Low contrast M lenses

[stefanusj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, pedaes said:

Often enhanced by haze. I think we should answer the key question posed by @pgkbefore further comment.

lowering haze slider didn't give the same results. i used to have elmarit 28 asph v2, and used it for a couple of months, and try to post processing it after i took the shots in Lightroom... But after using the summicron 28 and try my friend's summilux 28, i really get the render that i really like. The picture's contrast makes me feel the 3D render of the object. But all this is just my amateur opinion... thank you.

[Advertisement]

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

[stefanusj]

17 hours ago, wizard said:

The Summicron 28 asph version 2 is one of Leica's current lineup of lenses, and none of the current Leica lenses (with the possible exception of the new classic retro lenses like Summaron 5.6/28 etc.) is a low contrast lens by any means. Some of the latest Leica lenses may have higher contrast than the Summicron 28 asph, but that does not mean that the Summicron is a low contrast lens.

For truly low contrast lenses you will have to look at the older Leitz lenses like for example the Summarit 1.5/50, and generally all lenses designed before, say, 1950.

I used to have a very mint Summarit 50 with modded M mount thread. I agree it is a very low contrast lens and very hazy lens also. It is too hazy for my liking, and different than other Leica lens. The "classic" lens that i still has iis Rigid Cron 50 v2, but i considered it as a contrasty lens. Thanks for the comments, wizard.

[adan]

23 hours ago, pgk said:

Please define what is meant by 'contrast' then re-ask the question. Few seem to understand what 'contrast' actually is so discussing the merits of lenses based on an undefined characteristic is only going to lead to arguments. 

Contrast is what changes when you switch from grade 1 to grade 5 paper (or Polycontrast/Multigrade filters) in the darkroom.

...or as one instructor illustrated it, what happened when you twirled the "Contrast" dial on an old CRT TV set.

Or if one develops film to a higher or lower contrast (longer or shorter development times).

Or if one chose Kodalith film over Verichrome Pan, or vice versa.

Or what one controls with the Contrast, Curves, Black/White clipping sliders, and histograms in digital processing.

That usage has priority in photography. It came first.

If one wants to talk about fine detail separation with lenses, the correct terms are "edge-contrast," "point-spread function," OTF/MTF," "Airy function," or "acutance."

Which are analogous to "USM" or other sharpening controls in digital processing.

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!

[pgk]

6 hours ago, stefanusj said:

low contrast = low highlight, high shadows, or more controlled black/dark. thanks

Low contrast suggests a loss of tonality. There will be less tonal data to play with (on either film or digital) which is why I would be very surprised if any (other than the 'retro') modern lenses from Leica would exhibit low contrast.

[pedaes]

14 minutes ago, pgk said:

other than the 'retro'

I only have the 28mm Summaron, but would not think of it as low contrast.

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!

[ianman]

Perhaps Paul meant the other retro lens.

MP - Thambar - HP5

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!

[pedaes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 minutes ago, ianman said:

Thambar

Yes indeed - proper Retro! It does produce some stunning images (as above) that could not be replicated from an 'ordinary' lens in either the darkroom or Lightroom. Still saving up!

[ianman]

I think steam trains would be a interesting subject. If I can get over before you've saved up, I can lend it to you to try out first.

[pgk]

49 minutes ago, pedaes said:

I only have the 28mm Summaron, but would not think of it as low contrast.

I haven't read up on it, but have they applied modern coatings? I suspect that many older desgns would benefit gugely from coatings and that their inherent designs are by no means bad but are let down by internal reflections (and use and ageing). We've actually had surprisingly good lenses for quite a long time.

[pedaes]

52 minutes ago, pgk said:

have they applied modern coatings?

Yes, they have. As you say, probably makes a significant difference. Interesting that Voigtlander are offering option of Single or Multi-coatings on some of their recent releases.

[pedaes]

1 hour ago, ianman said:

over before you've saved up

I think, and hope, you will be over first. That would be great, thanks!

[pippy]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

Low contrast suggests a loss of tonality. There will be less tonal data to play with (on either film or digital) which is why I would be very surprised if any (other than the 'retro') modern lenses from Leica would exhibit low contrast.

Agreed.

Just for a giggle here's a little experiment I carried out just now whilst I had my late-morning cuppa. All images were snapped on an M Monochrom using one from a selection of half a dozen 50mm lenses. All images were snapped in as rapid a succession as I could manage and all frames were exposed at 1/1000 f8 @ ISO 320. All images are, conversion from DNG apart, SOOC.

