worth buying a Low contrast lens for night photos?

[bene]

Hi I shoot in low lightmost and was wondering if getting a lower contrast old lens
such as ltm 50mm 1.5 summarit
will create a better image in terms of highlights and a "glow"
And buying such a lens how much does haze and cleaning marks affect image?
been looking for a cheap one at http://www.collectiblecameras.com/ but not sure which to buy..
Sample
M7 + Nokton 1.1 50mm

 

[maddoc]

I shoot almost everything at night time with high contrast light and prefer lenses having lower contrast (35mm Summilux-M pre-ASPH, Noctilux, 21/3.4 SA ). Just recently, I have bought a 50/1.5 Summarit for exactly the same reason but unfortunately the lens had a defect and has been serviced recently. I am really keen to see how the Summarit will work for me at night. 🙂

 

[bene]

I'm using very fast film. Tri X iso 1600 or iford 3200
Cool Good luck with the Ltm quite set on it but not sure is it worth buying a really nice copy 600+ usd or a 300usd one ...

 

[ferider]

You might be surprised even if you get a nice copy.

Not only will it flare, but produce ugly OOF highlights under some circumstances.

Did you consider other lenses from the 50s ? Like Nikkor 50/1.4 or Canon 50/1.5 Sonnar variants ?

Roland.

 

[bene]

50 lux and cron 1st gen. Zeiss 50 1.5 sonnar ZM.
I am leaning on the zeiss as its new and small great for walking around. but not sure of contrast and focus shift.

 

[Tim Gray]

I've used my Nikkor 50/1.4 LTM in low light... but I prefer the look of newer lenses in low light. The Nikkor can and does look fantastic, but I like it in better light.

 

[raid]

I would choose the lens carefully among the vintage 50mm lenses. My recommendation would include the CZJ 5cm 1.5 and the Canon 50mm 1.4 and 1.5. I would include also the Canon 50mm 1.2. These are sharp lenses, but have lower contrast than modern 50mm lenses.

 

[bene]

How about the Jupiter-3 ? 50f1.5 sonnar copy?

 

[ferider]

That would work if you get a good one. Quality is all over the board with those.

The Nikkor has more of the veiling flare that you seam to be looking for, wide open.

Roland.

 

[x-ray]

I'm using very fast film. Tri X iso 1600 or iford 3200
Cool Good luck with the Ltm quite set on it but not sure is it worth buying a really nice copy 600+ usd or a 300usd one ...

Pushing film increases contrast. If you want lower contrast shoot your film at the rated speed 400 for tri-x & 1600 for the Ilford. Select a soft working developer. With a flat lens you just get flare that fills the shadows. It's much like pre flashing film (pre exposing to bring the lower values up). The best way to control contrast is with exposure and development. Increase exposure (expose for the shadows) and decrease (develop for highlights) development. It's a very old and proven technique.

 

[robklurfield]

helenhill should weigh in on this topic. her work uses lots of low contrast quality and she gets some very distinctive results.

 

[aizan]

the nikkor will regularly flare in the presence of street lights and so on. big arcs pop up out of nowhere. i would not recommend it. not sure about other sonnars, though.

 

[Tim Gray]

Yeah the Nikkor can get some crazy strange flares sometimes. It cleans up a lot stopped down a hair, to like f/1.6. Quite amazing performance when you consider the age.

Wide open, light source to the right:


Stopped down a hair (I think), overhead lighting:

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

My experience with older lenses gave less contrast compared to newer lenses. However it did come with a higher chance of flaring when getting strong lights in the frame.

 

[Keith]

I've had a Canon f1.4 and now have the f1.2 but find that the long focus throw of both of these lenses is a bit tedious. The 1.2 would probably do some pretty weird things in the light conditions of the two shots you posted!

 

[bene]

Maybe its time to get a Noctilux....
Nah I am gearing to a new zeiss sonnar for the "old" look + better flare control with some "glow", I shoot further than minimum focus so focus shift whould be less an issue and might get the optimized at 1.5

It can be my day lens too nokton is heavy...

 

[Ronald M]

Tri X film will do more than a low contrast lens. Develope in D76 for 8 min at 1:1, 68 deg.

Summarits are not low contrast in the big continum, but they are lower than new Leica glass.

For low contrast, get an uncoated lens, Xenon 1.5 is an uncoated Summarit. You probaly will not like the pics though.

Expose generously, develope gently will do way more than s Summarit.

 

[bene]

Tri X film will do more than a low contrast lens. Develope in D76 for 8 min at 1:1, 68 deg.

Summarits are not low contrast in the big continum, but they are lower than new Leica glass.

For low contrast, get an uncoated lens, Xenon 1.5 is an uncoated Summarit. You probaly will not like the pics though.

Expose generously, develope gently will do way more than s Summarit.

I let the Lab do the developing. dont plan to learn the dark room. saving and preparing for the M9. will check out Xenon 1.5 =) thanks RFF rocks

 

[like2fiddle]

It's too bad doing your own developing isn't an option. You may very well find just what you're after using a Canon 50/1.4 and D-23 two bath developer along with Tri-x.

 

[Calzone]

Maybe its time to get a Noctilux....
quote]

Consider a 75 Lux as well as the Noctilux. Was made and designed for harsh high contrast lighting. Provides low flare and coma.

As far as low contrast: I bought a 50 Rigid Cron, a very sharp lens with low contrast for B&W, but this lens is not likely to do as well as my 75 Lux. Still a great lens, especially for B&W. Very sharp.

At the first New York meet-up, we put my 75 Lux on Scott's M9. What a rig!!! A dream machine. Balanced well with a Thumbs Up grip. A killer rig to die for!!!

Calzone