*Leica* 21mm elmarit asph or super-elmar ?

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What other Lenses do you have? Consistency of rendering amongst your lenses is worth considering. I'd be less fussed on 2.8 vs 3.4 on such a wide lens which can of course be hand held at quite low shutter speeds

I have both lenses (and a few more as I really like 21mm).  The 21 SEM is an extraordinary lens and very 'transparent' in its imaging. The 21 Elmarit has a more 'classic' leica look with beautiful colouring. My choice of 21 may well depend on what I'm trying to achieve, and which other lenses I'm using.

[phototrope]

5 minutes ago, MarkP said:

What other Lenses do you have? Consistency of rendering amongst your lenses is worth considering. I'd be less fussed on 2.8 vs 3.4 on such a wide lens which can of course be hand held at quite low shutter speeds

I have both lenses (and a few more as I really like 21mm).  The 21 SEM is an extraordinary lens and very 'transparent' in its imaging. The 21 Elmarit has a more 'classic' leica look with beautiful colouring. My choice of 21 may well depend on what I'm trying to achieve, and which other lenses I'm using.

@MarkP Thanks, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I have a Noctilux 50/1.0 v2 (which I much prefer to the noctilux 50/0.95), a 50mm summicron collapsible, a 35mm summilux pre-asph. So I think you'r right about preferring the classical look. However I recently got a 50mm summilux asph black chrome and really like that too. Although it doesn't have a super-modern Leica look, it's a good complement to the noctilux (and it's making me think of getting a 35mm cron asph).  I've always been a 50/35/20 shooter on Nikon and recently moved to Leica. So I think at some point I will will have both these 21mm lenses like you.  WIll probably get the elmarit first though due to availability.

[pgk]

34 minutes ago, phototrope said:

mm, not really. Veiling flare is an aberration which occurs when a lens (or its coating) does not correctly handle stray incoming light rays hitting the lens at unusual angles of incidence. It only occurs when such light rays are present. Whereas the "lower contrast" I'm referring is a permanent feature of the lens configuration, and equates to capturing of greater tonal gradation. This is a benefit mainly for black and white film (but also colour in certain situations)

Think about this. Lower contrast is a physical phenomenon and can be explained in technical terms. It does NOT equate to greater tonal graduation. What happens is that the deep shadows are contaminated by stray light which slightly reduces information in them and modifies them by adding light which is a diminishingly small amount as the shadows brighten. The result is lower contrast (subtly modified tonal gradation) and whilst it might well be a useful feature if you only shoot film and want an older look, it is not so useful on digital because it can be mimicked in software. Lower contrast  lenses are one of those things that are lauded for being useful, which they can be - I have and use some, but for the wrong reasons. I have lenses which date from the 1850s (they used as few elements as possible to maintain as high a contrast as they could) through to modern SotA designs like the SEM. Even some of the older lenses can deliver surprising good resolution, but the really significant difference through the ages is ever better contrast due to reduced internal reflections and now, very effective coatings.

I would add that if you combine marginal veiling flare with an older spherical design then there are other effect such as the slight softening of edge contrast in fine shadow detail and so on. Modern, aspherical designs benefit from minimising veiling flare which helps them achieve the 'bite' which some see as sterility.

Of course. if anyone wants to try to explain lower contrast technically from another cause I am happy to hear the argument .....

[phototrope]

33 minutes ago, pgk said:

Think about this. Lower contrast is a physical phenomenon and can be explained in technical terms. It does NOT equate to greater tonal graduation. What happens is that the deep shadows are contaminated by stray light which slightly reduces information in them and modifies them by adding light which is a diminishingly small amount as the shadows brighten. The result is lower contrast (subtly modified tonal gradation) and whilst it might well be a useful feature if you only shoot film and want an older look, it is not so useful on digital because it can be mimicked in software. Lower contrast  lenses are one of those things that are lauded for being useful, which they can be - I have and use some, but for the wrong reasons. I have lenses which date from the 1850s (they used as few elements as possible to maintain as high a contrast as they could) through to modern SotA designs like the SEM. Even some of the older lenses can deliver surprising good resolution, but the really significant difference through the ages is ever better contrast due to reduced internal reflections and now, very effective coatings.

I would add that if you combine marginal veiling flare with an older spherical design then there are other effect such as the slight softening of edge contrast in fine shadow detail and so on. Modern, aspherical designs benefit from minimising veiling flare which helps them achieve the 'bite' which some see as sterility.

