Lenses made from 1960-1980 better for digital?

[eleskin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been reading much lately online regarding the issue of dynamic range and lenses that have less contrasty coatings. It seems these lenses offer better detail in the highlights (minimizes clipping) and if one needs more contrast, Photoshop will do the job. I have the Noctilux f1.0 and other Walter Mandler designs, and I am of the opinion there may be some truth to this.

 

So here, with all the advances, an old school design may offer the M9/M8 digital photogarpher advantages they would not have had if they were to employ higher contrast optics. It seems to me that Leica and others should offer a choice of lens coating, either higher contrast of lower.

 

As long as the optical design yealds great sharpness (dual range Summicron for example)

contrast should not be overdone in lens design.

 

Who has noticed this issue of lower contrast and greater highlight detail on using older lenses on their M9 or M8?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

I'm not sure. Lower contrast lenses are usually low in contrast because flare causes stray light to open up the shadows. I don't think that helps for microcontrast, which is exactly the thing that brings clarity in digital images, and cannot be simulated in PS

[yanidel]

I agree with Jaapv. I see much better micro contrast from the newer lenses. I guess it contributes to more pop and crispy pictures I would say. In general I would say that the pre-asph pictures are more dull.

Anyways, it is good to have both options as one or the other might be better suited for a given style/conditions.

[Guest mc_k]

See here for a "Mandler appreciation" thread:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/45854-praise-mandler-lenses.html

[georg]

I've heard this theory many times and it never made much sense to me, despite some eloquent explanations. Of course a low-contrast lens will decrease brightness in bright areas and increase brightness in shadows - but this is not real image information.

 

I've never found a test, so I made one myself and compared my old collapsible 5cm Summicron vs. my 50 Asph (at f2 as well) 1:1:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digitalforum/72675-dynamikumfang-objektivkontrast.html

 

I positioned two DVD-boxes next to each other, divided by black satin - one in direct light, the other in the shadow. Than I exposed for the bright one, as well as for the dark one, tried to find a mix to make as much information visible and tried to recover detail in C1 (highlight/shadow detail) - I think which one is which is pretty easy to tell even if you don't speak English.

 

As you see, the low-contrast image made with the low contrast lens has less image information in the shadows (especially in the very last image at the end of the thread) as well as in the highlights.

[tobey bilek]

Going back to film, it is exactly the same. The darks are brighter, but they contain no more detail. Highlights get less separation of details.