Asph advantages in film?

[bruniroquai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know the quality of lenses with digital cameras but... Is it really noticeable shooting film?

 

I mean should I notice better colours or morr 3D using Asph lenses against pre asph?

 

I have 28 Cron asph, 35 lux pre (thinking to switch to Asph) and 50 Sonnar ZM.

[01af]

Is it really noticeable shooting film?

Yes, sure it is. The better lens will be better on any medium.

 

This does not necessarily mean that you'll like the Asphs' results better. Some prefer the ethereal softness of older lenses over the sober sharpness of modern lenses ...

[bruniroquai]

yes of course but I meant... reproduction of colours? much better for Kodak ektar or portra an old lens or a new one?

[01af]

Colour reproduction is not affected by the lens being spherical or aspherical.

[pgk]

I mean should I notice better colours or morr 3D using Asph lenses against pre asph?

 

I have 28 Cron asph, 35 lux pre (thinking to switch to Asph) and 50 Sonnar ZM.

My experience of the 35 'lux pre-asph is that it flares more than the asph version (which may be positive or negative depending on what you do with it) so the asph version should produce slightly better saturation and contrast which in turn should result in marginally better colours. Of course this depends on what and how you shoot. FWIW the 35 pre asph 'lux is sought after for its own characteristics (I'd buy one, but not at the silly prices asked, to compliment the asph) so its not just about colour.....

[CaptZoom]

yes of course but I meant... reproduction of colours? much better for Kodak ektar or portra an old lens or a new one?

 

As previously mentioned ASPH lens don't necessarily correct for color; apochromatic lenses do. I now the latest 50 lux has aspherical elements and is an apo lens. I do not know if this is case for the 35 lux.

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Better performance for close-up shooting

Better negative or chrome quality

Better prints

[smkoush]

There is noticeable difference between the 50mm Summilux ASPH and the pre-ASPH on film.

[adan]

There is a misconception here. Aspheric lenses don't automatically impart any particular imaging characteristic, as such.

 

They are primarily useful to lens designers in that they allow flexibility of design. That flexibility may allow for:

 

- fewer lens elements required, which can result in a smaller lens with the same performance as a non-ASPH; or a lens with fewer surfaces and thus less flare potential,

 

- or the same number of elements/size, but with better resolution, or better correction of chromatic aberrations.

 

ASPHeric lenses are simply an additional tool for the lens designer to use in achieving - whatever it is (s)he wants to achieve in a given lens.

 

By comparison, the APO designation DOES denote a specific lens characteristic - focusing at least three color wavelengths in the same plane. Thus improving edge sharpness with color films or panchromatic B&W films.

 

To achieve APO performance, a lens designer may use an ASPH surface, or may use glass with special dispersion characteristics (but no aspherical shapes - 180 APO-Telyt, for example), or may use both.

 

A side note - APO implies only a correction of longitudinal chromatic aberration. It does NOT directly have anything to do with how a lens renders colors (soft or saturated, pinkish or greenish). The APO-Telyt-R 180 renders color differently (more yellow/green and lower macro-contrast) than the APO-Summicron-R/M 90mm or the APO-Telyt-M 135 f/3.4.

 

APO-correction - as done by different designers, in different countries, 25 years apart.

[pgk]

There is a misconception here. Aspheric lenses don't automatically impart any particular imaging characteristic, as such.

Whilst true, both the 50/1.4 asph and 35/1.4 asph undoubtedly offer 'better' performance than their non-aspheric predecessors - at full aperture this is quite distinct even if not so when stopped down. Greater flexibility usually means that lenses preform better and may well be (but not always) lighter and cheaper to produce.

 

Conversely, whilst apo correction should also mean better performance, just as aspheric should, this is not always the case and older apo lenses can be outperformed by their modern equivalents even when these are not designated as being of apochromatic correction.

[bruniroquai]

I Think I made my decission, sell the 35 pre and buy the 35 asph in companion with my 28 cron asph (similar looking) and the 50 Sonnar if I want something special at wide apertures.

[MarkP]

It might just be me, but I don't consider the rendering of the 1.4/35 Summilux ASPH (FLE), if that's the one you're referring to, and the 2.0/28 Summicron ASPH to be similar. The 1.4/35 Summilux ASPH (FLE) has a more modern, very sharp, higher contrast look than the 28 Summicron.

 

To my eye the 1.4/50 Summilux ASPH pairs especially nicely with it. The 3.4/21 SEM ASPH and the 2.0/75 Summicron ASPH also render sympathetically.

 

I also have the 1.4/50 Summilux ASPH and the1.5/50 ZM C-Sonnar. The Sonnar is a fantastic lens but very different to all those discussed above, including it's colour rendition - more likely to be an issue on film (?)

 

Regards,

Mark

[bruniroquai]

Mark I was referring to the pre FLE, which is, together with my 28/2.0 my favourite lens (of course the 50 1.4 Asph), and I think You can live a long life with these 3 fantastic lenses.

 

But the Sonnar, at least to me, is more pleasant in black and white.

[MarkP]

I agree

[StS]

My experience of the 35 'lux pre-asph is that it flares more than the asph version (which may be positive or negative depending on what you do with it) (...)

 

This is a matter of taste, but I'm very fond of this lens when exposing film but find the results unimpressing when using a digital body. However, I assume, that this is due to the characteristics of film rather than the spherical design.

 

In case someone is interested in my speculation about the details -

I have not much knowledge about photographic films, I suspect, that similar additives are uses like in microlitography, where the sensitive layer will suppress stray light below a certain level, which would explain, why the tendency to flare of this lens is lower on film.

Since film (or a single colour layer) has a certain thickness, where the sensitivity of a digital sensor has almost none, film is less sensitive to shifts of the focal plane (due to field curvature, for example). If the same mechanisms are used like in lithography resists, it will be sufficient, that the focus is "somewhere" in the layer, the effects of a few photons will be amplified then, making the whole image slightly less sharp but the remaining (and typically more than sufficient) sharpness will be more uniform. For the same reason, film appears to have more depth of focus compared to a digital sensor.

 

When the current Summilux 35 with floating elements came out, it started a discussion about more and less sharp areas - it appears, that the designer lowered the field of curvature by changing it from a sphere to a modulation. When using film, this probably wouldn't have been noticed (similar to the aperture dependent focus shift of the first aspheric Summilux 35, which became a topic with the M8 only).

 

So, this appears to be the summary for me - when using film, some of the advantages of modern (aspheric) lenses will not be used fully, on the other hand, the remaining slight imperfections will not be noticed either.

 

Stefan

[bruniroquai]

Finally I sold the 35 lux pre asph and waiting for the FLE, and I am selling the 50 Sonnar C ZM for the Lux 50 asph, so my lens line will be 28 cron, 35 FLE and 50 lux asph, 3 asph design are better together.