Of course. if anyone wants to try to explain lower contrast technically from another cause I am happy to hear the argument .....

Okay, I'm not wishing to get drawn into an argument about the science of lenses in general here.

Just talking specifically about the 21mm elmarit vs the 21 SEM, and as far as I can see, the elmarit does show more tonal gradation on film. 

And by the way, I too have an 1850's Ross cabinet lens and two Dallmeyer petval lenses from the 1870. Wonderful creatures. Do you do wet plate collodion?

Edited May 30, 2020 by phototrope

[lct]

Not sure to follow pgk here. Whatever optical cause it may have, high contrast renders shadows darker which can be a problem on film and digital as well. Am i missing something?

Edited May 30, 2020 by lct

[pgk]

The 'benefit' may be seen on film because it can't be manipulated as digital can. The reason I always try to 'explain' lens contrast is because, for some reason, it is one of those topic often quoted but rarely discussed objectively (as is the Leica 'glow" - spherical aberration). No I don't do wet plate - not happy with dumping the chemistry, but I'm interested in the history of old photographic optics. Which Ross do you have? The Dallmeyer's seem to have a 'cult' following these days and I don't have any but I do have other weird and wonderful lenses. My 'favourite' odd lens is Captain Wheeler's "Turtle" lens (pre 1920) wade in brass by Wray - a truly odd beast and I have a book by Captain Wheeler which doesn't help much - and Wray are not even known for making this lens - I think it might have been Ross who were supposed to have! One problem is that Victorian lenses seem to have subsided into history - Leica lenses are far better researched even if they still exercise the historians in their detailed differences.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just now, lct said:

Not sure to follow you here. Whatever optical cause it may have, high contrast renders shadows darker which can be a problem on film and digital as well. Am i missing something?

Yes. If 'lower contrast' lenses actually improved to retention of shadow detail do you not think that manufacturers would investigate this strange phenomenon and build lenses capable of compressing tonal information? The don't because they can't. What you are seeing is a different tonal gradation in the shadows - but a higher differential of actual shadow detail can be recorded from a 'high contrast' lens. You might prefer the look of a 'low contrast' lens though because you prefer the slightly modified tonality of the shadows. It can be mimicked in software though.

[lct]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Yes. If 'lower contrast' lenses actually improved to retention of shadow detail do you not think that manufacturers would investigate this strange phenomenon and build lenses capable of compressing tonal information? The don't because they can't. What you are seeing is a different tonal gradation in the shadows - but a higher differential of actual shadow detail can be recorded from a 'high contrast' lens. You might prefer the look of a 'low contrast' lens though because you prefer the slightly modified tonality of the shadows. It can be mimicked in software though.

I still can't follow you sorry but it doesn't mean that you are wrong, just that we see different things or the same things in a different way . Lower contrast lenses make actual differences when you shoot in low light. See, you are at 3200 iso with a high contrast lens like the SEM 21 or another modern lens. Shadows are quite dark then so you have to crank up exposure by one or two stops in PP. But then your image looks noisier or in the worse cases will show some banding in the shadows as if you had been shooting at 6400 or 12800 iso. It is not a problem with cameras like my Sony A7s to be honest but my M240, let alone digital CL, don't reach the same level by far. 

[pgk]

You have to think of it like this. A scene can contains a dynamic range well beyond the ability of the sensor to capture.

A high contrast lens produces an image which contains a full range of the information which the sensor can capture, and more, which it projects onto the sensor, which then records as much as it is able to do so. So you have a (near) full dynamic range file which has little lack of tonality in the shadows.

A low contrast lens contains a full range of information less the veiling flare contaminated shadows which contain light from veiling flare (and I suppose, being pedantic, this is reflected in the MTF which will show varying spatial frequency cut-off as contrast reduces in the shadow areas), so the projected image always looks lower contrast because it has light contaminated shadows. The result is a file with less tonal range but a marginally different tonal range.

So the high contrast lens will produce a file with more 'tonal' information than a low contrast one but it will not look quite the same. I'm sure that, using a high contrast lens file, this could be mimicked in Photoshop by producing a white mask of the shadows and then applying this and varying the opacity to obtain a similar result to that from a low contrast lens.

If anyone wants to prove to themselves that a low contrast lens produces a less tonally rich file then simply get an old, uncoated lens and take a photo with it. The shadows will lack information and no matter how much you try to 'lift' what information is there, it will lack data compared with a similar file from a current state of the art lens. If this wasn't true then we'd all be using ancient lenses with no coating to ensure great shadows but we don't because they don't.

