Low contrast 35mm recommendations

[Alberti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I tried a ZM 35mm F2.8, but the CA drove me crazy. High contrast, high definition, nice colours. Other modern ZM's had the same result. So 'old' and proven is my way. I am thus afraid of the newer Noktons and Zobels. 

Too bad the Canon 35mm F2.8 or F2 falls beyond the requirement of 'closer than 1 meter' - it would fit the bill in rendering as you noted. I like the colour palette of my Canon 35/2.8. It has a very slight yellow cast, warmer and especially darker skin tones look beautiful on my M240. The 2.8 stays sharp on the M10-R.

My 40mm M-Rokkor is very nice, but . . . 80 cm. It is very detailed but not the highest contrast. Suits my modern M10-R sensor well. 

Would a 35mm Summicron v3 or 4 would well fit your concept? Different tonality than V1 - I often reach for the V4 instead of the V1, for its rendering. 

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

9 hours ago, lct said:

Shadows can be too dark with high contrast lenses and pushing exposure increases digital noise in PP. Now when contrast is too low, there can be veiling flare indeed so better have lenses with moderate contrast from this viewpoint.

I assume that you mean that blacks can be black and not grey? Flare simply reduces tonal discrimination, especially in the shadows.

5 hours ago, hdmesa said:

From what I understand, lens contrast is not like image contrast. A high contrast lens transmits a wider range of tones than a low contrast lens does. But this doesn't diminish the unique rendering of low contrast lenses:

I suspect that trying to mimic the effects of veiling flare are quite tricky in post processing but hey should be possible with enough effort. That said the mix of tonal discrimination over resolution (MTF) may well provide a unique look which is simpler to produce optically than in post.

4 hours ago, lct said:

The way i understand it, a high contrast lens is a lens producing high contrast images but i have nothing against other definitions.

But this isn't a definition! A high contrast lens simply provides greater tonal data for a given scene because flare is minimal and tonality is not polluted by veiling flare which will both limit shadow (and other tonal) detail and curtail resoultion to a marginal extent too, as the MTF falls off slighty more at higher resolutions.

Lens contrast is one of those topics which consistently crops up but is little understood because it few analyse exactly what it is.

For clarity, lenses simply produce an image of the scene in front of them. The contrast of that scene cannot change so the optics can theoretically, at best, reproduce the scene with identical contrast. Introduce optical factors such as aberrations and flare and the contrast of the scene will shift and since it cannot increase in contrast it must decrease and tonal/resolution data will be lost as a result. Flare will allow stray, unwanted light to 'pollute' tonality throughout the image but most obviously in the areas where it is most noticable; shadows (which become greyer) and highlights (which burn out easier). Add in other optical problems and the overall result with be slightly shifted tonality and resoution. For some this can be a benefit of using older lenses as results can have a distinctive 'signature' (I include myself). But it is important to appreciate what is going on so that it is possible to take best advantage of the effects. Using a low contrast lens and then adjusting the blacks can give an impression of tonal seperation in the shadows but this is really anomalous as that seperation is marginally 'blockier than it would be from a high contrast lens. Even so it can be visually pleasant.

[costa43]

1 hour ago, Pyrogallol said:

Buy a 35mm Summaron from the 1950’s, f3.5 or f2.8 sharp enough but not over contrasty and if it has got some haze then the contrast will be lower. Most of the time I am using older lenses and when I do use a modern lens the contrast and brightness is noticeably higher, making b&w darkroom prints. If you are only using a digital camera you can make adjustments later and then if you only view the results on a computer monitor you won’t see the subtle differences you would in a darkroom print.

If you are looking for an f2 lens for your Canon screw camera then Canon made a 35mm f2 lens, focussing to 1 metre.

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!

Thanks, I already own this lens. It's a really good optic and I've taken some of my favourite pictures with it but I find the 1 metre minimum focus too restricting with 35mm for it to be my only lens at this focal length. 

[costa43]

1 hour ago, Alberti said:

I tried a ZM 35mm F2.8, but the CA drove me crazy. High contrast, high definition, nice colours. Other modern ZM's had the same result. So 'old' and proven is my way. I am thus afraid of the newer Noktons and Zobels. 

Too bad the Canon 35mm F2.8 or F2 falls beyond the requirement of 'closer than 1 meter' - it would fit the bill in rendering as you noted. I like the colour palette of my Canon 35/2.8. It has a very slight yellow cast, warmer and especially darker skin tones look beautiful on my M240. The 2.8 stays sharp on the M10-R.

