Non-digital look 28mm lens

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, Casey Jefferson said:

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?

https://hintingimage.com/aldis-bausch-lomb

[Advertisement]

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

[Stein K S]

No one voting for the 28 Elmarit V4?

 

I sold off the asph which I definitely found too harsh. Had the V3 on my M10 for about two weeks, and did really like its drawing (really recognize the looks from post #3 which is just delightful 😊). I would have kept the V3, but the lens was too faulty (missing a hood nod and lose focus lever), so I returned it. When I found the V4, I felt like finding ¨enough¨ of that smooth drawing that I like and I am now very very happy about it.

Edited February 10, 2021 by Stein K S

[tgray]

I assumed the OP meant sharp (since he said it) and contrasty, since that lens is known to be high contrast. 
 

That’s not my definition of “digital” looking, but it doesn’t matter what I think. The OP’s meaning is what I was trying to interpret so I could give him a lens suggestion. 
 

Hence the Summicron. It’s still reasonable modern looking, but lower contrast than the Elmarit.  Has a nice smooth falloff in sharpness to the edges. OP has a Summaron already, which might be good choice, or a prior version Elmarit. 

[Jeff S]

If one doesn’t want a ‘digital look’, it helps to not use digital devices for final picture output. A lot of the beauty of photography, for me, comes from a fine print on quality paper.  That said, I’ve seen a lot of both wonderful and crappy results, in print and on screen, from both film and digital shooting. If gear was all that mattered, we’d each produce the same boring ‘look’.  Thankfully that’s never been the case, even though the OP is striving for Eugene Richards.

Jeff

[BrianS]

No one has mentioned the Nikkor 2.8cm F3.5. I kept it and sold the 28/2.8 Elmarit-M v3.

 

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!

The Nikkor is small.

 

I like it-

 

I use it on the M Monochrom. This lens was $300. They've gone up some in the last two years, I bought this one 2012~2013, bought the M Monochrom  12/2012.

The nice thing about these lenses: buy it, use it, sell it if you don't like it. Cheaper then renting. I suspect the Nikkor is closer to $400~$500 these days.

Non-Digital look? I think the M-Monochrom gives a Panatomic-X developed in Microdol look. 

Edited February 10, 2021 by BrianS

[Simone_DF]

Maybe one of the MS Optics 28mm? 

[Narsuitus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 hours ago, adan said:

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.

 

I am not sure who the "we" are but my suggestion was for the original poster.

I shoot a 28mm f/2.8 and a 28mm f/3.5 Nikkor lens on Nikon film cameras.

I shoot a 28mm f/2 Zeiss on Nikon film cameras.

I shoot a 28mm f/2.8 on Contax G1 film cameras.

I shoot a 28mm f/3.5 on Pentax film cameras.

All my 28m lenses have a non-digital look on 35mm film.

I do not have a 28mm lens for my Leica M6 35mm rangefinder, but I bet Leica 28mm lenses also have a non-digital look on 35mm film.

If the original poster is looking for a 28mm lens on a digital camera that produces images that look like they were produced by a 28mm lens on a film camera, based on the images I have seen from the Leica Q, I recommend that the original poster consider the Leica Q. Who cares if the images were digitally manipulated to correct distortions. Let the final image be the deciding factor.

 

[Ccoppola82]

I really enjoy my v3 Elmarit if I want a more classical lens.  I think the main difference in modern lenses from classical is the contrast of sharpness. Example. A classical lens we could assign a 7 out of 10 as it’s max sharpness whereas something aspherical might hit a 9 or 10.    The “sharpness range”  in a classical lens is therefore much more compressed compared to a modern lens resulting in a gentler image or less “cut out” feel.  Combine this with increased value contrast (black to white scale) and other minor imperfections and you have  quite a stark difference in lens rendering. Which is better? Depends what I’m shooting and my personal aesthetic. I prefer Mandler when people are involved and I prefer asph for landscapes or things where people are not central to the image.  That being said, if you want a 28 that sorta bridges those aesthetics, the 28 v1 Summicron is fantastic, smaller than my v3 Elmarit...and what I generally grab.   

[Tailwagger]

While I'm currently contemplating a 'cron as a compliment, the v3 Elmarit remains one of my favorite lenses. In strong light, AFAIC few lenses draw more beautifully.  Under more muted conditions, I'll admit I find it a tick or two less satisfying on occasion for its overly gentle nature.  In my hands, I think it has been at its best when doing monochrome on the 240. Something about that combination really spoke to me, enough so that someday I could see reacquiring a well brassed one for use with it and a few other of my earlier lenses.  Perhaps the disparity is due to the earlier micro-lensing or the 240 sensor's tendency toward reds, dunno. What ever the reason, they meshed especially well. There's a dreamy sharpness on offer, Leica glow I suppose, which I've never fully replicated with either of the ensuing M10 sensors. Regardless, it's got that Mandler thing going on and though a physically a little large, it's still available for rather short money comparatively.  As an example of the sort of tonality I'm referring to... 

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!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Less sharp and manipulation in PP is not going to give film look. It will give fake film look and still will be digital, just with more defects and effects. 

Where is free film, plate emulator from google. Very good for it. You could go crazy with it and make it looks like Polaroid or sloppy glass plate. Or use it gently for cool looking BW.

 

 

[Jon Warwick]

On 2/10/2021 at 5:17 AM, Steven said:

 

Digital: sharp, contrasty, modern, clinical, detailed, objective

 

Sounds also like a good description of the look I get from Adox 20 film in 35mm! 🤔

....and the look of film changes drastically the larger the format one goes ....if you ever see one of Avedon’s “In the American West” taken on B&W 8x10 in front of you, it’s super clean, super sharp and grain free, and feels more like digital in that sense.

