24-90 vs SL50

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So, does the 50 SL have this “microtonality”?

[thighslapper]

 Well, as expected, the Batis images were absolutely pin sharp and amazingly detailed, but they were also as flat as a pancake. The nose, the cheeks and the eyes all appeared to be in the same plane. Meanwhile, the CY images were very sharp, and they also showed tremendous depth. The facial features appeared to be rounded and separated in different planes. Upon close inspection, it was obvious that the CY photos had much richer tonality, by which I mean many more subtones within a given tonal range. 

 

????

 

Are you convinced this is to do with tonality ??? 3d modelling is surely more to do with DOF factors combined with the effects of directional lighting. Only the latter would implicate gradations of tonality in giving a 3d effect .... and even then it is a mental construct by the viewer based on expectations of shape based on past experience of what 'shadows' indicate.  As Karbe mentions in the interview about the SL 50/1.4 the DOF behaviour of lenses is not identical between optical designs even with the same focal length and aperture. The SL 50/1.4 was configured to give a more rapid drop off of focus within the traditional DOF plane to enhance the 3d rendering of the lens, and elimination of harsh bokeh for the OOF areas. 

 

The noctilux 0.95 gives a very exaggerated 3d modelling effect ..... and it is interesting to try and add sharpening to the image ...... even applying the maximum in LR only has visible effects on the tiny part of the image that is 'sharp'. I tend to think that has more to do with the steepness of the focus curve within the narrow DOF plane than gradations of tonality. 

 

I'm still not convinced we are talking about 2 separate things here ...... and if we are they are clearly mutually intimately related. 

Edited October 11, 2017 by thighslapper

[Advertisement]

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

[robgo2]

So, does the 50 SL have this “microtonality”?

 

If you're asking me, I cannot provide an answer, as I do not own the lens. 

[robgo2]

????

 

Are you convinced this is to do with tonality ??? 3d modelling is surely more to do with DOF factors combined with the effects of directional lighting. Only the latter would implicate gradations of tonality in giving a 3d effect .... and even then it is a mental construct by the viewer based on expectations of shape based on past experience of what 'shadows' indicate.  As Karbe mentions in the interview about the SL 50/1.4 the DOF behaviour of lenses is not identical between optical designs even with the same focal length and aperture. The SL 50/1.4 was configured to give a more rapid drop off of focus within the traditional DOF plane to enhance the 3d rendering of the lens, and elimination of harsh bokeh for the OOF areas. 

 

The noctilux 0.95 gives a very exaggerated 3d modelling effect ..... and it is interesting to try and add sharpening to the image ...... even applying the maximum in LR only has visible effects on the tiny part of the image that is 'sharp'. I tend to think that has more to do with the steepness of the focus curve within the narrow DOF plane than gradations of tonality. 

 

I'm still not convinced we are talking about 2 separate things here ...... and if we are they are clearly mutually intimately related. 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by robgo2

[robgo2]

????

 

Are you convinced this is to do with tonality ??? 3d modelling is surely more to do with DOF factors combined with the effects of directional lighting. Only the latter would implicate gradations of tonality in giving a 3d effect .... and even then it is a mental construct by the viewer based on expectations of shape based on past experience of what 'shadows' indicate.  As Karbe mentions in the interview about the SL 50/1.4 the DOF behaviour of lenses is not identical between optical designs even with the same focal length and aperture. The SL 50/1.4 was configured to give a more rapid drop off of focus within the traditional DOF plane to enhance the 3d rendering of the lens, and elimination of harsh bokeh for the OOF areas. 

 

The noctilux 0.95 gives a very exaggerated 3d modelling effect ..... and it is interesting to try and add sharpening to the image ...... even applying the maximum in LR only has visible effects on the tiny part of the image that is 'sharp'. I tend to think that has more to do with the steepness of the focus curve within the narrow DOF plane than gradations of tonality. 

 

I'm still not convinced we are talking about 2 separate things here ...... and if we are they are clearly mutually intimately related. 

 

Most definitely, there are other factors that contribute to depth rendering, with lighting and DOF being very important ones. However, in the case that I described above, the lighting was identical for both lenses. The shooting aperture was 2.8, but I cannot remember how close the DOFs were. Unfortunately, I trashed those images long ago and cannot go back and check for that. But as I have said, there was a noticeable difference in how the two lenses separated subtle differences in tone, and that, I believe, made the difference in the sense of depth.

 

[Chaemono]

Microcontrast, microtonality, one can call it whatever one wants. The fact is that wide open the 50 Summilux-SL is able to capture the whole tonal range effortlessly. How about comparing the SL + 50 Summilux-SL with Canon 5DS R + Sigma ART 50/1.4 or Otus 55 all shot wide open?

