Low contrast 35mm recommendations

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, lct said:

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.

If you match the image contrast of a scene to that of a given sensor by using careful lighting you should be able to capture the full dynamic range of the scene with blacks and whites in the image correctly representing those within the scene. Provided of course that the lens does not add in its own alternation to the contrast of the scene, which it will unless perfect. Using a modern 'high' contrast lens should not affect any significant changes because whilst they are not perfect, they are very good indeed. However using an older lower contrast lens will only enable say 98% of the tonality of the scene to be recorded by the sensor because unwanted flare will pollute the entire image and if exposures are the same the result will be a very marginally lighter image with highlight loss and tonality in the shadows consisting of the oringinal tonality plus a fogging amount of polluting light. What this can do is to raise the levels of tonality in the shadows. which is what you are seeing, but it also loses the very darkest detail and procuces a 'steppier' tonality in the deep shadows.

It is possible to do the same in software during post processing except that, with more overall and accurate tonality to play with, the effect may not be the same as that from an older lower contrast lens - overall that is - unless you learn how to achieve the result you want by working out which areas of tonality to alter and how, and this can be time consuming.

Bottom line: older low contrast lenses record less tonal information than modern high contrast lenses. Which you prefer though, is an entirely subjective decision😉.

[lct]

46 minutes ago, pgk said:

[...] Bottom line: older low contrast lenses record less tonal information than modern high contrast lenses. Which you prefer though, is an entirely subjective decision😉.

I don't prefer one lens to another one, i own and like both. I just claim that with one of them, the high contrast lens, my shadows are darker than with the other one, which explains why i choose the lower contrast lens when i want to avoid this effect. If this is what you call "less tonal information", so be it as long as the effect is recognized in itself whatever its technical explanation i'm less interested in, with all due respect needless to say 

Edited September 21, 2023 by lct

[sometimesmaybe]

On 9/18/2023 at 8:07 PM, costa43 said:

Top of my list so far is the Summicron 35mm v1 but I feel I may be overlooking some gems out there so any advice is as always, very much appreciated! 

if you have a 0.7m 35mm already, you could give pro mist (black mist) filter a go (or glimmer glass if you want something more mellow). i didnt care for pro mist (way too glowie). 

might be worth giving the CV Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4 v2 (single coat) a look. some say it was Voigtlander's tribute to the 35mm lux. i have no idea if that's true or not, but it does have a nice rendering. shot wide open on the m246. edited to taste  

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!

 

 

[hdmesa]

15 hours ago, lct said:

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.

It's ok to prefer using a lens with poorer contrast if it more easily produces for you a pleasing image. But it's a fact that lenses with better contrast deliver a wider range of tones. Your inability to pull out those tones by both proper exposure and post processing is a separate matter.

[hdmesa]

@lct, here's an easy experiment you can do that illustrates lens contrast and its effect on the final image. A lens with good contrast can have its contrast reduced by using a diffusion filter such as the Tiffen Black Pro-Mist. The moment you put on that filter, the contrast of the scene is lowered, and it appears as though the shadows are brightened, and you may falsely have the thought that you are now seeing more tones. But you are not seeing more tones, you are just limiting the range of tones from dark grey to light grey, then the camera processing is expanding that range of tones back out over the full histogram. The filter is simply introducing veiling flare and aberrations, which is something that affects image contrast even with the most subtle of indirect light. You don't have to shoot straight into the sun to experience the effects of flare from a lens with poorer contrast. Since we know that adding the diffusion filter did not increase the range of tones delivered by the lens, the same is true when you choose a lens with poorer contrast over a lens with better contrast. You are simply limiting the range of tones being recorded to the tones you prefer to see in an image with less work in post. And this is a perfectly valid use for a lens with poorer contrast or diffusion filters. But you can't use that to say that lenses with poorer contrast are delivering either a wider range of tones or more DR. That simply isn't true. The lens with poorer contrast is just delivering an aesthetic you have a preference for and allows you to more easily get a final image that is pleasing to you. Otherwise, every Ansel Adams wannabe would be out there shooting landscapes with old vintage lenses with poorer contrast and claiming that they are getting "more tones" over a modern lens with better contrast. 

[lct]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

@lct, here's an easy experiment you can do that illustrates lens contrast and its effect on the final image. A lens with good contrast can have its contrast reduced by using a diffusion filter such as the Tiffen Black Pro-Mist [...]

Thank you for your help but filters are not my cup of tea and i found a good solution already. Using lower contrast lenses does it perfectly for me. Well... perfectly is exxagerated i suppose but i find my Nokton and Rokkor pics above more than good enough as is. At least better and faster than by tweaking shadows in PP. YMMV.