When comparing recent and current Leica lenses the difference is not massive but the current aspheric lenses are incredibly capable and take advantage of their contrast throughout their spatial frequency range - especial at high spatial frequencies (small detail).

 

Edited May 30, 2020 by pgk

[phototrope]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

You have to think of it like this. A scene can contains a dynamic range well beyond the ability of the sensor to capture.

A high contrast lens produces an image which contains a full range of the information which the sensor can capture, and more, which it projects onto the sensor, which then records as much as it is able to do so. So you have a (near) full dynamic range file which has little lack of tonality in the shadows.

A low contrast lens contains a full range of information less the veiling flare contaminated shadows which contain light from veiling flare (and I suppose, being pedantic, this is reflected in the MTF which will show varying spatial frequency cut-off as contrast reduces in the shadow areas), so the projected image always looks lower contrast because it has light contaminated shadows. The result is a file with less tonal range but a marginally different tonal range.

So the high contrast lens will produce a file with more 'tonal' information than a low contrast one but it will not look quite the same. I'm sure that, using a high contrast lens file, this could be mimicked in Photoshop by producing a white mask of the shadows and then applying this and varying the opacity to obtain a similar result to that from a low contrast lens.

If anyone wants to prove to themselves that a low contrast lens produces a less tonally rich file then simply get an old, uncoated lens and take a photo with it. The shadows will lack information and no matter how much you try to 'lift' what information is there, it will lack data compared with a similar file from a current state of the art lens. If this wasn't true then we'd all be using ancient lenses with no coating to ensure great shadows but we don't because they don't.

When comparing recent and current Leica lenses the difference is not massive but the current aspheric lenses are incredibly capable and take advantage of their contrast throughout their spatial frequency range - especial at high spatial frequencies (small detail).

 

@pgk as far as I'm concerned, this whole post is a morass of misconceptions. But that's just my opinion. I''m not interested in correcting you and am happy for you to think I'm wrong. Life is too short and ejoyable   Have a good day.

[pgk]

If misconceptions are not challenged they become lore🙄.

[giannis]

4 hours ago, pgk said:

but a higher differential of actual shadow detail can be recorded from a 'high contrast' lens. 

This is not always true with film. Shadows need a certain minimum amount of light to make a latent image and push past the film's toe. Film funnily has a love-hate relationship with contrast. On one hand, it needs as much contrast as it can get to reach high resolving power, its resolving power plummets at low subject contrasts. On the other hand, if contrast gets high enough to block up the shadows, it will look better in terms of shadow detail (and mostly the perception of it) with lower contrast.

In any case, the effect is small, and I don't see the reason why people would obsess over small differences in contrast between lenses, when they can experiment with the plentiful cheap contrast filters that have a much larger effect. Diffusion dflters (concentric or gauge), Tiffen's fancy Promist filters, Zeiss Softars with their pseudolenses and the much cheaper Hoya equivalents (Softener A, Softener B). All those are a couple dozen bucks new, less used and sometimes you can get a bunch in a box for pennies or thrown in with lenses at thrift stores etc. They're a great way to experiment, provide a much more noticeable effect, and it works out much cheaper than getting a new lens.

[pgk]

3 minutes ago, giannis said:

This is not always true with film. Shadows need a certain minimum amount of light to make a latent image and push past the film's toe. Film funnily has a love-hate relationship with contrast. On one hand, it needs as much contrast as it can get to reach high resolving power, its resolving power plummets at low subject contrasts. On the other hand, if contrast gets high enough to block up the shadows, it will look better in terms of shadow detail (and mostly the perception of it) with lower contrast.

In any case, the effect is small, and I don't see the reason why people would obsess over small differences in contrast between lenses.....

Film doesn't behave in the same way as digital - trying to increase shadow detail means increasing exposure but high intensity reciprocity law failure makes the highlights less 'offensive'  than digital files. But lenses always behave the same way. 

We go around in circles.

The thing is ..... that if we accept a misconception it becomes accepted as fact. 

[giannis]

I agree with you.

2 minutes ago, pgk said:

Film doesn't behave in the same way as digital - trying to increase shadow detail means increasing exposure but high intensity reciprocity law failure makes the highlights less 'offensive'  than digital files. But lenses always behave the same way. 

We go around in circles.

The thing is ..... that if we accept a misconception it becomes accepted as fact. 