[dgktkr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Microcontrast, microtonality, one can call it whatever one wants. The fact is that wide open the 50 Summilux-SL is able to capture the whole tonal range effortlessly. ...

 

 

Have we established what "it" is?

 

Microcontrast and microtonality both contain the prefix "micro". That could refer to "small in spatial extent" , i.e. fine details, or it could refer to small steps in tonality, i.e. slight differences in shades of color (or gray)? Yannick claims that it's not the former, and I don't understand how it could be the latter. Aren't the light levels that a lens lets through continuous and without gaps?

 

Yannick and others claim it can be seen as the ability to produce a 3D look for an image.

 

In the quote section above, it is implied that it has something to do with capturing "the whole tonal range effortlessly".

 

Except for adding diffuse light (veiling flare) to dark areas of an image, doesn't every lens capture the whole tonal range effortlessly? The degree to which tone modulation (contrast) comes through the lens depends on the distance over which the light level in the scene changes significantly and is characterized by the MTF of the lens. 

 

I'm not trying to deny that there is some elusive magic to some lenses, I'm just trying to pin it down.

 

dgktkr

Edited October 13, 2017 by dgktkr

[Chaemono]

Have we established what "it" is?

This article tries: https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-lens-contrast/

 

In the quote section above, it is implied that it has something to do with capturing "the whole tonal range effortlessly".

 

Except for adding diffuse light (veiling flare) to dark areas of an image, doesn't every lens capture the whole tonal range effortlessly? 

Wide open, no, they don't. That's why I'm suggesting to give the Sigma Art and the Otus a little help by using them on their native mount with the best sensor there is for this. On the SL, they are no match for the Summilux-SL in this respect.

 

 I'm just trying to pin it down.

Following this discussion, everyone has a different opinion what it is. I get the feeling we won't be able to avoid looking at some pictures comparing the SL + 50 Summilux-SL with the Canon 5DS R + Sigma ART 50/1.4 and Otus 55 shot wide open. 

Edited October 14, 2017 by Chaemono

[thighslapper]

 

 

Except for adding diffuse light (veiling flare) to dark areas of an image, doesn't every lens capture the whole tonal range effortlessly? The degree to which tone modulation (contrast) comes through the lens depends on the distance over which the light level in the scene changes significantly and is characterized by the MTF of the lens. 

 

I'm not trying to deny that there is some elusive magic to some lenses, I'm just trying to pin it down.

 

dgktkr

 

....... precisely .... micro-contrast appears to be a term that has been invented to describe something that cannot be quantified and which no-one actually understands.  

 

apparently a few very rare lenses coated with unobtanium using the crappenhoff process give almost 4d imagery and approach nano-contrast levels of rendering. 

Edited October 14, 2017 by thighslapper

[Jon Warwick]

I’ve found that my 50 APO gives more of this “micro-xyz” 3D look compared to any other M lens I’ve used. So lens design and the contrast fall-off apparently do make a difference.

That said, I think a much bigger driver of getting this 3D look is sensor size ......I find the S camera, even with wider angles lenses like the 45mm, gives a much much deeper 3D look to images (same with a Hasselblad X1D etc etc).

Drive that further into bigger sensors (eg, large format film like I do), and I find the 3D’ness is superior again.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Jon Warwick

[Chaemono]

Just to make sure we are not confusing the issues. All of the three authors below describe very well what micro-contrast is but only the third one makes sure that it is not confused with 3D-pop (terrible word). Irakly Shanidze refers to the three-dimensional look of an image. This means that micro-contrast lends depth to an image, not 3D-pop to an object in it.

 

http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world

Yannick Khong

„Micro-contrast is the ability of the lens to communicate the richness and vibrancy of the inter-tonal shifts between the brighter to darker part of a very same color onto the sensor.  A lens with great micro-contrast has much richer colours and tone transitions compared to a weaker one. It's one of the attributes that people refer to the 3d-pop. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with resolution (measurable sharpness).“

 

 

https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-lens-contrast/ 

Mike Johnston

„What we’re talking about is the ability of the lens to differentiate between smaller and smaller details of more and more nearly similar tonal value. This is also referred to as “microcontrast.” The better contrast a lens has (and this has nothing to do with the light/­dark range or distribution of tones in the final print or slide) means its ability to take two small areas of slightly different luminance and distinguish the boundary of one from the other. You can have a lens of very low contrast that can be made to transmit the same overall range of light to dark or white to black as one with high contrast. It will just show much less micro detail in the scene, and look relatively muddy and lifeless.“

 

 

http://www.artphotoacademy.com/the-leica-look/

Irakly Shanidze

„All these things make the picture look like it is three-dimensional, almost tactile. All you need to do is to reach inside and pick up an object that you like the most.