Would anyone like to guess which was taken on;

A 1935 Elmar f3.5; a 1952 Canon (Serenar-style) f1.8; a 1953 Summarit (M) f1.5; a 1961 Elmar (M) f2.8; a 1985 Summicron; a 2016 7Artisans f1.1?

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!

Philip.

Edited June 16, 2021 by pippy

[pedaes]

1 hour ago, pippy said:

Would anyone like to guess which was taken on;

No!

I have done similar exercise with 50mm Elmars and collapsible Summitar and couldn't clearly tell against 50 APO! On a monitor of course!

Edited June 16, 2021 by pedaes

[pgk]

1 hour ago, pippy said:

Would anyone like to guess which was taken on .....?

No. My experience suggests that a low contrast lens will result in loss of shadow detail as exposure is made for this highlights for digital sensors. This is because of various factors including lens design, coatings (or lack of) internal baffling/blackening of element edges, efficiency of lens hood, etc. or to put it another way, design and flare levels. Adjustments can often mask this when seen as 8-bit sRGB output via the web. So only really low contrast lenses show significant degradation which is obvious when viewed in this way. Most other 'low contrast' can be mimicked using software. A modern high contrast lens porly used and allowing significant veiling flare can produce an image of lower contrast than an older lens used carefully, although the tonality can appear to be slightly different. Theses are my observations from experimenting with an array of lenses.

FWIW I see two pivotal points in photographic lenses. The first was the advent of more glass types (initially from Jena) in the late nineteenth century which enabled greater design flexibility, and the second was the introduction of coating after the second world war. And that said, with care some earlier lenses can be coaxed into producing surprisingly good images, although they will always lack the tonal breadth available from modern designs and microcontrast can be a problem.

[pippy]

37 minutes ago, pgk said:

No. My experience suggests that a low contrast lens will result in loss of shadow detail as exposure is made for this highlights for digital sensors. This is because of various factors including lens design, coatings (or lack of) internal baffling/blackening of element edges, efficiency of lens hood, etc. or to put it another way, design and flare levels. Adjustments can often mask this when seen as 8-bit sRGB output via the web. So only really low contrast lenses show significant degradation which is obvious when viewed in this way. Most other 'low contrast' can be mimicked using software. A modern high contrast lens porly used and allowing significant veiling flare can produce an image of lower contrast than an older lens used carefully, although the tonality can appear to be slightly different. Theses are my observations from experimenting with an array of lenses.

FWIW I see two pivotal points in photographic lenses. The first was the advent of more glass types (initially from Jena) in the late nineteenth century which enabled greater design flexibility, and the second was the introduction of coating after the second world war. And that said, with care some earlier lenses can be coaxed into producing surprisingly good images, although they will always lack the tonal breadth available from modern designs and microcontrast can be a problem.

Excellent post. Thank you for taking the time to write it.

There are a number of points you raise which I would love to discuss but keeping to the absolute basics;

Of the 6 lenses used above only one - the '35 Elmar - has no coating(s) but how easy is it to tell which of the above snaps was taken with it? No lenshood was used on any lens.

There are, of course, differences between the images - it would be hard to believe that a Summicron performs in the same manner as the Elmar - but the so-called 'Low-Contrast' lenses aren't all that different even in comparison to the pre-ASPH Summicron. Can anyone tell which was taken on the much maligned Summarit and which was taken on the Summicron?  A 1930 optical-design from a lens whose own optical-design was still in use in 2013?

Let's make it even easier by showing higher-magnification centre-crop snaps from the above images. Again the same rules apply; no adjustments barring DNG conversion. These are SOOC.

So; which crops were taken with the low-contrast lenses and just how difficult would it be to make all six images look the same (double-click to enlarge)?

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!

Philip.

Edited June 16, 2021 by pippy

[BradS]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

My experience suggests that a low contrast lens will result in loss of shadow detail as exposure is made for this highlights for digital sensors....

My experience is exactly the opposite but, I've never used a digital camera. The whole point of low contrast is that there is a smaller range of tones.  Low contrast makes it quite a bit easier to have more shadow detail without blowing out the highlights. I think your experience is all predicated on the computer in the camera determining exposure. If exposure is properly placed, then low contrast allows and generally speaking results in more detail in the shadows - not less.

