Low contrast M lenses

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 minutes ago, pgk said:

...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...

Yes. I should have mentioned that using a lenshood with older lenses (and most modern ones) is almost always an excellent idea and that there was no need for a hood to be used for the pics in my posts. Under different circumstances results would not be guaranteed to be quite as equal as the images here suggest...

Philip.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

Hard to find similar lenses in 50 years but contrast difference is obvious on those triplet lenses. Elmar 35/3.5 from 1948 and Tessar 35/3.5 from the nineties, both at f/3.5 on digital CL 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!

 

 

[BradS]

...but please do the same experiment at f/8

Edited June 16, 2021 by BradS

[lct]

2 minutes ago, BradS said:

...but please do the same experiment at f/8

All cats are grey at f/8 

[pippy]

7 minutes ago, BradS said:

...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...

...which brings us on to the hoary old subjects of 'The Weather' and 'Correct Exposure'............

I am reminded of a thread where Adan was discussing, here in the forum, the relative rendering of two lenses; one from the Mandler-era lens and the other a Karbe design. One of the points raised was that where Adan lives (Colorado IIRC) the Mandler design would be able to give him a beautiful, full range of tones whereas using the Karbe-era lens would invariably lead to blown-out whites and blocked-in blacks. This, it transpires, is due to the very wide dynamic-range of lighting conditions which he encounters on a regular basis. OTOH here in the UK we rarely have such extremes of light and shade so, usually, there is no difficulty in obtaining a similar range of tones from the more modern design.

Philip.

[pippy]

9 minutes ago, lct said:

Hard to find similar lenses in 50 years but contrast difference is obvious on those triplet lenses. Elmar 35/3.5 from 1948 and Tessar 35/3.5 from the nineties, both at f/3.5 on digital CL here...

Yes; there is an obvious difference but, of course, it also could be down to your Elmar having some slight haze. It is, after all, 73 years old......

Philip.

[BradS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 minutes ago, pippy said:

...which brings us on to the hoary old subjects of 'The Weather' and 'Correct Exposure'............

I am reminded of a thread where Adan was discussing, here in the forum, the relative rendering of two lenses; one from the Mandler-era lens and the other a Karbe design. One of the points raised was that where Adan lives (Colorado IIRC) the Mandler design would be able to give him a beautiful, full range of tones whereas using the Karbe-era lens would invariably lead to blown-out whites and blocked-in blacks. This, it transpires, is due to the very wide dynamic-range of lighting conditions which he encounters on a regular basis. OTOH here in the UK we rarely have such extremes of light and shade so, usually, there is no difficulty in obtaining a similar range of tones from the more modern design.

Philip.

 

Yes! Indeed, my situation here in California's Sierra Nevada mountains is much like that of Adan. Very harsh sunlight is normal. Add the effect of UV light at higher altitude and things can get quite challenging/frustrating.

Incidentally,  one of the interesting characteristics of the 5cm f/1.5 Summarit is that, when used without a filter, it seems to transmit a bit more UV light than most other modern (post WW2) lenses which can prove quite useful. Shadows are relatively "rich' in UV light and so the naked Summarit can be used to "see into the shadows" a bit.  I do not consider the Summarit to be "low contrast" (mine is free from haze and scratches) but this ability to see into the shadows makes it feel that way in some circumstances.

[BradS]

51 minutes ago, pgk said:

.... Its worth reading the Zeiss paper I linked to but its not easy bedtime reading!

 

I think I've read it before but will go over it again. Thanks.

[pgk]

50 minutes ago, BradS said:

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?)

No. Lower contrast means that the 'black level is nearer to the white level that in a high contrast lens - the lens images the same tonality as a high contrast lens but cannot translate the shadows (detail, tonality, whatever you want to call it - essentially tonal information in the shadows which reduces the detail seen in the shadows) as well as a high contrast lens. So there is less shadow detail available, exposure will change things but essentially there is a loss of tonality somewhere and regaining the lost shadow detail seen in an image from a high contrast lens will invlove increasing the exposure and blowing highlights.