By the way, the difference between Leica and Zeiss images is that even though they all may look three-dimensional, the former seem deep, yet the latter are more like a flat surface with 3D objects on it.“

„…micro-contrast, i.e., an ability to register a nearly full variety of tonal variations between slightly darker and slightly brighter areas of very similar colors. It is the high micro contrast that is responsible for rich colors and smooth tonal transitions that all amount to the three-dimensional “feel“.

[robgo2]

Just to make sure we are not confusing the issues. All of the three authors below describe very well what micro-contrast is but only the third one makes sure that it is not confused with 3D-pop (terrible word). Irakly Shanidze refers to the three-dimensional look of an image. This means that micro-contrast lends depth to an image, not 3D-pop to an object in it.

 

http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world

Yannick Khong

„Micro-contrast is the ability of the lens to communicate the richness and vibrancy of the inter-tonal shifts between the brighter to darker part of a very same color onto the sensor.  A lens with great micro-contrast has much richer colours and tone transitions compared to a weaker one. It's one of the attributes that people refer to the 3d-pop. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with resolution (measurable sharpness).“

 

 

https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-lens-contrast/ 

Mike Johnston

„What we’re talking about is the ability of the lens to differentiate between smaller and smaller details of more and more nearly similar tonal value. This is also referred to as “microcontrast.” The better contrast a lens has (and this has nothing to do with the light/­dark range or distribution of tones in the final print or slide) means its ability to take two small areas of slightly different luminance and distinguish the boundary of one from the other. You can have a lens of very low contrast that can be made to transmit the same overall range of light to dark or white to black as one with high contrast. It will just show much less micro detail in the scene, and look relatively muddy and lifeless.“

 

 

http://www.artphotoacademy.com/the-leica-look/

Irakly Shanidze

„All these things make the picture look like it is three-dimensional, almost tactile. All you need to do is to reach inside and pick up an object that you like the most.

By the way, the difference between Leica and Zeiss images is that even though they all may look three-dimensional, the former seem deep, yet the latter are more like a flat surface with 3D objects on it.“

„…micro-contrast, i.e., an ability to register a nearly full variety of tonal variations between slightly darker and slightly brighter areas of very similar colors. It is the high micro contrast that is responsible for rich colors and smooth tonal transitions that all amount to the three-dimensional “feel“.

 

All of these descriptions are fairly close to what I was saying. My source for it was Yannick Khong. Whether or not microcontrast or microtonality can be measured is not terribly relevant to those who can perceive differences in depth rendering with their own eyes.

Edited October 14, 2017 by robgo2

[thighslapper]

All of these descriptions are fairly close to what I was saying. My source for it was Yannick Khong. Whether or not microcontrast or microtonality can be measured is not terribly relevant to those who can perceive differences in depth rendering with their own eyes.

 

Therein lies the issue ..... attributing subjective opinions about an image that are prone to bias, selective sampling and without rigorous comparisons under identical image taking conditions. 

 

Basically highly corrected lenses with excellent flare suppression, good light transmissibility, colour neutrality and minimised aberrations will have better MTF's and more ability to resolve fine detail. There is nothing magic about this fact. 

 

You can call the differences what you like, but basically Leica and Zeiss have generally just made better lenses that pay attention to ALL these factors, than most of the competition.

 

As by far the most limiting factor in all of this is the dynamic range and resolution of the sensor I think the effect of the mythical micro-contrast is somewhat exaggerated. 

Edited October 14, 2017 by thighslapper

[Chaemono]

All of these descriptions are fairly close to what I was saying. My source for it was Yannick Khong. Whether or not microcontrast or microtonality can be measured is not terribly relevant to those who can perceive differences in depth rendering with their own eyes.

I've done these before https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-GGCRrg/ The focus is off in one of them with the Otus in the cathedral. I'll do the Otus and the Sigma Art on the 5DS R compared to the Summilux-SL on the SL next. It'll take some time.

[dgktkr]

 

 

Except for adding diffuse light (veiling flare) to dark areas of an image, doesn't every lens capture the whole tonal range effortlessly?

 

...

 

Wide open, no, they don't.

...

 

 

 

Chaemono, could you elaborate? Except for fine details or veiled shadow tones how does any lens fail to reproduce the whole tonal range of a scene?

 

dgktkr

[Chaemono]

Chaemono, could you elaborate? Except for fine details or veiled shadow tones how does any lens fail to reproduce the whole tonal range of a scene?