My 40mm M-Rokkor is very nice, but . . . 80 cm. It is very detailed but not the highest contrast. Suits my modern M10-R sensor well. 

Would a 35mm Summicron v3 or 4 would well fit your concept? Different tonality than V1 - I often reach for the V4 instead of the V1, for its rendering. 

I like very much how the v3 Summicron renders looking at samples on Flickr and although it is on the contrasty side, It is one I am still considering. An underrated lens in the Leica line up.  I also have an m10r and the Canon is lovely on it but I also have a young daughter and those extra 30cms make a difference for me, especially for family pics. 

[lct]

59 minutes ago, pgk said:

[...] Flare will allow stray, unwanted light to 'pollute' tonality throughout the image but most obviously in the areas where it is most noticable; shadows (which become greyer) and highlights (which burn out easier) [...]

The issue i was referring to is not flare, highlights or shadows becoming greyer, but shadows becoming black with high contrast lenses, so that they can be more difficult to recover in PP. With lower contrast lenses (in the sense of lenses producing images with less contrast, if a definition is needed), shadows stay grey and details they contain are easier to recover in PP. For sake of illustration, i feel harder to recover shadows on the first pic below (Ultron 28/2 asph), than on the second one (Nokton 35/1.4 SC v2) or the third one too (Rokkor 28/2.8). All shot at f/8 with M11.

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]

59 minutes ago, lct said:

The issue i was referring to is not flare, highlights or shadows becoming greyer, but shadows becoming black with high contrast lenses, so that they can be more difficult to recover in PP. With lower contrast lenses (in the sense of lenses producing images with less contrast, if a definition is needed), shadows stay grey and details they contain are easier to recover in PP.

The overall tonal range produced in an image from a high contrast lens is greater. The black point (or point at which there is no longer any tonal discrimination) will be further away from the opposite end of the tonal scale. Whilst the tonality produced in the shadows by a low contrast lens may appear to be easier to 'recover' this is because there is less of it and you are expanding the increments more and redefining the black point. But unwanted light 'pollutes' the tonal range so you may well find that tinkering with the shadows from a high contarast image from a high contrast lens gives a different result overall from one from a low contrast lens. As I said before the results from low contrast lenses can be very pleasing but that does not mean that a high contrast lens does not supply more tonal information because it does.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

40 minutes ago, pgk said:

[...] As I said before the results from low contrast lenses can be very pleasing but that does not mean that a high contrast lens does not supply more tonal information because it does.

In theory i don't know but in practice, i never found that shadows are easier to recover with high contrast lenses in 20+ years of digital photography. YMMV.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, lct said:

In theory i don't know but in practice, i never found that shadows are easier to recover with high contrast lenses in 20+ years of digital photography. YMMV.

So why do manufacturer's bother with complex designs and multi-coating on lenses if there is no apparent benefit in the shadows?

[wizard]

vor 12 Minuten schrieb pgk:

So why do manufacturer's bother with complex designs and multi-coating on lenses

 

vor 2 Stunden schrieb lct:

In theory i don't know but in practice

That's interesting, I fully agree with what pgk has explained and believe that what he says is correct. On the other hand, my personal experience is the same as lct's, and that experience seems to contradict pgk's statements. As of yet, I have no technical explanation that could bring these diverging views together.

[pgk]

2 hours ago, wizard said:

 

That's interesting, I fully agree with what pgk has explained and believe that what he says is correct. On the other hand, my personal experience is the same as lct's, and that experience seems to contradict pgk's statements. As of yet, I have no technical explanation that could bring these diverging views together.

It may well be easier to see slightly 'abrupt' shifts in tonality in 'blockier' shadows than shadows which contain more tonality, when you expand these to lift them and at the same time adjust the black point downwards. Doing so with an image from a low contrat lens may well leave the overall tonality still looking pleasing. We obsess over lenses but I have some results from early photographic lenses which are surprisingly good.

[hdmesa]

4 hours ago, lct said:

In theory i don't know but in practice, i never found that shadows are easier to recover with high contrast lenses in 20+ years of digital photography. YMMV.

It’s possible you’re experiencing the effects of limited sensor DR combined with underexposure combined with a personal preference for tones further to the right of pure black. You may prefer an image that expresses its tones from say 85% grey to 5% grey versus full black to full white. And many low contrast lenses do help discriminate tones in unique tonal ranges that you likely find pleasing, as do others. Just don’t confuse that with thinking you get more DR in your final image from using an old lens.

Edited September 19, 2023 by hdmesa

[lct]

3 hours ago, pgk said:

So why do manufacturer's bother with complex designs and multi-coating on lenses if there is no apparent benefit in the shadows?

