Leica LTM Very low contrast old lenses

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
There is an error in presumption here. Lenses with the lowest contrast showing NO details in the shadows, because the optical aberrations resulting in low contrast blanket fine details and toning difference. The same goes with flare. flare ruins the shadows, turning them to grey.
So for landscapes, low contrast lenses are next to useless.
You need at least a medium contrast/ high resolution lens to see details in the shadows. But it also depends on type of film and development. On the opposite side, a very high contrast lens (such as the newest ASPH. Leica lenses) can show so much details and deep (black) shadows that it may overburden the chain of reproduction, at paper, at electronic sensor, and even (which bears the most contast range) film.
Try a Summar wide open and see yourself.
 
Last edited:
If you can find one, the CV Collapsible Heliar 50/3.5 is what I would call medium contrast but still delivers incredible detail. Tom A. may be able to say more about this as he has actually used the lens more than myself. The Heliar also can control flare like few other lenses I have ever used.

I will try to get some scans together and post them...

I should add that your film/developer/process will have a greater amount of effect on contrast than the lens.
 
Last edited:
Definitely yes, you can do a lot with postprocessing and scanning. You can reduce too high contrast quite easily, but if tonality difference are lost due to a low-contrast lens, no postprocessing can bring it back.
 
I would also warn against overly flary low contrast lenses. Personally, I would not want to go lower than the quality of a DR Summicron or equivalent:
2686607460_a8a5a088ab_b.jpg


a nice lens and quite cheap is also the C Summicron 40/2:

2742578354_b75a2cd571_b.jpg
 
The cheap and cheerful Jupiter-3 5cm f1.5 would be another candidate...

Clare | Sydney, Australia 2008
2008_10_012_020crop_700.jpg

Leica M5 | Jupiter-3 5cm f1.5 | Agfapan 25 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand

This J-3 is very sharp and resolves plenty of detail but is low contrast. But it does not handle flare very well, shooting directly at a point light source, ie. sun, will cause severe veiling flare.
 
A point I haven't seen above -- sorry if I missed it -- is that low contrast lenses often imply colour casts. They are low in contrast because there's a lot of light bouncing around inside the lens. Out of doors this is often skylight = blue cast; indoors it's often tungsten = yellow cast.

Also, low contrast can result in improved shadow detail. We all know about pre-flashing to get films or papers past the inertia stage on the characteristic curve; post-flashing works the same way; and what you can have with a low-contrast lens is 'flashing at the same time', where the image-forming light and the non-image-forming light (veiling flare) will add together to give you an image where the image-forming light alone would be insufficient.

Cheers,

Roger
 
I shan't quote anyone in particular here as there has been too much valuable information shared to do this. I will simply thank you all for sharing your knowledge and helping to improve mine. I have a better understanding of what I need to look for to achieve the results I hope to and am thankful that I have the time to get to grips with this better before I do start this project.

I suppose there will be plenty of experimentation with film and processing techniques as I go along anyway until I stumble across the look and feel I'm searching for.
 
Simon,

On Roger's prompting, are you planning for this project to photographed in color or monochrome? As Roger suggests there are some lens characteristics that you will need to consider with color that I have not in using any of my lenses since I shoot B&W almost exclusively.
 
P. Lynn Miller said:
Simon,

On Roger's prompting, are you planning for this project to photographed in color or monochrome? As Roger suggests there are some lens characteristics that you will need to consider with color that I have not in using any of my lenses since I shoot B&W almost exclusively.
Click to expand...


Black and white.

I'm not clever enough to deal with all the green in the UK. I'm also not especially good at seeing in colour (photographically speaking) unless it's lurid, garish and obvious... like some of my old shirts from the 80s'
 
Simon,

Then I could wholeheartedly recommend looking at the Jupiter line of lenses and you may want to talk to Brian Sweeney, he is the local Jupiter guru and authority, about having him get you a set of properly collimated lenses.

As for a 28mm... I don't have any experience with older 28mm, having only used the Ultron 28/2.
 
Simon,

If you are looking for an Elmar 35mm, drop me a PM - i have one that I could part with. Good glass, but otherwise a user.
 
A further thought is that it is normal to develop negs from flat lenses for a bit longer to regain contrast, and this also pulls up toe speed (shadow detail).

Tashi delek,

R.
 
Sonnar2 said:
There is an error in presumption here. Lenses with the lowest contrast showing NO details in the shadows, because the optical aberrations resulting in low contrast blanket fine details and toning difference. The same goes with flare. flare ruins the shadows, turning them to grey.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. Getting more detail from shadows and controlling highlights has more to do with film, processing and printing.
 
here are Three pixs with my Vintage Elmar lenses :)
50/3.5
next two 35/3.5 ...1928 uncoated
 

Attachments

  • 50-3-5 elmar.jpg
    50-3-5 elmar.jpg
    46 KB · Views: 1
  • 35 elmar.jpg
    35 elmar.jpg
    52.6 KB · Views: 1
  • 35-3-5 elmar.jpg
    35-3-5 elmar.jpg
    47.1 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
Helen, I really like the picture of the brick gatepost with the man walking off into the distance. Love the focus on the wall with the man blurry in the distance, I'd probably have done the opposite but your picture would be the better one.
 
As someone else has pointed out the 90 Elmar is very low contrast. I own one and regard it as the lowest contrast lens I have - by far. Its still sharpish (after a fashion) though and with care will take nice photos.
 
very Kind & SWeeeeet .....Why Thank You Andrew, Simon & Marke...:)

marke / How do you like the Elmar 50/2.8 ?

To me elmars are so underrated ...they are so compact & sharp with their own Lovely Glow

the only thing that drove me CRAZY was the turning of the aperture ring near the glass on the 50/3.5 Elmar which sadly to say had me get rid of this lens :eek:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom