Low contrast 35mm recommendations

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, KFo said:

In my view the lower contrast lens yields recoverable the darkest areas of an image without overexposure of the high lights.  That is: it compresses the tonal range and the bottom isn't as black.  

It doesn't. It cutails the tonal range. However, as I have stated before this can yield pleasant results but technically it loses information. If otherwise I'd like a precise technical explanation😉.

[Biotar]

Am 18.9.2023 um 12:07 schrieb costa43:

Therefore I'm after a low contrast, 0.7m or less option. Ideally f2 or faster to be used primarily on digital.

Hi Costa

What do you think about the Voigtländer 1.4/35 SC? I see it next to the Canon 2/35, especially in version I.

On which camera will you use it?

[lct]

Not to cut @costa43  off at the pass but the Nokton 35/1.4 SC v1 suffered from a lot of flare and focus shift when i was using one. The SC v2 is much improved from this view point. Having less flare, it is not as low contrast a lens as v1, but shadows are not crushed with it. M11 + CV 35/1.4 SC v2, f/8.

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!

 

[costa43]

2 hours ago, Biotar said:

Hi Costa

What do you think about the Voigtländer 1.4/35 SC? I see it next to the Canon 2/35, especially in version I.

On which camera will you use it?

Hi,

I considered it actually. I had the 40mm version in MC but my wife ‘stole’ it from me. I do not see that much of a similarity with the Canon personally but it’s all subjective . I actually find that lens to be pretty sharp and modern in its rendering but with more muted colours than you would find in modern lenses. I I own the m10r, m9m and m8u.

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by costa43

[hdmesa]

22 hours ago, Cronilux said:

...More contrast means less dynamic range...

Lens contrast ≠ image contrast.

22 hours ago, Cronilux said:

...It’s that simple. 

It's not, unfortunately. The word "contrast" means one thing when referring to photographic lens performance and another thing when referring to images.

Lens contrast can affect image contrast, but that does not mean they are the same thing. It would be like saying, intelligence = wisdom. Even though intelligence and wisdom are related and can affect each other, they are not the same thing. 

[hdmesa]

3 hours ago, lct said:

Not to cut @costa43  off at the pass but the Nokton 35/1.4 SC v1 suffered from a lot of flare and focus shift when i was using one. The SC v2 is much improved from this view point. Having less flare, it is not as low contrast a lens as v1, but shadows are not crushed with it. M11 + CV 35/1.4 SC v2, f/8.

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!

 

I hate to keep harping on this, but the v2 does not "crush the shadows" compared to the v1, you are doing that. You do this via exposure and post processing choices. The v2 with its higher lens contrast can reveal more detail across the entire tonal range compared to the v1. The v1 may appear to give more detail in the shadows with less work in post, but that is because it is in fact "crushing" other areas in the tonal range you deem to be less important.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

I hate to keep harping on this, but the v2 does not "crush the shadows" compared to the v1...

I said, or meant to say, the opposite.

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, lct said:

I said, or meant to say, the opposite.

Gotcha. English is a weird language in that if a subject and an associated phrase are separated in the middle by another subject, it becomes unclear as to which subject the later phrase refers to. This I would not be confused by:

Having less flare, the v2 is not as low contrast a lens as v1, and shadows are not crushed with the v2.

 

[lct]

2 hours ago, hdmesa said:

the v2 is not as low contrast a lens as v1, and shadows are not crushed with the v2.

Thank you Mr Professor 😉 this old prof says but i wanted to say "but" actually. Shadows are not crushed with v2 In spite of having more contrast than v1. Always glad to learn new to me things in English and/or photography anyway 😎

Edited November 26, 2023 by lct

[hdmesa]

2 hours ago, lct said:

...i wanted to say "but" actually. Shadows are not crushed with v2 In spite of having more contrast than v1...

Ah, then because you assume the reader may hold the common and incorrect view of lens contrast, "and" and "but" may become interchangeable with the addition of that context:

Having less flare, the v2 is not as low contrast a lens as v1, and despite what one might assume, shadows are not crushed with the v2.

