eleskin
Well-known
I have a few older lenses for my M8 and am noticing more articles on how the lower contrast , but sharp, older designs offer better highlight to shadow transition. I am noticing this with my f1.0 Noctlux (1998) and older M mount lenses. It seems many camera and lens makers used increased contrast to compensate for lenses that are not as sharp (not in all cases) to give the illusion of sharpness. Users of older Leica glass know that some of the very sharpest lenses ever made (dual range Summicron to name one) were older designs, and are not as contrasty as modern designs and offer excellent tonal range for black and white work. It also seems that one can compensate for contrast in Photoshop with the older lenses, so in many cases, they could be superior for digital work. I would like to see a choice of lens coatings by lens makers, offering the buyer a choice between high contrast coatings or lower contrast coatings the way Voigtlander did with its 40mm Nokton. Clpping of highlights would become less of a problem, we would have better transitions of tone while maintaining sharpness!!!
Now I know why the 35mm Summicron from the 1960's commands a high price today!!!!!
Now I know why the 35mm Summicron from the 1960's commands a high price today!!!!!
YES! This is a lesson learned a long time ago with Digital. Once a Pixel Saturates, the information is gone.
Higher contrast lenses gained in popularity in the 1950s, "Picture Post Card Colors".
When the M8 arrives, I plan on doing some series with several lenses ranging from a Nickel Summar 5cm F2 to the multi-coated "Millenium Nikkor" 50/1.4.
It's almost impossible to blow highlights with The Summarit 5cm F1.5.
Higher contrast lenses gained in popularity in the 1950s, "Picture Post Card Colors".
When the M8 arrives, I plan on doing some series with several lenses ranging from a Nickel Summar 5cm F2 to the multi-coated "Millenium Nikkor" 50/1.4.
It's almost impossible to blow highlights with The Summarit 5cm F1.5.
Last edited:
eleskin
Well-known
Low contrast Cannon and Russian glass
Low contrast Cannon and Russian glass
I would guess lenses made by Canon and the former USSR could be a good choice to experiment with given the low cost. I would imagine they are lower contrast as well. I have an Industar 61LD, Jupiter 8, and Jupiter 9. I would love to do a test on dynamic range and highlights with these when I et a chance!
Low contrast Cannon and Russian glass
I would guess lenses made by Canon and the former USSR could be a good choice to experiment with given the low cost. I would imagine they are lower contrast as well. I have an Industar 61LD, Jupiter 8, and Jupiter 9. I would love to do a test on dynamic range and highlights with these when I et a chance!
The I61L/D's that I have used are medium contrast, and on the high-end of that. The J-8 and J-3 are "medium contrast" compared with the Summarit and some of the others. Sonnar and Tessar formula lenses have less air/glass surfaces, which helps with contrast.
The Summarit is a 1-2-2-1-1, 7-element in 5 group derivative of the Xenon.
Industar 61L/D Used with film on the Nikon S3 (I converted it to S-Mount):
NOW: A Helios-103/ Menopta 53/1.8-
Lower-Contrast. I need to find an easier way to convert the Leica Mount...
The Summarit is a 1-2-2-1-1, 7-element in 5 group derivative of the Xenon.
Industar 61L/D Used with film on the Nikon S3 (I converted it to S-Mount):
NOW: A Helios-103/ Menopta 53/1.8-
Lower-Contrast. I need to find an easier way to convert the Leica Mount...
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
It's true. Except for the Noctilux having reasonably high contrast. Try a DR Summicron instead.
Also, you could try 35 or 40 SC Nokton.
Also, you could try 35 or 40 SC Nokton.
Richard Marks
Rexel
This is a very interesting observation.
I certainly preferred my Summicron on the M8 to my subsequent aspherical 50 lux. It was a;ways a bit much somehow.
I suspect the later generation of no apsherical lenses are about right. The 50 lux non aspherical seems to work well too! I am a bit cautious of some of the early lenses though as I imagine that the loss in resolution more than offsets any benefits gained through better highlight details.
Richard
I certainly preferred my Summicron on the M8 to my subsequent aspherical 50 lux. It was a;ways a bit much somehow.
I suspect the later generation of no apsherical lenses are about right. The 50 lux non aspherical seems to work well too! I am a bit cautious of some of the early lenses though as I imagine that the loss in resolution more than offsets any benefits gained through better highlight details.
Richard
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Summaron 35/3.5 should be good.
Well- I'll be testing several older Leica lenses with the M8. The older lenses have plenty of resolution, and the correction for chromatic aberration is amazing. The F2 DOF mark covers IR for the type I Rigid Summicron.
