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

[peterm1]

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

Certainly no offence taken. To each his own is my way of things.

 

[tunalegs]

I would like to see redseele's photos to see what it is that is bothering them about the way the lens renders color.

 

[goamules]

On Contrast, I see we have some getting to what I know it's coatings but also lens design: The muted contrast of classic lenses comes from the number of air to glass interfaces that are uncoated, or single coated. Optical theory tells us you lose a certain percentage (5% if I recall) of light transmission at each air/glass interface. The "lost light" isn't really lost, it bounces back and forth in the lens barrel. Causing a little "flare", which manifests itself to us as low contrast.

That's why a predominately cemented lens design, like a Sonnar (6 air/glass interfaces), is always more contrasty than one with a lot of air spaces like a Planar (8 interfaces). Especially before coatings. Coatings changed all that, and allowed lens designers to use a predominately air-spaced design, and not lose as much contrast. The better the coatings (multi), the better they do their job.

Canon 50/1.2 (10 air/glass interfaces) shot at f2.8

Canon 50/1.8 (8 air/glass interfaces) shot at f2.8

 

[goamules]

On lens Aberrations, there are many, as well as Distortions. Spherical, Chromatic, Coma, Astigmatism, Barrel, etc., all were the workings of lens designers. All have tradeoffs - if you get one optimized, chances are something else will be sub-optimal. Some are exacerbated by trying to increase lens speed. So a F1.5 lens is much more likely to "swirl" (Coma) or have "falloff" (Field Curvature), than an F3.5 Elmar. When a design is "right", I like Sonnars, it still took quality manufacturing to get all the trade-offs in balance. So you have different looks for uncoated Zeiss Sonnars, compared to J-3s, and Canon 1.5s, etc. So basically "swirl" and other "errors" were either a tradeoff that the designer accepted, or a result of shoddy manufacturing (more rare).

 

[C. D. Keth]

Is it spherical aberration that causes that swirly look?

That's some curvature of field combined, usually, with some small amount of coma.

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.

Funny you pick up on that. When I was shooting a lot of wedding work where the background isn't necessarily controlled, I would very lightly, very softly vignette nearly everything. Just 1/3 stop vignette makes a huge difference in your perception of a lot of pictures.

 

[Monday317]

Edited from the original with apologies--

...the main difference between older lenses such as this and newer designs resides in residual aberrations of the lenses. More modern lens are more highly corrected and hence render an image differently (and arguably more technically "correct") from older ones. 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. 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.

This is a good starting point. Modern lenses are computer-designed and ground with far less human error than the lenses of a previous generation. Most older lenses were not designed for color photography at all; it was a rather expensive proposition for the average shutterbug. Hence the change from, say, the Skopar to the Color-Skopar, a more expensive lens to design, grind and coat.

See, for good color work, an ideal lens must equally focus the three primary wavelengths of red, green and blue light to the same point , with same intensity & circles of confusion at a given aperture AND provide even illumination across the film format. The problem is blue light: it's wavelength is the shortest and a spherical lens design can't physically focus blue as needed to line up with the red and green. For B + W, we didn't care, so those lovely old spherical designs rendered wonderful images and I suspect the slightly off blues may have added to the Lomographic quality of images made in the ortho film days. [The simple meniscus lenses of the Dianas and Holgas are another example of this idea: color Lomo images suck.] Slap a yellow filter on a spherical lens and the blue problem becomes moot, so your Cooke Triplet or Tessar becomes a paint brush worthy of William-Adolphe Bouguereau!

But film manufactures brought down the prices of color materials for the masses and the pros--who needed ever sharper lenses--so you got the 8-element planars, each multi-coated six ways from Sunday, with glass made from moon rocks, giving MTFs of.9999999999999 from IR to UVA... For the rest of us bozos, our Solinars became Color Heliars, Lanthars, Skopars, Summicrons--you name it. They evolved into APO beasts with aspherical designs, tack sharp and superb color renderers--but without the beauty the old designs had. That's the difference between your older lenses and the newer ones.

I own a Zeiss Ercona with a Tessar lens and it's wonderful. With filtering, color is quite nice, but I may yet build a Holganon for the best work. In B + W, the Tessar is a beautiful tool, I'd never part with. FWIW, I never shoot color without a filter, usually an 81A for most work with the Tessar. Helps a lot!

PS--Fogging may be fungal and can ruin a lens permanently by etching the glass itself. Anyone seeing fog in a treasured lens should get it cleaned PDQ or risk the loss of a beautiful chunk of glass!

 

[Dektol Dan]

It's About Light and Contrast First

It's About Light and Contrast First

New lenses have too much contrast, but have much better flare resistance.

I have new glass that I like very much, but I still very much prefer the classics.

These are from the 3.5 Summaron, the well lit image looks old and romantic (like from an old National Geographic), but in the light friendly image one cannot tell it from a modern lens.

