Do some lenses/lens brands produce more contrasty results than others?

[trendland]

"If I were shooting fashion I'd prefer the Zeiss" I would replace "fashion" with "just about anything".

No worry about Sirius Glass today's fashion shooting are (in most cases) like you described :
" Just about anything "
with regards

PS : To the OP - there are lenses/lens brands wich produce less contrasty results than others.
One brand wich is called "Lomo" reaches this with the use of "special" optical materials (plastic).
The other type of lenses is "old fashioned" and there the results are not such contrasty (with some exeption of course) like with modern lenses. That is also caused from used materials not so much from design. So the glass sorts used in a pre war period have been more poor compared with today's
glass receptures. A central point in regard of contrasty results is of cause coating.

my older one Voigtländer 6,3 105mm is a typical example of lousy contrasty results....
And we should not talk about resolution.....or much more bad : colors if you shot against the sun
But the production date is around 1926 (uncoated of course). At that time this lens was a high tech lens with high speed!

 

[Alan Gales]

"If I were shooting fashion I'd prefer the Zeiss" I would replace "fashion" with "just about anything".

Well Sirius, you are certainly entitled to your opinion!

One of the reasons to shoot large format is because of all the different lenses that you can use. It's too bad that manufacturers of small and medium format cameras used different lens mounts. Could you imagine shooting a Mamiya soft focus lens on your Hasselblad? I know, heresy huh? I have seen pictures of Rodenstock Imagons on Hasselblads.

Back in the 80's I did almost buy a Yashica 35mm camera so I could use the Zeiss lenses. A Contax 139 with 50mm Zeiss and Contax TLA 20 flash came up at a great sale price around Christmas time so I bought it instead.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well Sirius, you are certainly entitled to your opinion!

One of the reasons to shoot large format is because of all the different lenses that you can use. It's too bad that manufacturers of small and medium format cameras used different lens mounts. Could you imagine shooting a Mamiya soft focus lens on your Hasselblad? I know, heresy huh? I have seen pictures of Rodenstock Imagons on Hasselblads.

Back in the 80's I did almost buy a Yashica 35mm camera so I could use the Zeiss lenses. A Contax 139 with 50mm Zeiss and Contax TLA 20 flash came up at a great sale price around Christmas time so I bought it instead.

I also shoot large format, but not enough. I have the Rodenstock Imagon lens for my 4"x5" Graflex Model D.

 

[Alan Gales]

I also shoot large format, but not enough. I have the Rodenstock Imagon lens for my 4"x5" Graflex Model D.

I knew you shot a Speed Graphic. I didn't know you had a Model D. Do you do any portraiture?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I knew you shot a Speed Graphic. I didn't know you had a Model D. Do you do any portraiture?

No very often. Why? My father had a Mamiya C330 and he would ask people on the street if he could take a portrait. When they said yes I would see the look of horror on their faces when he would get so close that he was pushing one lens up each nostril. After all these years, I still see that image whenever I am moved to make a portrait.

 

[Alan Gales]

No very often. Why? My father had a Mamiya C330 and he would ask people on the street if he could take a portrait. When they said yes I would see the look of horror on their faces when he would get so close that he was pushing one lens up each nostril. After all these years, I still see that image whenever I am moved to make a portrait.

That's funny!

My Dad smoked those Phillies Tips cigars. Man, it really turned me against smoking! The only thing I smoke is barbecue.

 

[Pentode]

To paint a picture with very broad strokes:

Yes, some lenses definitely display more contrast than others, but I’m not convinced it’s all that brand-specific

Newer lens designs tend to pruduce “better” (more) contrast than older ones.

Cheaper, aftermarket lenses tended to have poorer contrast - but not always!!

A good lens hood and a good yellow filter is likely to make a much more obvious difference than a lens design, IMO.

So will you choices when you print.

The Flektogon is a lovely lens but my example of it doesn’t strike me as being unusually contrasty compared to more modern designs.

All my opinions, of course!

 

[Ian Grant]

Lenses with fewer elements (when discussing older lenses but this is not as relevant to new designs because coatings are so much better today) and, more importantly better coatings, will potentially give higher contrast. Zeiss T* coatings were always excellent and I think this accounts for their high contrast, especially during the period the OP is discussing. Flare (glare) kills contrast.

I'm not sure how much emphasis we should be placing on coatings compared to lens design. I have and use many coated lenses, I don't use the term single coated because many have more than one coating layer but are not the balanced Multi Coatings we know today.

