Lenses - sharpness, contrast, drawing

[Iron Flatline]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello.

 

I enjoy learning from everyone here, so I thought I'd initiate a conversation. I've been reading a lot about lenses, and we often hear that certain lenses are sharper than others, and that others are high in contrast.

 

My question is: does it matter as much anymore? In a time when many photographers are using their lenses to capture images digitally, and in a RAW format, aren't we able to have a lot more control over contrast, color, and (to a lesser degree) sharpness than we ever did with film?

 

Many camera companies don't even make film cameras anymore, and certainly have lenses exclusively for their digital series. With our Leica gear at least we know that the equipment will work as well with digital as with film - that is the company's intent, anyway. The new Summarits may fit the need of the current M8 user quite well, for instance, but should also work well on an M7. They might not be as good as a Summilux - but does it matter on a digital camera?

 

This is not intended as a film vs. digital conversation. I have nothing left to contribute to that debate. I'm genuinely interested in understanding if (or why) certain highly-praised lens characteristics should concern me.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

...we often hear that certain lenses are sharper than others, and that others are high in contrast. My question is: does it matter as much anymore?...

Unsharp mask does little to resolution and blown highlights are lost for ever so yes it still matters to me.

[frc]

The Lux is the more expensive lens because of the extra speed, keeping the quality up at such large aperture is a technical endeavour and this is felt in the purse.

The slower lenses are in no way a cheap line but only miss the speed, less glas surface, lesser price.

About the new f2.5 lenses. Well it says Leica, I'm curious, can't be bad.

And my lux and cron lenses may deliver painstakingly sharp images when used with a tripod, OK.

But I run all over the place with them, motion blurr, wrong focus, you name it, everything you'd expect a serious user of sharp lenses to do I don't.

So why? Lo light, no problem, ghost images, barely, flare, well, do your best to get that.

There are many other reasons that the sharpness to use M glass.

Again ( not to have, I already have these four focal lengths, only to know ) I'm curious about how the new Summarits perform.

[telyt]

My question is: does it matter as much anymore? In a time when many photographers are using their lenses to capture images digitally, and in a RAW format, aren't we able to have a lot more control over contrast, color, and (to a lesser degree) sharpness than we ever did with film?

 

Yes it still matters. Contrast, color saturation and micro-contrast can be "fixed" in post-processing to a much greater degree than with a silver halide process but only at a cost. Increasing micro-contrast as the unsharp mask does is not a substitute for image detail, and increasing tonal range and color saturation in post-processing is done at the cost of tonal gradation. It's still true that for the best results, do your best work at each step of the process and that includes how the lens renders the image.

[ddp]

it absolutely matters....good glass makes a difference, and in adverse conditions it could be the margin that gets you the shot in the end.

[Jamie Roberts]

I couldn't agree more with what Dan said... good glass makes a tremendous difference.

 

One of the things I love about Leica glass (R and M) is just how well it's corrected on the wide side.

 

Sharpness, colour and contrast characteristics--lower or higher--"in the shot" also make for more or less work in post, too, or for "different" kinds of work. Some lenses draw in a way that matches the subjects. I know some people I respect a lot that use certain kinds of lenses for black and white because of the way they draw.

 

At the extreme, I guess, if you're really good with Photoshop you can make a reasonable pass at creating kind of believable "out of focus" blurred areas. But I'm not sure you could reproduce in any way the look and impact of a Nocti at wide apertures, or the contrast characteristics of my old "thin" 90 Elmarit (which I love by the way--even if it flares with almost any directional light )

 

So yes, I think glass quality matters a lot.

 

As far as detail and sharpness goes, Doug is right: perceived sharpness and contrast doesn't make up for detail.

 

I don't know if we're at anything like the resolving power of Leica's best glass yet at the sensor level. So I'm all for improvements there till we truly have what the glass is capable of capturing.

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I got some Nikon primes. They are junk in comparison to Leica. They all go soft in the corners and have hugh amounts of distortion.

[lct]

I got some Nikon primes. They are junk in comparison to Leica...

Most Leica's are better (at a price) but Nikkor primes are certainly not 'junk'. Even the cheapest 50/1.8 is one of the sharpest 50 ever made. Now to get sharpness + pleasant bokeh is not that simple at Nikon's. But all the aspherical Leicas are not so smooth either. You should try little gems like Nikkors 28/2, 45/2.8, 105/2.5, 135/2 or 180/2.8 if you want to know how good some affordable lenses can be.

[lct]

...They all go soft in the corners and have hugh amounts of distortion.

What Nikon primes do you refer to?

[Guest rubidium]

Interesting topic - ripe for both artistic/creative arguments as well as technical ones.

 

From a scientific perspective, the light arriving in the image plane at each grain of film, or each pixel in a digital sensor, has amplitude and phase at any instant in time. Digital sensors have one important thing in common with film - the response that is recorded is an integrated response over the course of the exposure period, and thus proportional to the average amplitude throughout the exposure. Phase information is lost. What that means is no amount of processing can TRUELY make up for lack of assorted corrections in the optical path. As the other gentlemen have noted, image processing creates perceived improvements to image quality and not actual ones in the pure technical sense.

 

For example, if I intentionally capture an out-of-focus object, no amount of processing could ever truly recover the focus in comparison to having properly adjusted the lens to achieve focus in the first place. Rather, sharpness processing - which is essentially some form of high-pass filtering - can provide the perception of a focus improvement, but at some cost: loss of detail. Any post-image-capture filtering is essentially a process that "selectively throws out information," and accordingly results in a loss of some kind. The significance of the loss in the context of the perceived improvement achieved by the filtering is, of course, in the eye of the beholder.

 

In my opinion, there's no substitute for the using highest quality optics that can be achieved and/or afforded.

Jim

[symmetron]

Since this past Spring, I've been using some higher end Nikon zooms, 17-55 and 70-200 both f/2.8 lenses, on D200 bodies. As a Leica user (both R & M) since 1980, I have to tell you that I am very impressed with these optics. They're very fast, sharp and made well. Now, I still believe that my Leicas capture better images, but that's primarily because I'm using film.

 

One thing I noticed about the Nikon stuff is that it bangs up pretty easily (scratches and scuffs) relative to my Leicas even after using the Leicas some 20 years or so. However, there are things I can do with the Nikons that is just too hard or impractical with the Leicas (such as any action sequence).

 

With the Leicas you have yo steal the moment as it passes by. With the Nikons. you have a chance to keep up and then chose your moment. Too philosophical.... Where the hell is the digital R system???

[usefeet]

The quality I looked at in choosing Leica lenses is that they are optimized at the wider apertures, unlike others lenses such as Zeiss.

 

I often like to capture images at the wide open aperture, so Summilux and Summicron for me!