Does lens quality matter when shooting B&W....

[Logic108]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My basic question is this - To what degree does an expensive and well-regarded lens render an image in a way that is preferable to a cheaper and less-regarded alternative when that image is processed in B&W?

 

So lets say if we compare the Leica 35mm 'lux with the CV Nokton 35mm f/1.4, does the 'lux perform so well in B&W that it is easily noticeable?

 

1. I can understand that in the past with various film types the differences might have been noticeable. However are these differences noticeable for those that now have a digital workflow?

 

2. Micro contrast is important in determining the quality of a lens. In what way is the micro contrast of a lens preserved during the digital processing of an image in B&W? Is the micro contrast preserved to the extent that it would be clear to an expert which lens was used for the image?

 

3. Sharpness of the image is a factor. However I have noticed that in the digital workflow sharpening of an image is usually carried out before printing, In fact I'm after a kind of 'crunchy' look to the image before printing as this ensures a sharp print. It often comes down to personal taste about how sharp you want the image. So I'll leave it at that.

 

4. If we did a scientific test would it be possible to tell which B&W images came from say the 28mm Summicron and which images came from the 28mm Ultron?

 

Thoughts? Oh and by the way as someone with GAS I hope that there really is a difference when shooting B&W.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

Lenses like CV 35/1.4 and 28/2 suffer from focus shift, at least the copies i've used so far. So if you don't shoot at f/1.4 or f/2, you'll get more or less blured results in B&W as well as in colour i'm afraid. Otherwise those are quite competent lenses and you'll get certainly sharper results at f/1.4 or f/2 with the CV 35/1.4 than with the pre-asph Lux 35/1.4 for example. You won't get any glow with the CV though.

Edit: This is true for digital photography at least. I have no experience with those CV lenses on film.

[Logic108]

Well I should narrow the question down a bit because I'm confident that at apertures from f/2.5 to f/8 the Summarit lenses will perform as well as the 'luxes and 'crons.

But then the lenses at f/2 and below are the thing.

[Jager]

I'm not sure why you would limit the question to B&W. A lens which produces poor results in B&W is also going to produce poor results in color.

 

I'd also suggest that digital sharpening - the ability to tweak this in post - in no way renders moot the desire to create a sharp original image (absent those cases in which artistic intent dictates otherwise). Digital sharpening affects accutance (edge contrast), but not resolution. It's certainly not an effective means to address an original image that the photographer failed to make sharp.

 

Sorry, if you want to escape GAS, I think you'll need a different argument.