How do older vs modern Leica Lens designs behave in low light / high iso ?

[didier]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear all

I sometimes feel that the most recent designs (for example the M APO-50), with their amazing clarity and clean pictures, get me to better results than older ones (Elmar 50; Summicron 50 Collapsible or Rigid) when facing poor light and high iso. I don’t have that impression in other situations, where each lens has its advantages and signature. In high contrat situations I even much prefer the Summicron Rigid to it newer cousins.

Thanks for your comments !

Didier

[Biotar]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb didier:

In high contrat situations I even much prefer the Summicron Rigid to it newer cousins.

Of course the old low contrast lenses can handle high contrast situations better, apart from flares and ghostings.

[wda]

Better results is a very subjective assessment. Clinical sharpness can sometimes be harsh when used for some classes of portraiture. Plenty has been written about the magic of the Mandler glow, which is characterized by many older lenses, bearing similar names. It is a question of choosing the versions most suited for your main interests.

[UliWer]

Low light = low contrast.

Old lens = lower contrast.

Low contrast + lower contrast = 🙁

Bright light = high contrast

New lens = higher contrast

High contrast + higher contrast = 😒

Though in both cases your raw converter has some tools to increase or decrease contrast. One can use them with diligence. 

[lct]

Low contrast pics are easier to tweak in PP but flare produced by lenses like Summicron 50/2 v1 or v2 can be difficult to correct then. Unless you like such flare, better choose a modern lens to shoot into the light but you'll have to push exposure in PP to reduce harsh shadows then and this will cause banding and/or digital noise if you don't have a modern sensor. Not sure that answers your question...

[Ecar]

8 hours ago, UliWer said:

Low light = low contrast.

Old lens = lower contrast.

Low contrast + lower contrast = 🙁

Bright light = high contrast

New lens = higher contrast

High contrast + higher contrast = 😒

Though in both cases your raw converter has some tools to increase or decrease contrast. One can use them with diligence. 

What UliWer says.

Also, bear in mind that the widest aperture were often a bit of an optical stretch on many older designs. By using old lenses wide open (to lower the ISO or increase the shutter speed) you may introduce additional degradation in your images, which results you may or may not like.

[didier]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks all for your comments.

I wonder if it is only about low contrast vs high contrast… the special clarity / cleanliness the APO-50 brings is maybe also a factor in poor light / higher noise ?

[a.noctilux]

In my own experiences, I have some observations (not universal of course, only with lenses that I really use for a short/long time):

- old lenses may have more resolution, less contrast and it's the balancing of contrast/resolution that must be learned to use at best

( so each aperture on each lens needs to be 'learned to know' )

- asph. newer lenses tend to be 'difficult' (for me ...) to master or to learn, so 'boring perfection' may be/become boringly 'perfect'

but the good thing it's easy to use for difficult lighting with better flare control/more contrast/etc.

- film or sensor may have some inter-actions with the lens in use ( film when own processing can be adapted to have lower/higher contrast can handle well

contrasting light with same lens, for me better than Leica M sensors then tweeking in post)

[giannis]

22 hours ago, didier said:

when facing poor light and high iso

Just brainstorming here, but this might be that because "poor light high iso" usually involves harsh, contrasty light from point sources (street lamps etc.). In this case, coatings are of paramount importance, and some veiling flare from older un-/single coated lenses can ruin the contrast and low light detail of an image.

[a.noctilux]

I don't know if 400 ISO is now considered high (for me at those days yes), but served by the nice Noctilux 1.0, or Summilux of the day, I think that I could not need

'better lens' when I took these pics, scarse light, nearly dark but the full moon shined

 

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!

 

M9, 400 ISO (2012)

[a.noctilux]

Another 'interpretation'

(a bit more work, but hardly 'better' )

 

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!

same date as above

[evikne]

On 7/17/2021 at 8:37 PM, didier said:

I sometimes feel that the most recent designs (for example the M APO-50), with their amazing clarity and clean pictures, get me to better results than older ones (Elmar 50; Summicron 50 Collapsible or Rigid) when facing poor light and high iso. I don’t have that impression in other situations, where each lens has its advantages and signature. In high contrat situations I even much prefer the Summicron Rigid to it newer cousins.

This is why I have two sets of lenses, both modern and classic. I usually use the classic lenses outdoors in good light and modern lenses indoors or in challenging light conditions.

The hardest part is often choosing the right lens in advance. Sometimes I regret not taking another lens.

[didier]

20 hours ago, evikne said:

This is why I have two sets of lenses, both modern and classic. I usually use the classic lenses outdoors in good light and modern lenses indoors or in challenging light conditions.

The hardest part is often choosing the right lens in advance. Sometimes I regret not taking another lens.

Thanks @evikne 

I fully agree with you ! That is exactly the conclusion to which I came as far as using different lenses in different light conditions.

One more reason for GAS      … as I have a lot of modern Lenses but just inherited some older ones.

 

 

 

[Ecar]

8 hours ago, didier said:

One more reason for GAS      … as I have a lot of modern Lenses but just inherited some older ones.

Careful. It's a very slippery slope...😁

[a.noctilux]

On 7/20/2021 at 7:53 AM, didier said:

  … as I have a lot of modern Lenses but just inherited some older ones.

 

 

 

Older ones may be more 'precious' to try out as depending on their states, 'golden heritage' and/or sending for remake/repair if need be.

[adan]

Not all low light is low-contrast light.When there are light sources in the picture, or lighting that produces patches of extra brightness within the scene. Cityscapes, sports/concert/theater venues, interiors with small windows (windows themselves are bright, but don't illuminate the interior well - or produce only sun patches).

At least where I photograph.

Relative illuminance is what counts: a dark place with relative brightnesses of 1-20 has more contrast (1:20) than a bright scene with brightnesses of 250-2500 (1:10).

However, that kind of low-lighting can produce the most dramatic pictures.

A blind boy who would "feel" for the sun patches every day (Charles Harbutt, 1961): https://www.moma.org/collection/works/45146

Girls lit by smartphone - dark ballroom. 35mm Summilux ASPH non-FLE, M9. Technically, I would call the 35 Summilux ASPH a relatively moderate-contrast (but reasonably sharp) lens - at f/1.4. Just not as low-contrast as the pre-ASPH at f/1.4.

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!

A key point in both those pictures is - DON'T try for "full dynamic range" in low light and higher ISOs. Accept the drama of pure-black shadows, out of which the important things rise as grays and whites (chiaroscuro) - a tool for reaching viewers. Remember that good photography is a subtractive process - context is good, but it should be subdued compared to the main content. When everything in the picture is "equally important" - then nothing is important.

It not only focuses attention on the subject, but also increases the "3D" effect (shadows and highlights within the most important area of the picture).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiaroscuro

After 40 years pushing Tri-X to 3200 when required, I'm comfortable with that "chalk-and-charcoal" look. Just arrange the picture in the viewfinder, and with timing, to make the main subject stand out from everything else in the scene.

A lens with moderate global contrast but high edge-contrast (MTF) and resolution is a plus - it avoids having to sharpen the image in post (which usually results in a sea of "noise dandruff".) Post-process to darken the shadows (and their noise) rather than try to rescue them.

Remember that wide-angle lenses will appear to have higher contrast - simply because they take in more of a scene and thus will often include a wider range of subject brightnesses (bright spots over here, and dark gloom over there). Cropping tight with a longer lens will tend to include only a more limited set of tones (but not always, of course).