Edited September 21, 2023 by lct

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, lct said:

Thank you for your help but filters are not my cup of tea and i found a good solution already. Using lower contrast lenses does it perfectly for me. Well... perfectly is exxagerated i suppose but i find my Nokton and Rokkor pics above more than good enough as is. At least better and faster than by tweaking shadows in PP. YMMV.

Oh, for sure, I agree that using a lens with less contrast is a better solution than a diffusion filter. I was only trying to use that as a way to illustrate how reducing the tones via low contrast can often result in an image with brighter shadows, giving the illusion of more DR/tones.

Edited September 21, 2023 by hdmesa

[costa43]

Thank you all for your feedback. After much deliberation, I’ve decided to stick with my Canon and go for a modern option alongside it. I will flick between the two. 

[sometimesmaybe]

55 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

I think I recognize Sylph Sia 😊 ...

now that you mention it i can see the resemblance,but this was Moni. never worked with Sylph Sia, but i know he comes to sydney quite often 🤓

[costa43]

I thought I’d update this thread now I’ve made my decision. After much research I decided to go with a modern option 35mm. The 35mm Summilux pre-fle. From all the sample images I’ve looked at, it has the most pleasing look to me. The drop off and oof area is beautiful wide open. I do not have the same concerns as many on focus shift as I tend to refocus at the aperture I’m planning on shooting at rather than stopping down, so there we go! All being well I’ll be picking it up next week. Thank you everybody for all the input and have a lovely weekend all!

 

on a side note, I’m also picking up a 35mm f3.5 perar to accompany the ‘lux.

Edited November 25, 2023 by costa43

[Cronilux]

Am 21.9.2023 um 10:07 schrieb pgk:

Bottom line: older low contrast lenses record less tonal information than modern high contrast lenses. Which you prefer though, is an entirely subjective decision😉.

You are plain technically wrong here. More contrast means less dynamic range. It’s that simple. 

[Cronilux]

@costa43 but that’s surely not a low contrast lens. Enjoy your new baby though. 

[pgk]

1 hour ago, Cronilux said:

You are plain technically wrong here. More contrast means less dynamic range. It’s that simple. 

Nonsense. A low contrast lens cannot transmit as high a range of tonality as a high contrast one because it suffers from some degree of flare (unwanted light polluting the image). This means that a high contrastlens will enable the sensor/film to record a higher percentage of the tonality than a lower contrast one. Its that simple. If it were otherwise there would be no point making high contrast lenses. Its easy to illustrate by trying a lens with significant haze (very low contrast). No matter waht you do it will not record as much usable tonality as a similar lens without haze.

[costa43]

1 hour ago, Cronilux said:

@costa43 but that’s surely not a low contrast lens. Enjoy your new baby though. 

No I backtracked after reviewing many images and listening to feedback on here. I really like the look of the photos wide open so I went for it!

[Cronilux]

vor 13 Stunden schrieb pgk:

Nonsense. A low contrast lens cannot transmit as high a range of tonality as a high contrast one because it suffers from some degree of flare (unwanted light polluting the image). This means that a high contrastlens will enable the sensor/film to record a higher percentage of the tonality than a lower contrast one. Its that simple. If it were otherwise there would be no point making high contrast lenses. Its easy to illustrate by trying a lens with significant haze (very low contrast). No matter waht you do it will not record as much usable tonality as a similar lens without haze.

You are simply wrong. The dynamic range is limited by the camera. If your lens exceeds it due to higher contrast, you get less information out of the sensor, cause either the blacks are crushed or your highlights blown out. You can only recover the details, if they are captured. A low contrast lens will always fit way easier into the dynamic range, than a high contrast lens. 
 

Ask yourself why videos are shot in super flat log footage. 

[dem331]

I think one of you is talking about contrast the other about microcontrast. You’re both right in your own way. 
 

But one of you is more right than the other if you are talking about which lens is best for high quality images.

 

https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-lens-contrast/

[pgk]

48 minutes ago, Cronilux said:

You are simply wrong. The dynamic range is limited by the camera. If your lens exceeds it due to higher contrast, you get less information out of the sensor, cause either the blacks are crushed or your highlights blown out. You can only recover the details, if they are captured. A low contrast lens will always fit way easier into the dynamic range, than a high contrast lens.

Try it. The sensor can only record a specific dynamic range, but if this is curtailed by veiling flare (the curse of low contrast lenses) then the shados will contain less information assuming that the highlights are maintained. The overall result is like slightly fogged film and flashing (fogging) paper in a darkroom was one way of dealing with high contrast negatives. If you were right manufacturers would have gone down the route of making low contrast lenses not high contrast one.

