Non-digital look 28mm lens

[startover]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I love the 28/2.8 Elmarit and it is my primary lens.  Wonder if there is a variant that doesn't have that sharp, "digital" look.  An older version of the lens perhaps?  Or something I can manipulate during shooting or in post (sic)?

[a.noctilux]

Had you tried Summaron-M 5.6/28mm, discussion and some pics here

this one ...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

As we see things differently, digital look * or not can be sorted out only while trying by oneself.

 

* I don't know what this is, when we look at a computer screen, we must always see digital look

Edited February 9, 2021 by a.noctilux

[AndreasG]

I have both, the 28mm ASPH and the 28mm V3, which draws "warmer" and less sharp than the ASPH version, see here:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Ouroboros]

You can easily soften images in pp  If you’re looking for something more refined or a consistent  ‘style’ you can play.around with any number of plug ins and presets until you find something that you feel is complimentary to your subject matter or project.

If you want your images to look 100% authentic as if they were made on film, there is only one  answer. 

[startover]

Thank you, all.  I have the 28 Summmaron but it hasn't gotten much time lately.  This morning I was looking at The Blue Room by Eugene Richards--a rare use of color by him--and was taken by the "soft" quality of his photographs.  It is hard to tell where the magic comes from--choice of lens or darkroom/post-production.  I am not able to replicate that look even with my film M.  So I am looking to see which lever to turn--a change of lens seemed the easiest.

[startover]

36 minutes ago, AndreasG said:

I have both, the 28mm ASPH and the 28mm V3, which draws "warmer" and less sharp than the ASPH version, see here:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

That looks promising.

[Pyrogallol]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Look at the older Canon screw mount 28mm lenses for a more classical look.

https://www.canonrangefinder.org/Canon_28mm.htm

[UliWer]

A digital sensor may render a "digital" look - even for lenses which are 70 - 80 years old:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Hektor 1:6./28cm from 1951 - the lens design is ten years older. 

[adan]

Another vote for Walter' Mandler's 1980 Leitz Canada 28 Elmarit-M v.3.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Plenty sharp, but lower overall contrast than the ASPH. Wonderful l-o-n-n-g tonal range.

Of note, in this case I mean contrast in the sense of ye old graded-contrast photographic papers, not "optical edge contrast" as in MTF charts. The ASPH is a "grade 4" where the v.3 is a "grade 2.75" and the v.2 (below) is a "grade 2."

I could also suggest its predecessor, the version 2 (also Mandler, also Canadian, 1972-80). Even softer global contrast. However, the V.2 is blurry in the corners until f/5.6 or so - it is the first retrofocus lens designed for the Ms, and well, there was a learning curve. Which means it is usually more reasonably priced (for a given value of "reasonable").

Practicalities - the V.3 can be upgraded to 6-bit coding, and appears in the lens menu on digital Leicas. The v.2 cannot be coded nor selected in camera menus (too old, wrong mounting ring), but fortunately is so retrofocus in design (created to allow metering with the M5 camera) that it shows little color shift in the corners, at least on the M10 sensor. The V.3 is the largest of all 28 Elmarits for the M (E49 filter size) - the V.2 is a bit smaller (E48), but heavier/denser (lots of brass!)

The v.2 is yellower compared to the ASPH, the v.3 is slightly more green (less pink- typical of the 1980 Canadian lens designs).

Images below with the v.2 on an M10, showing the "natural" (un-manipulated) contrast range. Both at about f/5.6-f/8.

 

[tgray]

28 Summicron? I’ve never used the Elmarit (any of them), but the Summicron is wonderful on both film and digital in my eyes. 

[evikne]

The new 28mm Elmarit ASPH is the only lens I can think of that is significantly smaller than the older versions. What is the reason for that?

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, startover said:

Thank you, all.  I have the 28 Summmaron but it hasn't gotten much time lately.  This morning I was looking at The Blue Room by Eugene Richards--a rare use of color by him--and was taken by the "soft" quality of his photographs.  It is hard to tell where the magic comes from--choice of lens or darkroom/post-production.  I am not able to replicate that look even with my film M.  So I am looking to see which lever to turn--a change of lens seemed the easiest.

Undoubtedly part of the soft quality from the photographs in that book comes from the softness in the light and the very subdued, almost absence of color.  There is no blue room; more of a blue mood.  He had a great eye and way of capturing and delivering what he envisioned and felt, regardless of the lens used; that cannot be cloned by gear choice.  Book production (and print quality) is another related and important matter, involving many variables.

Jeff

Edited February 9, 2021 by Jeff S

[BradS]

Surely, if one uses a digital camera one can/must expect "the digital look" - has nothing to do with the lens.

Don't want the digital look? Don't use a digital camera.

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, BradS said:

Surely, if one uses a digital camera one can/must expect "the digital look" - has nothing to do with the lens.

Don't want the digital look? Don't use a digital camera.

He tried with a film M.... post #5.  

It’s always about more than the gear.

Jeff

 

[Aryel]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

Also, it Has A LOT to do with the lens. A 28 Cron, to talk about 28mm, renders very digitally. Now, mount a 35mm pre aspherical v1 or v2, to give you just an example, on a 47MP digital SL2, shoot it wide open, and you will not get a digital look

Well, it is still a digital look... i think to avoid a fight we'd need a definition of 'digital look' 😂. My definition is anything digital has a digital look. There is an infinity of possible digital looks. Please note that this is by no mean a negative comments.

6 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

If you want your images to look 100% authentic as if they were made on film, there is only one  answer

This is spot on in my opinion. If you want the authentic film look, there is no real way round. When we scan our film, we also have a digital look in the end. Once again, this is definitely not a negative comment.

I love the summaron-m 28 (both for color and for b&w) and the elmarit v3 (for color but not so much for b&w).

Would anyone have some recommendations as to what to try for b&w when the f5.6 of the summaron is an issue? Was tempted to pick up a canon 28 f2.8 to try out.

[Narsuitus]

Try the Leica Q with the 28mm lens.

[adan]

3 hours ago, Narsuitus said:

Try the Leica Q with the 28mm lens.

Ahh, yes - a lens that depends entirely on digital processing to get rid of its built-in fisheye distortion.

Not really what we are looking for.

 

[lct]

Hehe define digital look and film look as well. K25 has not really a film look to me. YMMV. What the OP seems to need is a lens with macro contrast but with less acutance (micro contrast) than modern lenses. As suggested above the Elmarit 28/2.8 v2 or v3 springs to mind or a tiny M-Rokkor 28/2.8 if the OP can find one without white spots on the internal black paint. Beware that its flange does not bring up 28mm frame lines though. The flange of the M-Rokkor 90/4 could do it i guess but i never tried it on the 28/2.8 so far.

[Mark T]

Vignetting is a big feature of pre-digital lenses (where it is mostly corrected). It is a notable feature (flaw?), of spherical lens design.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Casey Jefferson]

To my eyes harsh tonal transition contribute to the digital look. I noticed older lenses seem to have gentler transitions between e.g. the shadows on cloths and faces. I think particularly the extreme end part - where highlight transition to white clipping abruptly instead of smoothly, same for shadows and black.

Then the color signature. To my eyes I see the natural world ever so slightly warmer than many modern lens suggested.

If you will, older lenses don't render color accurately, which contribute to the film-like look which often have some degree of color shift especially on shadows?