Artorius
Caribbean Traveler
Actually better than good. For B&W it is outstanding, better than the Summicron 50mm f/2 col. LTM. I wish I had a way to attach a UV/IR filter for color though.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
The lowest contrast lens I own is the 50mm f/1.5 Summarit (not to be confused with the recently and ineptly-named 50mm f/2.5 Summarit). Then it was the 35mm Summilux pre-asph at f/2 and below.
The Canon 50mm f/1.2 also has nice low contrast, and hence allows me to make some of the best B&W images I've been able to shoot with my M8.
The 50mm f/1.4 Summilux pre-asph (the *real* pre-asph E46, not the two previous ones mistakenly labeled that way) that I own also allows me to shoot mid-low contrast images at f/1.4
In some situations, I've found the 35mm f/2 ZM Biogon being modestly "contrasty" enough to create great B&W images that allow me to keep detail in the shadows and the highlights.
I do not like "cheating" so-called "contrasty" lenses like most of the Nikon line-up in LTM or many of the late Canon LTM lenses.
Of course, all of this is blah blah blah blah to the fast-food "who cares!" populace.
The Canon 50mm f/1.2 also has nice low contrast, and hence allows me to make some of the best B&W images I've been able to shoot with my M8.
The 50mm f/1.4 Summilux pre-asph (the *real* pre-asph E46, not the two previous ones mistakenly labeled that way) that I own also allows me to shoot mid-low contrast images at f/1.4
In some situations, I've found the 35mm f/2 ZM Biogon being modestly "contrasty" enough to create great B&W images that allow me to keep detail in the shadows and the highlights.
I do not like "cheating" so-called "contrasty" lenses like most of the Nikon line-up in LTM or many of the late Canon LTM lenses.
Of course, all of this is blah blah blah blah to the fast-food "who cares!" populace.
One of the reasons that I picked up the M8 is to do some lens comparisons. Who would have guessed that, huh? I did a lot of image processing work in the 80s, multi-dimensional Histograms and the like. This is fairly straight forward, set the camera at a constant exposure, focus on the same object, take pictures with different lenses and examine the histogram to get the intensity transfer function. And "my Prediction", the Summarit will compress the histogram, the Nikkor will clip it.
Anybody's kids still need an idea for the 5th grade Science Fair Project? Nikki did Electro-Magnets. Could not get her to do intensity transfer function differences between Sonnar formula and Planar formula lenses.
Anybody's kids still need an idea for the 5th grade Science Fair Project? Nikki did Electro-Magnets. Could not get her to do intensity transfer function differences between Sonnar formula and Planar formula lenses.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, obviously, the higher the flare factor, the lower the image brightness range.
I'd dispute that this has anything to do with 'highlight clipping', though. Reduce the exposure and the highlights don't blow. Whether the dynamic range of the sensor is enough to cope with the reduced exposure in the shadows is another matter.
This also explains why old, flary lenses appear faster with film: the shadows are boosted by non-image-forming light, a bit like hypersensitization with pre- or post-flashing. What you're doing is overcoming the inertia of the emulsion.
Cheers,
R.
I'd dispute that this has anything to do with 'highlight clipping', though. Reduce the exposure and the highlights don't blow. Whether the dynamic range of the sensor is enough to cope with the reduced exposure in the shadows is another matter.
This also explains why old, flary lenses appear faster with film: the shadows are boosted by non-image-forming light, a bit like hypersensitization with pre- or post-flashing. What you're doing is overcoming the inertia of the emulsion.
Cheers,
R.
Well, it will be an interesting histogram between the Nikkor 5cm f1.4 and Summarit. On film, with harsh lighting conditions the Nikkor will clip the histogram and the Summarit will not. If transmission of the Nikkor is higher than the Summarit, and the contrast curve is steeper, the histogram should reflect this. My money is on the Summarit.
CCD's also have a signal to noise threshold that they need to overcome to get a good image. Not unlike preflashing film. Remember the Modified Nikon F with the bulb lamps in it to automatically preflash the film just as the shot was being taken?
CCD's also have a signal to noise threshold that they need to overcome to get a good image. Not unlike preflashing film. Remember the Modified Nikon F with the bulb lamps in it to automatically preflash the film just as the shot was being taken?
Veiling flare is just like preflashing, and it's always synced...
RichC
Well-known
I prefer lenses made in the 1960s-1970s for these reasons - my most-used lenses are the Leica pre-aspherical 35mm and 50mm, and Canon 100mm and 135mm. Of these, the 50mm Leica is my favourite, though not used as often as the 35mm as the latter is a more useful focal length.
Most of the photos in my current exhibition (http://www.richcutler.co.uk/exhibitions) were taken with such lenses.