 

dgktkr

I'm no optical engineer but here is my explanation. Most fast lenses will be somewhat soft wide open. But I'm sure you know this. Still, see this discussion here: https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6177/will-using-a-lens-at-max-aperture-wide-open-result-in-poor-images. The reason is lack of contrast. And now let's go back to Mike Johnston's excellent article. Wide open most lenses will therefore lack: ":...[the] ability...to differentiate between smaller and smaller details of more and more nearly similar tonal value. This is also referred to as “microcontrast.” The better contrast a lens has ...means its ability to take two small areas of slightly different luminance and distinguish the boundary of one from the other [edge contrast]". Therefore, wide open most lenses are not able to capture the whole tonal range. Edited October 14, 2017 by Chaemono

[robgo2]

I'm no optical engineer but here is my explanation. Most fast lenses will be somewhat soft wide open. But I'm sure you know this. Still, see this discussion here: https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6177/will-using-a-lens-at-max-aperture-wide-open-result-in-poor-images. The reason is lack of contrast. And now let's go back to Mike Johnston's excellent article. Wide open most lenses will therefore lack: ":...[the] ability...to differentiate between smaller and smaller details of more and more nearly similar tonal value. This is also referred to as “microcontrast.” The better contrast a lens has ...means its ability to take two small areas of slightly different luminance and distinguish the boundary of one from the other [edge contrast]". Therefore, wide open most lenses are not able to capture the whole tonal range.

 

And it's not just a wide open phenomenon, although that is where it shows most prominently. I would suggest that skeptics study images taken with different lenses with an eye towards how they separate very fine tonal variations. Seeing is believing.

[dgktkr]

Just to make sure we are not confusing the issues. All of the three authors below describe very well what micro-contrast is but only the third one makes sure that it is not confused with 3D-pop (terrible word). Irakly Shanidze refers to the three-dimensional look of an image. This means that micro-contrast lends depth to an image, not 3D-pop to an object in it.

 

http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world

Yannick Khong

„Micro-contrast is the ability of the lens to communicate the richness and vibrancy of the inter-tonal shifts between the brighter to darker part of a very same color onto the sensor.  A lens with great micro-contrast has much richer colours and tone transitions compared to a weaker one. It's one of the attributes that people refer to the 3d-pop. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with resolution (measurable sharpness).“

 

Micro-contrast has absolutely nothing to do with resolution (measurable sharpness)? In what follows, Mike Johnston seems to disagree. He seems to think that the term "micro-contrast" is ability to maintain tone  differences of small structures. In other words, maintaining high MTF towards the resolution limit. Size matters.

 

https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-lens-contrast/ 

Mike Johnston

„What we’re talking about is the ability of the lens to differentiate between smaller and smaller details of more and more nearly similar tonal value. This is also referred to as “microcontrast.” The better contrast a lens has (and this has nothing to do with the light/­dark range or distribution of tones in the final print or slide) means its ability to take two small areas of slightly different luminance and distinguish the boundary of one from the other. You can have a lens of very low contrast that can be made to transmit the same overall range of light to dark or white to black as one with high contrast. It will just show much less micro detail in the scene, and look relatively muddy and lifeless.“

 

http://www.artphotoacademy.com/the-leica-look/

Irakly Shanidze

„All these things make the picture look like it is three-dimensional, almost tactile. All you need to do is to reach inside and pick up an object that you like the most.

By the way, the difference between Leica and Zeiss images is that even though they all may look three-dimensional, the former seem deep, yet the latter are more like a flat surface with 3D objects on it.“

„…micro-contrast, i.e., an ability to register a nearly full variety of tonal variations between slightly darker and slightly brighter areas of very similar colors. It is the high micro contrast that is responsible for rich colors and smooth tonal transitions that all amount to the three-dimensional “feel“.

In this quote Irakly doesn't express whether he considers size to be relevant to the concept of "micro-contrast".

 

So far, I fail to understand how micro-contrast is responsible for rich colors, unless, that is, what is meant is rich color variations. Also, have I missed the connection of micro-contrast to "smooth tonal transitions"? If a lens reproduces two tones, how does it not reproduce the tones in between? Are the transitions not smooth in some way? Are there gaps? Are there steps?

 

dgktkr

Edited October 14, 2017 by dgktkr

[robgo2]

 

You can call the differences what you like, but basically Leica and Zeiss have generally just made better lenses that pay attention to ALL these factors, than most of the competition.

 

I would agree that Zeiss and Leica lenses tend to have the best depth rendering, but I also own some Minolta and CV lenses that can hold their own with the best.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Chaemono]

And it's not just a wide open phenomenon, although that is where it shows most prominently. I would suggest that skeptics study images taken with different lenses with an eye towards how they separate very fine tonal variations. Seeing is believing.

 

This is a bit off topic. But one lens where contrast increases substantially stopped down a bit and that I really like using anywhere from f/2.8 to f/5.6 is, ironically, the Noctilux. Here are three I took today of sculptures depicting ordinary people in everyday life situations in the city. There are ten of these sculptures on advertising columns in total in Duesseldorf. The three pictures are severely cropped and then upscaled a bit. At f/5.6 the Noctilux captures the tones so nicely with the M10 (ISO 200). They can be viewed here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-McwTX9/