2 hours ago, lct said:

Thank you Mr Professor 😉

🫡 Really this is just me saying what helps me understand. It may be useful or maybe not 🫣

[lct]

Being an "SC" (single coated) lens, one would assume it is a lower contrast lens than MC (multicoated) ones i guess. Both v1 and v2 of the Nokton 35/1.4 have SC variants though and when comparing them, the SC v2 shows more contrast than the SC v1. Nothing surprising i guess but what i find interesting is that shadows are not more crushed with the SC v2 than with a Summilux 35/1.4 v2, for instance, but with less flare than the latter, let alone more sharpness at full aperture but this is another story. Hope i made it clearer.

[hdmesa]

12 hours ago, lct said:

Being an "SC" (single coated) lens, one would assume it is a lower contrast lens than MC (multicoated) ones i guess. Both v1 and v2 of the Nokton 35/1.4 have SC variants though and when comparing them, the SC v2 shows more contrast than the SC v1. Nothing surprising i guess but what i find interesting is that shadows are not more crushed with the SC v2 than with a Summilux 35/1.4 v2, for instance, but with less flare than the latter, let alone more sharpness at full aperture but this is another story. Hope i made it clearer.

Lens contrast and its effect on image contrast is very complex, which is why we can't say high or low contrast in general will always equal a pleasing image. There are way too many variables as you're seeing. It's all about the detail frequencies at which contrast/resolution is best, and that varies more from lens to lens than one might assume.

[lct]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

Lens contrast and its effect on image contrast is very complex, which is why we can't say high or low contrast in general will always equal a pleasing image. There are way too many variables as you're seeing. It's all about the detail frequencies at which contrast/resolution is best, and that varies more from lens to lens than one might assume.

Not really my experience i must say. I never found that shadows are easier to recover with high contrast lenses in 20+ years of digital photography but i wonder if we discussed of this already, or perhaps it was with @pgk i don't remember, my apologies to both of you but you cannot convince me anyway and i hope you don't mind the least 😉

[hdmesa]

39 minutes ago, lct said:

Not really my experience i must say. I never found that shadows are easier to recover with high contrast lenses in 20+ years of digital photography but i wonder if we discussed of this already, or perhaps it was with @pgk i don't remember, my apologies to both of you but you cannot convince me anyway and i hope you don't mind the least 😉

We have discussed it. You're being fooled by veiling flare in lenses with lower contrast. Same effect as using a diffusion filter. Would you always use a diffusion filter to get more detail in your shadows? No. Same with low contrast lenses. Use them because you just like the look. If you need more detail in the shadows, use a high contrast lens and don't underexpose.

[lct]

15 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

[...] If you need more detail in the shadows, use a high contrast lens [...]

Thanks no thanks, seems like we will never agree on this but it does not matter of course this is only a discussion forum isn't it😎

Edited November 27, 2023 by lct

[hdmesa]

1 minute ago, lct said:

Thanks no thanks, seems like we won't never agree on this but it does not matter of course this is only a discussion forum isn't it😎

There is nearly unlimited shadow detail in a properly exposed image from the M11/M11M when taking a photograph in good light. You will lose tonal range with a low contrast lens, not gain it. Simply moving the "Black" slider to the right will emulate a low contrast lens. That's what a low contrast lens does is cut off the tonal range in the deepest blacks.

The only way you can block up or crush the shadows with the M11/M11M and a high contrast lens is to underexpose and/or not properly edit your image in post. Open up a few of your DNG files in RawDigger and see how much you are underexposing your images by.

35 Lux FLE II on the M11M – edited normally and edited to emulate a low contrast lens:

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!

 

There is nothing in the shadows hidden from the M11M in good light. I would never edit a photo this way, but I'm showing you there is nothing crushed in the shadows by using a high contrast lens. High lens contrast means more tonal range. Low lens contrast means fewer tones. Period. You continue to confuse lens contrast with image contrast.

 

[sinjun]

I can see both sides of the argument here. To take LCT's side, say you have a lens which has poorer transmission due to scattering by small inhomogeneities, particles or whatever in the glass. Whether this is Mie or Rayleigh scattering, some light will go straight back out and never reach the sensor. Some will be scattered forwards on a slightly deflected path which will reduce micro contrast. Some will be randomly scattered right across the frame, in extremis giving a veiling flare which swamps the signal - this most likely if the sun is out of the frame but hitting the front element.