 

[Rob-F]

Is it spherical aberration that causes that swirly look?

I think this is caused by Coma, a tendency for points of light to be rendered with a tail, like a comet, streaming toward the corner. The Noctilux f/1 exhibits Coma, and has some of that swirly character.

 

[raid]

In the end, we have many different lenses available to us, and this allows us to be more creative in our own ways as we take photos. With film, I used to very much like using Fuji Reala with uncoated old lenses, such as the Zeiss Sonnar 5cm/1.5. They work together quite well. It is different with digital cameras. Careful post processing is needed to craft a digital images with specific features.

 

[dee]

As an aside, I bought a new Olympus OM1 50 f1.8 and swapped it for a comparatively antiquated Minolta SRT 50 f1.7.
With reversal film,I just found the Zuiko too 'gritty' compared to the creamy look of my Rokkors .
Having said that I love my Summitar with the M8 in monochrome , so I may have a preference for a vintage feel .
I am not sure why but would it be that the Zuiko was a more modern lens ?
Thanks
dee

 

[raid]

Old lenses usually have lower contrast, but the better ones are very sharp. If the lens also has many aperture blades, it can turn out that it has beautiful OOF rendering. I use the vintage Zeiss Sonnar 5cm/1.5, and I also use the modern Zeiss Planar 45/2. Each is special to me. The modern lenses usually are much better coated, and they have better flare control and more accurate colors.

 

[Monday317]

I think this is caused by Coma, a tendency for points of light to be rendered with a tail, like a comet, streaming toward the corner. The Noctilux f/1 exhibits Coma, and has some of that swirly character.

You're right as well on this: spherical lenses were designed to have perfectly circular circles of confusion for red & green, then took what they could get with blue, for the most part. So, depending on the manufacturer and their approach, you might well get comas, stars--you name it, especially if you went down to f/22 or 32 with a five-bladed shutter.

Again color lenses and modern lenses are designed to minimize these problems. They do a great job, they just lose a bit of romance in the process.

 

[Monday317]

Old lenses usually have lower contrast, but the better ones are very sharp. If the lens also has many aperture blades, it can turn out that it has beautiful OOF rendering. I use the vintage Zeiss Sonnar 5cm/1.5, and I also use the modern Zeiss Planar 45/2. Each is special to me. The modern lenses usually are much better coated, and they have better flare control and more accurate colors.

Agreed. A lens hood will virtually nullify the flare problem; my Jena Tessar never goes out naked... 😱

 

[Monday317]

As an aside, I bought a new Olympus OM1 50 f1.8 and swapped it for a comparatively antiquated Minolta SRT 50 f1.7.
With reversal film,I just found the Zuiko too 'gritty' compared to the creamy look of my Rokkors .
Having said that I love my Summitar with the M8 in monochrome , so I may have a preference for a vintage feel .
I am not sure why but would it be that the Zuiko was a more modern lens ?
Thanks
dee

Dee, that's quite possible. As everyone has written, there are many variable in lens design that affect images. Glad to hear you found one you like! :angel:

 

[Mcary]

OK I could just be making an excuse for not being able to afford modern glass but I look at older lens like paint brushs in that I'll decide whither I want to use my Summitar 5cm or my Nikkor HC 5 cm based on the look I'm going for. Also think part of the fun of shooting Leica or mirrorless is that you have so many lens/brush to choose from so while some prefer to spend their money on one modern high quality lens other may choose to get a number of older lens in the same focal length due to their different rendering or a modern and older lens.

 

[Pherdinand]

A bit of an old thread, i see. Anyway.
Flaws give character (to people, and to tools as well).
You don't always need a character, though. (Again, in case of people or tools)

 

[Emile de Leon]

I have a Summaron 35 f3.5...and it is in LN cond...it is just as sharp as modern lenses..and high resolution with a beautiful look to it..the corners fall off though..
It is not a fast lens to use..very fiddly..but a real gem..

 

[Pherdinand]

... So, depending on the manufacturer and their approach, you might well get comas, stars--you name it, especially if you went down to f/22 or 32 with a five-bladed shutter.

no no. COMA is an optical aberration and has nothing to do with the out of focus highlights' shape so nothing to do with the shape of your aperture. Even wide open you have coma.

 

[rumbliegeos]

If you want more contrast in your photos, the CV 35mm will certainly deliver. On saturated slide film I often found it resulted in a choice between blown highlights or blocked shadows, but I'm not as discriminating in choosing light conditions as I should be. And if shot with digital equipment or with print film, the contrast can be tamed.

 

[Monday317]

no no. COMA is an optical aberration and has nothing to do with the out of focus highlights' shape so nothing to do with the shape of your aperture. Even wide open you have coma.

Oh OK...

Whiner. 🙄