So IMHO, digital gives a look that’s less like 35mm film, but is closer to larger format film (high resolution, no grain).

That said I think a lot of the digital look is exacerbated by lenses with high contrast and high acuity. I want fine detail (which large format film provides), but without a fake amount of edge sharpness.

Also, taking images where the light is not harsh / contrasty / especially with no bright highlights gets one towards a more filmic look more readily, IMHO. It’s the inelegant rendering of highlights that makes digital look different to film in my view.

Also, going up a sensor size from 35mm full frame into medium format digital can help give better tonal transitions, which better mimics the smoothness that I see across all film formats I’ve used from 35mm, 120 and 4x5.

Edited February 27, 2021 by Jon Warwick

[Aryel]

If you like the film look just use film. Simple. Once you have your pipeline, it will be less work than post-processing your file to make them look like film. It will look better too (provided this is the look you like).

[Rick in CO]

Have you tried one of the film emulation software products?  I have only tried the B&W products, they are useful and can give several different portrayals.

[earleygallery]

On 2/10/2021 at 5:17 AM, Steven said:

I’ll take the plunge and start with a few keywords, someone can broad around and make sentences. 
 

Digital: sharp, contrasty, modern, clinical, detailed, objective

Film look: grainy, imperfect, character, soft, subjective

 

A lot of people (mostly younger post digital generation) seem to think film images should always look like the 6X4 snaps that the parents/grandparents might have shown them in some old family album, faded old photos taken on a Kodak 110 or 126 camera, dodgy (faded) colours, fuzzy details, maybe a finger blocking some of the photo occassionally and often very under/over exposed.

The Lomography people built a business on selling this look to hipsters, selling very cheap plastic lens cameras and film that gives unpredictable results.

Film is film and digital is digital. It would be rather like taking up painting and trying to get a 'watercolour' look when you're using oil paints. Which brush to use to get a watercolour look?

I would suggest you want to tone down the more clinical/clean look of a digital file, which can be done in PP of course, probably more effectively than by spending money on an new lens. An older uncoated or single coated lens will give a less contrasty image however.

Or try one of these https://shop.lomography.com/en/lenses/minitar-1-art-lens/minitar-1

I should add that I'm a huge fan of what Lomography do - they were responsible for helping to keep interest in film photography alive by making it fun and accessible to a new generation of users.

Edited February 27, 2021 by earleygallery

[roma]

On 2/10/2021 at 1:42 AM, startover said:

The Blue Room by Eugene Richards

Gene used Leica R cameras and lenses for this series....I believe with Portra. If you like the book, you should see the large prints he made, if you ever have a chance. They're just beautiful.

[Ko.Fe.]

2 hours ago, earleygallery said:

A lot of people (mostly younger post digital generation) seem to think film images should always look like the 6X4 snaps that the parents/grandparents might have shown them in some old family album, faded old photos taken on a Kodak 110 or 126 camera, dodgy (faded) colours, fuzzy details, maybe a finger blocking some of the photo occassionally and often very under/over exposed.

The Lomography people built a business on selling this look to hipsters, selling very cheap plastic lens cameras and film that gives unpredictable results.

Film is film and digital is digital. It would be rather like taking up painting and trying to get a 'watercolour' look when you're using oil paints. Which brush to use to get a watercolour look?

I would suggest you want to tone down the more clinical/clean look of a digital file, which can be done in PP of course, probably more effectively than by spending money on an new lens. An older uncoated or single coated lens will give a less contrasty image however.

Or try one of these https://shop.lomography.com/en/lenses/minitar-1-art-lens/minitar-1

I should add that I'm a huge fan of what Lomography do - they were responsible for helping to keep interest in film photography alive by making it fun and accessible to a new generation of users.

Before becoming salesman, they were bringing to Austria many Lomo LC-A cameras from Lomo factory in St. Peterburg a.k.a. Leningrad. Original Lomography was  photogrpahy style "Shot, don't think", not too much of the sales. Original LC-A film images where great.

Growing older they turned it to sales. Some lenses are success, some are junk. Russar and Jupiter-3 are totally awesome lenses. But re-incarnation of Minitar-1 from original LC-A was disaster on optical front. Looks like all of those lenses are with smearing in the large part of the frame. Something original LC-A was not. 

[Ko.Fe.]

Here is PP in Nick's Collection, no need for Lomo lenses. Taken with M8, M-E 220 and regular RF lenses:

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!

 

And here is darkroom print from paper negative taken with M-E 220.

 

[Aryel]

5 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Here is PP in Nick's Collection, no need for Lomo lenses. Taken with M8, M-E 220 and regular RF lenses:

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!

 

And here is darkroom print from paper negative taken with M-E 220.

 

I'd love to be able to get this look on some prints. These images are really great. Sorry for the newbee question, how did you capture these images? How did you make these prints?

Thanks a lot for sharing these.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ko.Fe.]

1 hour ago, Aryel said:

I'd love to be able to get this look on some prints. These images are really great. Sorry for the newbee question, how did you capture these images? How did you make these prints?

Thanks a lot for sharing these.

Third one is darkroom print from M-E 220 negative. Take image with digital camera, convert the image to the negative, print, use contact print in the darkroom. First two are just Nick's collection processing. 

[Aryel]

9 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Third one is darkroom print from M-E 220 negative. Take image with digital camera, convert the image to the negative, print, use contact print in the darkroom. First two are just Nick's collection processing. 

Thanks a lot. I really like the two images. I don't have a digital camera anymore. I guess the most difficult is to 'see' the scene. 

Thanks a lot