Assuming we're not in veiling flare territory, the total light hitting the sensor will be lower than with a high-contrast lens, so the exposure time will be longer (assuming simple metering e.g. centre-weighted). This allows more useful light in on the darker parts of the image. So whilst the loss of contrast represents a loss of tonal information, and some of the extra photons in the shadow area will be effectively noise from the scattering, overall the useful part of the extra light could raise the shadow area sufficiently above the noise floor to make a difference in the signal it contains. I know hdmesa says there is nearly unlimited shadow detail in the M11, but that's not my experience with the cameras I've used, where trying to raise shadows can lead to noise equivalent to that seen at high ISO.

So maybe we could say that low contrast lenses have some use for cameras which don't have nearly unlimited detail held in the shadows.

[hdmesa]

5 minutes ago, sinjun said:

I can see both sides of the argument here. To take LCT's side, say you have a lens which has poorer transmission due to scattering by small inhomogeneities, particles or whatever in the glass. Whether this is Mie or Rayleigh scattering, some light will go straight back out and never reach the sensor. Some will be scattered forwards on a slightly deflected path which will reduce micro contrast. Some will be randomly scattered right across the frame, in extremis giving a veiling flare which swamps the signal - this most likely if the sun is out of the frame but hitting the front element.

Assuming we're not in veiling flare territory, the total light hitting the sensor will be lower than with a high-contrast lens, so the exposure time will be longer (assuming simple metering e.g. centre-weighted). This allows more useful light in on the darker parts of the image. So whilst the loss of contrast represents a loss of tonal information, and some of the extra photons in the shadow area will be effectively noise from the scattering, overall the useful part of the extra light could raise the shadow area sufficiently above the noise floor to make a difference in the signal it contains. I know hdmesa says there is nearly unlimited shadow detail in the M11, but that's not my experience with the cameras I've used, where trying to raise shadows can lead to noise equivalent to that seen at high ISO.

So maybe we could say that low contrast lenses have some use for cameras which don't have nearly unlimited detail held in the shadows.

I used the qualifier "in good light" when talking about the M11 shadows. In extremely low light, there are not enough photons dancing around to give nice shadows if you raise them too far (regardless of the lens used).

I agree with what you're saying, but you're essentially describing a JPEG-only shooting mindset whereby, "I can see more detail in the shadows without any work" becomes the standard by which they reverse-engineer their thinking. I've made the case that many low contrast lenses do help you get a certain look right from the start, but they do so at the expense of the overall available tones recorded. It's the last part of that sentence that many here simply cannot accept nor digest for some reason.

Edited November 27, 2023 by hdmesa
grammar

[sinjun]

7 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

you're essentially describing a JPEG-only shooting mindset

Well I always shoot raw and deal in 16 bit tiffs when adjusting before bouncing down to jpeg... but I can understand what you're saying when applied to someone with a high dynamic range, modern camera and a willingness to post-process. I'm not one who likes spending too much time fiddling with curves or sliders, and perhaps for people like me low contrast lenses can have their place. That said, I like a whole variety of lenses from modern, high contrast to gentler, lower contrast ones - they all have their place.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[hdmesa]

7 minutes ago, sinjun said:

Well I always shoot raw and deal in 16 bit tiffs when adjusting before bouncing down to jpeg... but I can understand what you're saying when applied to someone with a high dynamic range, modern camera and a willingness to post-process. I'm not one who likes spending too much time fiddling with curves or sliders, and perhaps for people like me low contrast lenses can have their place. That said, I like a whole variety of lenses from modern, high contrast to gentler, lower contrast ones - they all have their place.

Absolutely. Many well-regarded low contrast lenses distribute their tones/contrast in a more pleasing way than many high contrast lenses. These are very intangible things, but we know it (feel it?) when we see it – for example how the Leica 35mm 8-element renders tones compared to the 35mm ASPH variants. Some low contrast lenses yield more pleasing images because of the lens contrast limitations not in spite of them.