 

I offer this photo as an example. This photo was taken on a bright,  cloudless, sunny afternoon.  Two sides of the shed face the camera - one is in full sun and the other is in shadow - and the roof is made of highly reflective sheet metel.   Detail is retained in the shadows area on the near side of the shed while the highlight areas are not blown out.

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!

Edited June 16, 2021 by BradS
to add example photo with explanation

[BradS]

3 hours ago, pippy said:

Agreed.

Just for a giggle here's a little experiment I carried out just now whilst I had my late-morning cuppa. All images were snapped on an M Monochrom using one from a selection of half a dozen 50mm lenses. All images were snapped in as rapid a succession as I could manage and all frames were exposed at 1/1000 f8 @ ISO 320. All images are, conversion from DNG apart, SOOC.

Would anyone like to guess which was taken on;

A 1935 Elmar f3.5; a 1952 Canon (Serenar-style) f1.8; a 1953 Summarit (M) f1.5; a 1961 Elmar (M) f2.8; a 1985 Summicron; a 2016 7Artisans f1.1?

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!

Philip.

 

Thank you for doing this. You have beautifully demonstrated that the lens matters very little compared to (in this case) lighting conditions.

Edited June 16, 2021 by BradS

[pgk]

56 minutes ago, BradS said:

My experience is exactly the opposite but, I've never used a digital camera. The whole point of low contrast is that there is a smaller range of tones.  Low contrast makes it quite a bit easier to have more shadow detail without blowing out the highlights.

Yes, low contrast lowers the tonal range, but if you think about it, by minimising blow out then the shadow tonality must be lower. You would need to do a direct comparison between a high and low contrast lens to see the differences exactly and my experience is that most relatively modern lenses are pretty good but veiling flare especially can reduces shadow tonality on poorer/older lenses. Very old lenses struggle unless very well hooded (I use cardboard tubing and more!) and often show very little shadow tonality at all. Its worth reading the Zeiss paper I linked to but its not easy bedtime reading!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pippy]

1 hour ago, BradS said:

Thank you for doing this. You have beautifully demonstrated that the lens matters very little compared to lighting conditions.

One point I wished to make was that practically any one particular lens - whether Vintage or Modern - can be difficult to discern from any other lens when used in the same conditions and circumstances but I also accept that other matters might come into play were those conditions and circumstances to change.

Not picking on the OP at all - others have expressed very similar views over the years - but in post #22 he wrote;

"I used to have a very mint Summarit 50 with modded M mount thread. I agree it is a very low contrast lens and very hazy lens also. It is too hazy for my liking..."...

So - and this is thrown open for anyone to answer - which image-pair was shot on this 'low-contrast, very hazy lens'?

Additional information? Checking out the shadow/highlight readings of each image in Ps confirms that all 6 lenses cover a similar range of absolute tones captured. The readings were taken from the full-size files and the areas used for the readings were the boxy, white roof extension (highlight) and the chimney-stack to its left as we look at the image (0 = no tone pure black / 255  = no tone pure white).

Using the second set of images as a guide and going top-l / top-r / centre-l / centre-r / lower-l / lower-r we get;

238 / 37 (a difference of 201) : 238 / 31 (207) : 236 / 33 (203) / 235 / 35 (200) : 238 / 31 (207) : 237 / 35 (202).

From these results we can see that there is a dynamic-range variation of a mere 3.5% within the whole group...and remember that these numbers are sooc. To get them all to look identical (for all intents and purposes) would take a mere second or two per image.

There are any number of reasons for choosing any particular style of lens but, IMX, there is no such thing as an inherently "Low-contrast" Leica lens as long as the optical cell is clean.

Philip.

Edited June 16, 2021 by pippy

[BradS]

17 minutes ago, pgk said:

Yes, low contrast lowers the tonal range, but if you think about it, by minimising blow out then the shadow tonality must be lower.....

Hmmm...what do you mean by "shadow tonality" ? 

Low contrast means, by definition, a smaller range of tones. Being smaller makes it easier to "fit them all in". Thus, if exposure is properly placed, it is possible to get detail in both shadows and highlights.

(I'm talking about shadow detail and you're talking about shadow tonality - maybe we're agreeing but talking past each other?)

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by BradS
to add parenthetical remark.