I have an early 1950's T coated 150mm f4.5 CZJ Tessar, the coatings are excellent, no hint of flare even where MC modern zooms are next to useless, the downside is the blue colour bias. But like other companies CZJ overcame this with balanced coatings in the 1960's, a CZJ example if the Flekton which became the PAncolar with the newer coatings, Woigtlander introduced the Color Skopar etc.. Now I have 3 other T coated CZJ lenses and along with the 150mm Tessar all have excellent contrast and sharpness but the later coatings are definitely better for colour work.

Now in the early 90's when I still shot a lot of 35mm I used an M3 Leica, f2 50mm Summicron, as well as a few Pentax SLR's. I had Super-Takumars and SMC Takumars and frankly there was no discernible difference in practical use with the lenses I was using, there was probably a measurable difference in a lab and particularly with zooms.

Overall contrast was negligibly different between my 50mm Summicron and 55mm Super/SMC Takumars, micro contrasts was more apparent with the Pentax lenses but it was obvious the Summicron had something different more tonality and a different type of resolution. I saw the same with the CZJ 35mm lenses of a friends Exakta VX1000, he used a 35mm Flektagon, 50mm Pancolar, and a 135mm Sonnar, these produced some of the best 35mm negatives/prints I've seen.

My Summicron was mainly used for B&W work the few times I shot colour with it the results were superb, definitely a slight difference compared to the Pentax lenses or friends Nikkors, that difference was apparent to non photographer friends.

Perhaps Crawly's 1960 terms are worth quoting:

" Sharpness "-the overall impression of a print or projected image, measured scientifically as " Acutance ", seen from normal viewing distance.
" Definition "-the extent to which fine detail is recognisably rendered in a print, etc. When acutance of fine detail is good, then definition is good.
" Acutance "-the contrast at the edge of significant detail, a scientific measurement of the density gradient at that point.
" Resolving Power "-the scientific measurement of the actual fineness of detail recordable by a lens, film, or developer, or any combination of these three.

While it's just nuances in the terms in practice design criteria are different particularly between German and Japanese optical companies.

Ian

 

[GLS]

I'm not sure how much emphasis we should be placing on coatings compared to lens design

Well, the coatings are part of the optical design, and cannot be divorced from the whole. From what I understand, improved lens coatings have been one of the most significant advances in lens design over the years, not only for their improved intrinsic properties, but by enabling the use of more and more glass elements in the design without sacrificing other aspects (transmission, contrast and so on).

I remember reading a highly detailed white paper on T* coating by Dr Nasse of Zeiss, but I can't find it online now.

 

[Ian Grant]

Well, the coatings are part of the optical design, and cannot be divorced from the whole. From what I understand, improved lens coatings have been one of the most significant advances in lens design over the years, not only for their improved intrinsic properties, but by enabling the use of more and more glass elements in the design without sacrificing other aspects (transmission, contrast and so on).

I remember reading a highly detailed white paper on T* coating by Dr Nasse of Zeiss, but I can't find it online now.

I don't doubt lens coatings have improved but qualify that because the greatest effects will be seen with multi element zooms and other lenses with many air/glass interfaces.

There is something else though affecting contrast when coatings are equal and that's the design objectives.

Ian

 

[trendland]

I don't doubt lens coatings have improved but qualify that because the greatest effects will be seen with multi element zooms and other lenses with many air/glass interfaces.

There is something else though affecting contrast when coatings are equal and that's the design objectives.

Ian

If you Ian had not stated this (I had it short before in mind) I would had stated it (in little other words of course) but you are a bit faster....
Concerning to first zoom lenses out of the 80th (some came before the 80th but not many bought them) there was a great potential to better their characteristics because of the imense poor quality.
More potential as in comparison to Leitz lenses of that period .
If that have to be done allone with better coating I can't say because you are the coating expert here.
But perhaps the Computer based (Software based) maths for construction has done the rest.
By the time modern glass manufacturing has also become a massive aproach.
Some colleguages visited the manufacturer "Schott" in the little town Wiesbaden. What they reported about was interesting. They were absolut impressed about modern technology.(they visited Schott before in the beginning 90th.) A conclusions of them in short : Today it is a complete other company,
manufacturing steps had change in a massive way.
They saw a lens wich was since some weeks in production (a bigger lens element for ESA if I remember well) and that had to be cooled down in an computer monitored special process with extreme tolerances. This lens was still glowing and an engeneers explained :" Yes we have now to wait
for 3weeks within that time it slowed down from temperature in an exact way , therefore the computer monitoring, if we just louse a given window of a small tolerance wich was calculated before we can waste it. And that lens cost more than million to us from the cost of the glass.....
with regards

 

[trendland]

Well, the coatings are part of the optical design, and cannot be divorced from the whole. From what I understand, improved lens coatings have been one of the most significant advances in lens design over the years, not only for their improved intrinsic properties, but by enabling the use of more and more glass elements in the design without sacrificing other aspects (transmission, contrast and so on).