If it was any other way all manufacturers would be happy to make make low contrast lenses and rely on software to interpret their files to allow for shadow and highlight to be retained and midtones to have their relative contrast boosted. But it doesn't work like that unfortunately, and a low contrast lens loses shadow detail/tonality. In essence they can only record a reduced dynamic range.

I should add that, as Pippy points out, the loss of tonality may well be small but it will be more noticable on subjects which rely on deep shadow detail to make the image work. I will see if I can dig out some 'extreme examples' to illustrate the point. There is always a lot of confusion over lenses and contrast. though but I would say that if low contrast lenses didn't have drawbacks then there would e no point in making high contrast ones. And of course you don't lose as much tonal information with high contrast lenses, that is why manufacturer's make them.

Edited June 16, 2021 by pgk

[pippy]

3 minutes ago, BradS said:

...one of the interesting characteristics of the 5cm f/1.5 Summarit is that, when used without a filter, it seems to transmit a bit more UV light than most other modern (post WW2) lenses which can prove quite useful. Shadows are relatively "rich' in UV light and so the naked Summarit can be used to "see into the shadows" a bit.  I do not consider the Summarit to be "low contrast" (mine is free from haze and scratches) but this ability to see into the shadows makes it feel that way in some circumstances.

That's an interesting point, Brad. I knew about the increased UV transmission wasn't aware that there is a greater amount of UV in the shadow areas. Every Day is a School Day! Thanks.

I do also wonder if using the Summarit on the Monochrom allows it to perform 'better' (in a more 'modern' manner?) than it would on a colour body due to the lack of the Bayer Filter / Array on the former?

Thoughts, anyone???

Philip.

 

[pgk]

1 minute ago, pippy said:

Thoughts, anyone???

All I can add is the the 35mm Summicone-M version 4 absorbs UV very effectively. I had one with separation of the rear section and had someone reglue it using a modern UV cured optical adhesive. A comment came back that it had required an intense amount of UV to cure the adhesive because UV transmission was so poor. Lenses vary!

[pippy]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

...Lower contrast means that the 'black level is nearer to the white level than in a high contrast lens - the lens images the same tonality as a high contrast lens but cannot translate the shadows (detail, tonality, whatever you want to call it - essentially tonal information in the shadows which reduces the detail seen in the shadows) as well as a high contrast lens. So there is less shadow detail available, exposure will change things but essentially there is a loss of tonality somewhere and regaining the lost shadow detail seen in an image from a high contrast lens will invlove increasing the exposure and blowing highlights...

Yup.

One of the problems with modern 'high-contrast' lens designs, of course, is a situation similar to that alluded to earlier (posts #45 and #47) where it would seem that the dynamic range capable of being captured by the camera's sensor (etc.) is unable to cope with by the dynamic-range of the scene to be snapped...

Philip.

[pgk]

6 minutes ago, pippy said:

Yup.

One of the problems with modern 'high-contrast' lens designs, of course, is a situation similar to that alluded to earlier (posts #45 and #47) where it would seem that the dynamic range capable of being captured by the camera's sensor (etc.) is unable to cope with by the dynamic-range of the scene to be snapped...

Philip.

The operative word being 'seem'.

[pippy]

13 minutes ago, pgk said:

The operative word being 'seem'.

I'll believe you. Personally I've never had a problem with any of my three Karbe-era lenses (assuming I've managed to use the TTL meter properly).............

Philip.

[BradS]

3 hours ago, pgk said:

No. Lower contrast means that the 'black level is nearer to the white level that in a high contrast lens - the lens images the same tonality as a high contrast lens but cannot translate the shadows (detail, tonality, whatever you want to call it - essentially tonal information in the shadows which reduces the detail seen in the shadows) as well as a high contrast lens. So there is less shadow detail available, exposure will change things but essentially there is a loss of tonality somewhere and regaining the lost shadow detail seen in an image from a high contrast lens will invlove increasing the exposure and blowing highlights.

