberration out there. Spherical aberration is usually present in lenses that swirl most noticeably, but does not seem to be the actual cause - it's just an effect which makes it more noticeable.

tree by berangberang, on Flickr

A lens I have which is very well corrected still produces swirly bokeh, and that lens is the Schneider Xenon 1.9/50. An explanation I've heard is that the swirl is caused by the glass itself being too small in diameter for the angle of view at large apertures. Basically light which travels through the center of the glass can form full circles, but light angled through the edges of the glass gets partially cut off and forms ellipses - the shape getting narrower the closer it gets to the edge of the frame. This is why the swirl decreases as the lens is stopped down and less light travels through the edges of the elements. The Xenon uses surprisingly small elements for its speed so this idea seems to make sense, as otherwise the lens is well corrected.

Over-correcting for spherical aberration causes those bright lines around OOF highlights which makes the swirl much more noticeable, but doesn't seem to be cause of the swirl.

As for what causes "classic" rendering - usually it's over or under correction of particular aberrations. Before lenses were calculated with electronic computers companies would generally use the same computations for corrections over and over again with the result that every lens maker produced lenses that possessed a distinctive "family look". Once computers began to be used this slowly faded away as more accurate and refined calculations could be made. But more generally the "vintage look" one often finds is the result of single coatings, more aperture blades, and often some vignetting especially at large apertures.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

So, my Canon 100L (went to production in 2009) seems to be classic and uncorrected.

 

[charjohncarter]

I wonder about the difference between B&W and Color capability of this lenses. I'm wondering if you are not scanning properly and post processing properly. It would be a lot less aggravation to have someone else scan and PS a file to see it there is a difference. I have many slides made with a Summar f2.0 (pre-war), Elmar f3.5, and slides from my father-in-law that show good color.

Summar (1964):

KodaChrome 1964 by carter3john, on Flickr

Elmar (1972):

Found Film by carter3john, on Flickr

And from the collection of W. K. Amonette (c. 1950):

Found Fotos by carter3john, on Flickr

I choose these because they have 'honest' color not super saturated.

 

[Sparrow]

I cant speak for you but I shoot a great deal in color these days. But here is the thing, I almost always post process images to get what I think of as an "old or classic" look. In other words some vignette, a little "glow", low saturation etc - although I tend not to reduce contrast too much (but still a little) in color shots as this works better with mono for producing a classic look. So in short I personally do not mind what I think of as a classic look when shooting color. However, because I am post processing it does not matter to me if I shoot with modern lenses (which I often do simply because I find DSLRs much easier to use now that I am older and I struggle with manual focusing.) In any event I still try for a classic look in the final outcome as I much prefer this to a more modern rendering which I find a bit boring.

Samples of color images I have "adjusted" to give what I think of as a more classic lens look (although others may disagree). More on my Flickr page - linked below. The interesting thing to me is that more often than not editing in this way involves taking information out of the image - e.g. by adding some blur etc. This is consistent with what we have been saying about the older lenses - they have an interesting "look" but lower resolution as a general rule.

I don't want to be confrontational ... and while I think your photos are at the more acceptable end of 'high definition' ... I feel Classic and Lens Signature are not words that first spring to my mind I have to admit.

PS ... that is I don't think any of the film or lense's attributes survive the processing

 

[willie_901]

Older lenses generally don't have sophisticated coating technologies. Contemporary lens coating technologies suppress flare.

Clearly flare is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact flare can be used for creative effect.

As other mentioned there are other optical differences as well... mainly the degree of higher order corrections.

Lens coating chemical composition differences also affects color rendition.

 

[ottluuk]

Single coated lenses have more stray light bouncing around in them which reduces overall contrast even when there is no clearly-defined flare pattern. In B&W you mostly notice this in shadows that turn out a little brighter. If you bring the darkest parts down to (near) black when printing or in digital PP, this can give a beautiful range of tones.

But there is no control over the colour temperature of the stray light. So it can pollute the colour of objects by mixing in unwanted tones. This can show up as an overall colour shift or muddy tones in some part of the spectrum.

Here's an older one from the Summaron.

 

[De_Corday]

I've found that my swirliest lenses tend to be Cooke Triplet designs, for what thats worth. So yeah, uncorrected.