I think medium-contrast lenses (none of the above can be called low contrast) suit digital better than modern high-contrast lenses because not only do they deal with highlights more elegantly but shadows roll off more gently too.
I only have five lenses - one for each major focal length: 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 100mm and 135mm - and excepting the 25mm lens (a CV - my only modern, high-contrast lens) they are all medium-contrast, high-resolution lenses. I don't hoard lenses, so what I do is try different lenses, buying and selling the lenses so that I only keep one lens of a given focal length (never understood why, for example, some people have a dozen 50mm lenses!).
Take 50mm lenses. I've tried CV Color-Skopar, Canon f1.4, Canon f1.2, Leica Elmar f2.8 (the 1950s version), Leica Summicron collapsible, Leica Summilux aspherical, Leica Summilux pre-aspherical. Of these, as I've mentioned, I prefer the Summilux pre-asph - the only 50mm I now own (and have no intention of selling). All these were bought (and sold) within the past five years - I only took up photography in 2004 when I bought a digital camera.
I now know what I'm after in a lens: medium contrast, high resolution and flare resistance. Performance should change as little as possible over the aperture range.
Most lenses from the 1950s flare horribly - veiling flare is especially pernicious. Also, most lenses from this period perform very poorly wider than f2.8 or so compared with modern expectations - low resolution and an abundance of flare. For example, every lens designed/made in the 1950s from the above list was rejected because they couldn't cut the mustard. I must have tried at least dozen lenses from the 1950s or early 1960s, and every one performed poorly, so I have given up on them and will never try another.
Lens design and coating technology seemed to undergo a quantum leap at the turn of the 1960s onwards, and my preference is thus, as stated, for well-regarded lenses from this period.
My 35mm Summilux pre-aspherical is the odd one out - it flares at all apertures unless used with an efficient hood (that's not the useless standard vented one!), and flare wide open is abysmal yet somehow seductive! Luckily, stopped down to f2.8 and smaller and used with an efficient hood to control flare, it performs superbly. One day I will probably replace it with a 1970s Summicron...
Incidentally, the 100mm Canon may seem a strange choice of focal length. It performs well (not quite to 1970s Leica standards - but close enough) and the focal length is a better match for my Leica M8 framelines (which are notoriously crap at medium-long distances)!
Most of the photos in my current exhibition (http://www.richcutler.co.uk/exhibitions) were taken with such lenses.
I think medium-contrast lenses (none of the above can be called low contrast) suit digital better than modern high-contrast lenses because not only do they deal with highlights more elegantly but shadows roll off more gently too.
I only have five lenses - one for each major focal length: 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 100mm and 135mm - and excepting the 25mm lens (a CV - my only modern, high-contrast lens) they are all medium-contrast, high-resolution lenses. I don't hoard lenses, so what I do is try different lenses, buying and selling the lenses so that I only keep one lens of a given focal length (never understood why, for example, some people have a dozen 50mm lenses!).
Take 50mm lenses. I've tried CV Color-Skopar, Canon f1.4, Canon f1.2, Leica Elmar f2.8 (the 1950s version), Leica Summicron collapsible, Leica Summilux aspherical, Leica Summilux pre-aspherical. Of these, as I've mentioned, I prefer the Summilux pre-asph - the only 50mm I now own (and have no intention of selling). All these were bought (and sold) within the past five years - I only took up photography in 2004 when I bought a digital camera.
I now know what I'm after in a lens: medium contrast, high resolution and flare resistance. Performance should change as little as possible over the aperture range.
Most lenses from the 1950s flare horribly - veiling flare is especially pernicious. Also, most lenses from this period perform very poorly wider than f2.8 or so compared with modern expectations - low resolution and an abundance of flare. For example, every lens designed/made in the 1950s from the above list was rejected because they couldn't cut the mustard. I must have tried at least dozen lenses from the 1950s or early 1960s, and every one performed poorly, so I have given up on them and will never try another.
Lens design and coating technology seemed to undergo a quantum leap at the turn of the 1960s onwards, and my preference is thus, as stated, for well-regarded lenses from this period.
My 35mm Summilux pre-aspherical is the odd one out - it flares at all apertures unless used with an efficient hood (that's not the useless standard vented one!), and flare wide open is abysmal yet somehow seductive! Luckily, stopped down to f2.8 and smaller and used with an efficient hood to control flare, it performs superbly. One day I will probably replace it with a 1970s Summicron...
Incidentally, the 100mm Canon may seem a strange choice of focal length. It performs well (not quite to 1970s Leica standards - but close enough) and the focal length is a better match for my Leica M8 framelines (which are notoriously crap at medium-long distances)!