To avoid flare? There are other reasons i guess but i'm no lens maker. Now experience, at least mine, shows that there is a price to pay i.e. a tendency to crush shadows. All my high contrast lenses have that same issue more or less. Reason why, among others, i keep lower contrast lenses like Nokton and Rokkor i shot my snaps above with. As to know if contrast is low enough, for this purpose or otherwise, it is a matter of taste and skills in PP.

[hdmesa]

6 hours ago, lct said:

...Now experience, at least mine, shows that there is a price to pay i.e. a tendency to crush shadows. All my high contrast lenses have that same issue more or less...

Correlation does not imply causation.

High contrast lenses do not crush shadows, photographers do.

Edited September 20, 2023 by hdmesa

[lct]

6 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Correlation does not imply causation.

High contrast lenses do not crush shadows, photographers do.

Glad crushed shadows are not an issue for you but i have found the solution to mine since a couple decades, using lower contrast lenses, and it has worked for me so far

[pgk]

1 hour ago, lct said:

Glad crushed shadows are not an issue for you but i have found the solution to mine since a couple decades, using lower contrast lenses, and it has worked for me so far

Photography is essentially practical. If it works for you then that is all that matters.

I have a mix of old (very old) and new lenses. All have their place, strengths and weaknesses. Some of the oldest will only produce small prints so are, by today's standards, 'poor' performers, but within their limitations they yield images that I enjoy looking at. But my first post in this thread was simply intended to stop a popular misconception being reiterated. 

[lct]

The first time i got this issue was in 2006 if memory serves. I was shooting a contrasted trawler with the Elmarit 28/2.8 asph v1 on an Epson R-D1 and the streets in the shadows were crushed. I struggled in PP with Photoshop (result below) and this experience prompted me to re-use an old Rokkor 28/2.8 that was less contrasty while retaining a sort of Mandler-like rendering. I have bought a second copy of the Rokkor that i found with a 6-bit coded flange since then. Not to say that i dislike the Elmarit that i still find less critical than another high contrast lens of mine, the Ultron 28/2 asph from this viewpoint, but the Rokkor is always in by bag when i expect to shoot high contrast scenes in 28mm since then. The Summicron 28/2 asph is another good contender with a bit more contrast than the Rokkor. FWIW.

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 September 20, 2023 by lct

[hdmesa]

13 hours ago, lct said:

Glad crushed shadows are not an issue for you but i have found the solution to mine since a couple decades, using lower contrast lenses, and it has worked for me so far

Even the M11 cannot yet reproduce the DR of human vision, so you do have to choose the tones that you want to express in the final image since you will be limited by the sensor. The further you go back with the camera model you were using, the bigger of a problem this can be. Adding to that – with older sensors, photographers also often needed to underexpose to protect the highlights, and then you have the perfect recipe for a poor image when using a lens with high contrast. A lens with low contrast is indeed a cheat of sorts to quickly get nice tones from Zone III to Zone VIII. Just know that you are not getting the full DR (contrast/resolution) that would be available to you with a lens with better contrast.

I think this would be much easier for all to understand if we used different terms. It's really not "high contrast lens", it's "lens with better contrast" and it's not "low contrast lens" it's "lens with poorer contrast". 

[Erato]

These photos might be a few good 8e(ELC) samples for HDR(Zone 0-XI), original conversion via Capture One Pro 22 without further adjustment.

Basically, it holds up pretty well on the M10M. BTW, the Pro Display XDR monitor is for observing full scale HDR, not for the post-process to me.

I know exactly what it feels like when I scale up the brightness up to 1600 nits. I almost feel the heat from the sun. And the shade of gray transition is very smooth linear fall off.

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 September 20, 2023 by Erato
more sample added

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

•

Edited September 21, 2023 by lct

[lct]

3 hours ago, hdmesa said:

[...] I think this would be much easier for all to understand if we used different terms. It's really not "high contrast lens", it's "lens with better contrast" and it's not "low contrast lens" it's "lens with poorer contrast". 

High vs better, low vs poorer, one may choose the words they prefer to express their own thoughts but fact is some lenses produce images with more contrast than others. The issue at hand, as i understand it, is not the definition of such lenses but their effects compared to lower contrast ones. Among those effects, my point is at the same aperture, high contrast lenses tend to darken shadows whereas lower contrast ones don't produce that effect. And the way i see it, i got constantly this effect with the same M lenses on sensors from 6mp to 60mp since my first digital M-mount camera in 2004.