I agree with you. On digital sensors the only disadvantage of very high contrast I can think of, is blowing small highlights (like wrinkles in a white tshirt under bright sun). But with increased dynamic range that is a minor point. 

I don't think anyone is doubting that high contrast has always been a design objective for lenses, and in most situations you get more information to play with. Even with film, if you want contraction (i.e. lower contrast with lots of detail in the shadows and non blown highlights), you just pull your film and get a nice and noticeable result, you don't go and get a low contrast lens for the small difference it makes.

I think nowadays it's a matter of taste, not any practical advantage. Some people like the low contrast look of a low contrast lens, and while this can be achieved in post, a low contrast lens gives a much better starting point that will require less work on Photoshop (or none). This I can respect. 

[pgk]

2 minutes ago, giannis said:

I agree with you.

I agree with you. On digital sensors the only disadvantage of very high contrast I can think of, is blowing small highlights (like wrinkles in a white tshirt under bright sun). But with increased dynamic range that is a minor point. 

I don't think anyone is doubting that high contrast has always been a design objective for lenses, and in most situations you get more information to play with. Even with film, if you want contraction (i.e. lower contrast with lots of detail in the shadows and non blown highlights), you just pull your film and get a nice and noticeable result, you don't go and get a low contrast lens for the small difference it makes.

I think nowadays it's a matter of taste, not any practical advantage. Some people like the low contrast look of a low contrast lens, and while this can be achieved in post, a low contrast lens gives a much better starting point that will require less work on Photoshop (or none). This I can respect. 

I do have and use low contrast lenses. The problem on the forum is that the myth that a low contrast lens actually records a higher dynamic range and is therefor better in high contrast conditions is one which repeatedly appears. There is a huge difference in using a lens for its characteristics and misunderstanding what those characteristics are IMO. In a world of misinformation some at least should be corrected.

Actually deductive reasoning, if applied to lenses, should make it obvious that a lens can't 'squeeze' dynamic range ......

[giannis]

3 minutes ago, pgk said:

I do have and use low contrast lenses. The problem on the forum is that the myth that a low contrast lens actually records a higher dynamic range and is therefor better in high contrast conditions is one which repeatedly appears. There is a huge difference in using a lens for its characteristics and misunderstanding what those characteristics are IMO. In a world of misinformation some at least should be corrected.

Actually deductive reasoning, if applied to lenses, should make it obvious that a lens can't 'squeeze' dynamic range ......

True. I enjoy low contrast lenses too. But  so do I my diffusion filters, my contrast filters for B&W, compensating development and pulling, and soft focus lenses like the Imagon or the medium format Fuji reincarnation for the GX680, the 180mm f/8. It's all about knowing which technique/filter/gear gives which effect, and using it with intent and purpose.

[a.noctilux]

The myth nowadays is one-lens-to-do-it-all.

This can be true, but not for me, so my multiple lenses which I learn to know their behaviors that is the funny side of picture takings (...well my producings )...

[lct]

+1 but reverting to the topic, both Elmarit asph and Super-Elmar are contrasty lenses. Differences between them are small re contrast anyway. If one's after less contrasty results for the reasons i stated above  (and i'm alone to share apparently ) or other reasons, better look for an Elmarit pre-asph or a Super-Angulon.

[phototrope]

3 hours ago, pgk said:

I do have and use low contrast lenses. The problem on the forum is that the myth that a low contrast lens actually records a higher dynamic range and is therefor better in high contrast conditions is one which repeatedly appears. There is a huge difference in using a lens for its characteristics and misunderstanding what those characteristics are IMO. In a world of misinformation some at least should be corrected.

Actually deductive reasoning, if applied to lenses, should make it obvious that a lens can't 'squeeze' dynamic range ......

Not sure why you started talking about the effect of lens contrast on dynamic range, when I was talking specifically about tonal gradation.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[phototrope]

Maybe the confusion arose because I should have been more specific and spoke about microcontrast whereas @pgk seems to be talking about local contrast, and I certainly wasn't talking about global contrast.

Anyway, others are better at explaining theory than I, and here's a good article:
https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-lens-contrast/

Without wanting to open another can of worms, another difference I've noticed with the 21 SEM is its incredibly high resolution of fine structures, This looks great on digital and leads to much impressive zooming in, and will probably make for very good enlargements. But on film, this very high resolution of fine structures leads to a kind of "wispy" rendering of lines which doesn't agree with me - again a very subjective point of view. My brain is probably just conditioned to like the so-called "classical" look.

Edited May 30, 2020 by phototrope