37 minutes ago, dem331 said:

I think one of you is talking about contrast the other about microcontrast. You’re both right in your own way. 

No we are not. Microcontrast is subject to veling flare too. Detail will dissappear at lower spatial frequencies on a low contrast lens relative to a high contrast lens since the MTF curve will be lower at higher frequencies which is what micro-contrast effectively is.

The whole sbject of contrast and lenses is often misunderstood. Basically, the dynamic range which the sensor can record will be the same if two lenses have identical contrast. If one is lower than the image presened to the sensor is polluted by unwanted light which will be present throughout the tonal range. No matter what you do this will result is a loss of the tonal range recorded by the sensor which will include reduced micro contrast. Its easy enough to try this for yourself and establish that you do not get an expanded tonal range with a low contrast lens but the opposite.

I have some obviously uncoated) doublet lenses from the 1860s. They have damage and balsam issues and are VERY low contrast as a result. Even so they are centrally 'sharp'. But taking images with them, whilst possible and with care pleasing, is fraught due to blocked shadows and blown highlights especially with high contrast scenes.

Its worth mulling over what actually affects the contrast of a lens. Its unwanted light polluting the image and comes from reflective surfaces within the lens which can include the glass surfaces, the barrel, the element edges, diaphragm, mechanics, etc. Careful design, the application of coatings to lens surfaces, matt black on element edges and barrel and a nom-reflective diapragm are some of the currently applied remedies. If they served no purpose it would be cheaper to build a lens without them.

[dem331]

I was trying to understand this better and I found this post on another forum which I found very clear and addresses the present discussion. Rather than reword it and pretend that it is mine, I thought I would just paste it in.
 

When “contrast” is used in the context of a lens, it means micro contrast, or the ability to distinguish between two tones right next to each other, not macro contrast, which is the overall spread of tones in an image. A lens with high contrast can resolve more tones in areas of low macro contrast: shadows, patches of uniform color, etc. Similarly, the line between two tones physically next to each other but far apart from each other color wise will be sharper, with less “blending” between them. However high micro contrast can lead to the image looking “harsher” or more “clinical.”

The color grading you’re referring to in cinema color grading is macro contrast, not micro contrast. You’re right that an image with high macro contrast would have less room for adjustment in post production as more of the image information has already been pushed to the edges of the color space, though this isn’t really relevant if you shoot raw (video is almost never shot raw, the data rate is far too high).

Here is the thread:

 

[KFo]

I have found Reid Reviews to have the most useful examples and discussion of contrast.  For example his test of 21mm lenses show side by side comparisons of the lens tests with a numerical grade assigned to the blackest black. The side by side view and images shot with the lenses make clear the difference between higher and lower contrast lenses.

It always feels like the terms micro and macro contrast are marketing generalizations with no engineering basis.

I have generally preferred lower contrast lenses over the opposite hence the choices I make (Canon 28 f/2.8 LTM for example).  I 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.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

20 minutes ago, dem331 said:

I was trying to understand this better .....

Try here: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?146212-How-to-understand-MTF That said one of the problems is that 'contrast' is often used to express different things by different people. To quote the first Zeiss publication "In optics, the difference between bright and dark is referred to as “contrast”". They are probably well placed to determine this. So macro and micro contrast are both subdivisions of "contrast" and a good way of looking at a lens to determine how it operates in terms of contrast is to look at its MTF curves. A low contrast lens which has low macro contrast will have a curve which is lower at the LHS than a high contrast one (overall blacks will be grey and whites dull - expanding them in software. may well reveal poor shadow and highlight information and dull tonality throughout the image). Generally speaking low contrast lenses hit the 10% level (a convenient point at which we are probably no longer going to be able to differentiate subject matter) to the left of high contrast lenses (a generality) so will have poorer absolute resolution (micro contrast). The problem is equating what goes into the camera lens and what comes out. So for a high contrast scene the image through a high contrast lens will enable the sensor/film to record its maximum tonality but with a low contrast lens the tonality will be curtailed because of the effects of the lowering of contrast from the level it came into the lens and the level at which it leaves. A low contrast lens does not magically compress tonality from a high contrast one, it loses tonality and what tonality it records will need expanding in software to increase the contrast at the expense of shadow and highlight tonality.

Caveat. Lenses are complex, the way they deal with light is complicated and the way we view and appreciate tonality is equally problematic. I like using some older low contrat lenses myself as they can provide very pleasing results, but I am not blind to their technical failings. FWIW the deliberate inclusion of spherical aberration in soft focus lenses can be very effective but they use a flaw to achieve this as their correction is poor compared with a fully corrected lens.