If it was any other way all manufacturers would be happy to make make low contrast lenses and rely on software to interpret their files to allow for shadow and highlight to be retained and midtones to have their relative contrast boosted. But it doesn't work like that unfortunately, and a low contrast lens loses shadow detail/tonality. In essence they can only record a reduced dynamic range.

I should add that, as Pippy points out, the loss of tonality may well be small but it will be more noticable on subjects which rely on deep shadow detail to make the image work. I will see if I can dig out some 'extreme examples' to illustrate the point. There is always a lot of confusion over lenses and contrast. though but I would say that if low contrast lenses didn't have drawbacks then there would e no point in making high contrast ones. And of course you don't lose as much tonal information with high contrast lenses, that is why manufacturer's make them.

Detail in the shadows is entirely a function of exposure - light and camera settings, not lenses.

I wonder if you can post an example supporting your proposition because what you are saying seems to be exactly the opposite of what we actually see in real life.

Take the example images posted in this thread for instance. All of the examples of 'high contrast' posted in the thread exhibit blocked up shadows and blown high lights...and all of the examples of  'low contrast' posted  in this thread have details in the shadow areas.

Edited June 16, 2021 by BradS
to fix grammar

[pgk]

9 minutes ago, BradS said:

I wonder if you can post an example supporting your proposition .....

I will try to tomorrow.

[pgk]

OK, well, I hate to be inconclusive but .....

Three shots in hard sunlight from three lenses. The first is a Grubb Doublet from the mid-1860s (the aperture stop is forward of the lens and the pillbox design ensures that the only light entering the lens is through the aperture stop), the second is a Mountain Elmar from ~1932 (it flares heavily and you can tell because the contrast is lower and shadow differentiation is worst of the three as a result) and the last is from a 90mm f/2.5 Summarit. There is variation in the shadows but its not really as significant as might be anticipated. I've adjusted the files to bring up the shadow detail/tonality. Perhaps all this proves is that we worry too much about lens contrast and that a really good lens hood (the 1860s lens used a bellows hood whilst there was none on the Mountain Elmar and the supplied (excellent) hood on the Summarit. What surprised and rather disconcerted me was the image from the oldest lens😲. All are or would be pretty acceptable with more adjustments applied.

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!

Above is the 1860s Doublet

Next is the Mountain Elmar

And last is the f/2.5 Summarit.

Take what you will from this😉😄!

[pippy]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

...Perhaps all this proves is that we worry too much about lens contrast...

Yup. I couldn't agree more. As far as I'm concerned lens contrast really is a non-issue. Not even remotely.

There are many good reasons to choose one particular lens over another but IMX contrast isn't one of them.

Philip.

Edited June 17, 2021 by pippy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Gobert]

On 6/16/2021 at 11:20 AM, ianman said:

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!

Do we consider this lens as Low Contrast? Or is it something from a completely different league? 

[pippy]

2 minutes ago, Gobert said:

Do we consider this lens as Low Contrast? Or is it something from a completely different league? 

Whilst the Thambar, obviously, has a fairly unique 'signature' (and, clearly, the Thambar's rendering is unlike any other lens) one major factor which influenced the overall look of Ian's photograph is that the dynamic-range of the actual scene was itself - relatively speaking - quite low(*). Much like the pair of images in Arnaud's post much earlier in the thread (post #4) in fact.

The whole point of my snaps and those of PGK were that those images were created at the same time and with the same weather conditions / lighting therefore direct and meaningful comparisons between lenses can be made.

If Ian were to use the Thambar in an equatorial country at high-noon on the sunniest day of the year do you think the results would look similar to a photograph taken with diffused sunlight filtering through a copse of trees in the depths of a wood?

Philip.

(*) This is just guesswork, of course, as I wasn't there at the time............