I remember reading a highly detailed white paper on T* coating by Dr Nasse of Zeiss, but I can't find it online now.

Many years before today I worked in a bigger photo store (not for a so long time but it was real funny).
A senior dealer (he worked also not so long there but to him it wasn't funny because later they fired him) gave me a book about optical construction and wanted to explain and discuss some special issues from design. First I perhaps should read the book ( it was issue I of 3 issues)
I wanted to read but it was 100% about maths (the little higher maths compared with EVERYTHING I remembered from school) .
No need to explain that the later school maths was also to high for me..
So I can't read this issue one book and asked him to explain without maths.Most of that I wasn't able to follow at this time. But it was real interesting. So I am today no expert in optical design !

But to state "the coatings are part of the optical design" may be not correct ! In general the coatings are part of production process of course. But (so is it to me and of course I am the opposite of an expert on that issues) is the design not first on maths calculation in regard to optical construction
(lens building design in concern to chose a lens type)?
Next under calculation of glass characteristics and glass sorts?
Not so easy to explain but what I mean is : In the past (without coating) that was it. Later the coatings
helped a bit to minimize deviations from the optimum.
Today special glass characteristics (in form of special sorts of modern glass) are of course part of the design because the failure in design (from physical restrictions) are compensated from beginning calculation.
But the coating isn't today the last part in that process again wich minimize failures of reflection and absorbtion ? Is it real part of the design (design is to me calculation from the beginning).

with regards

PS : That friendly senior dealer was highliest overqualified in that photo store. He was coming from
optical construction bureau (may be also from Zeiss I can't remember well).
PPS: the paper you mentioned (Dr.Nasse) is it a book?

 

[GLS]

But to state "the coatings are part of the optical design" may be not correct ! In general the coatings are part of production process of course. But (so is it to me and of course I am the opposite of an expert on that issues) is the design not first on maths calculation in regard to optical construction
(lens building design in concern to chose a lens type)?
Next under calculation of glass characteristics and glass sorts?
Not so easy to explain but what I mean is : In the past (without coating) that was it. Later the coatings
helped a bit to minimize deviations from the optimum.
Today special glass characteristics (in form of special sorts of modern glass) are of course part of the design because the failure in design (from physical restrictions) are compensated from beginning calculation.
But the coating isn't today the last part in that process again wich minimize failures of reflection and absorbtion ? Is it real part of the design (design is to me calculation from the beginning).

with regards

PS : That friendly senior dealer was highliest overqualified in that photo store. He was coming from
optical construction bureau (may be also from Zeiss I can't remember well).
PPS: the paper you mentioned (Dr.Nasse) is it a book?

I should clarify: I am certainly not an expert in optics by any means, but I endeavour to try and understand it as it pertains to photography, to the best of my ability.

I didn't mean to imply that the coatings themselves had a significant impact on the path of light in terms of refraction/dispersion and so on (although it is still accounted for in the calculations). Rather I meant that the improvement in coatings over the years has enabled the use of more glass elements in lenses, and therefore improved overall performance.

Not a book, no. Just a white paper. However, I apparently got the authorship wrong; Dr Nasse wrote various technical papers, but that was not one of them. It is by Dr Blahnik and Dr Voelker, also of Zeiss. I managed to find it again (but I warn you, it gets quite technical in places):

https://pixinfo.com/wp-content/uplo...reduction-of-reflections-of-camera-lenses.pdf

 

[darinwc]

Strictly my opinion:
1. The idea that one brand or another produces lenses with more contrast is just hype. Perhaps multicoating I every surface can make a percentage point difference but really not noticable. But there are many other factors such as the number of elements used. The blackening used on the lens edges and internal surfaces. Glass types that naturally yellow with age. The precision that cememted surfaces are ground. Other are related problems such as dust, haze, fungus, bubles or flaking paint.
All of the manufacturing differences can vary depending on a specific lensmade for professional work vs amateur, period made, what factory made in, what paints or cements were used at the time.
So I don't think a generalization can be made about lens producers.

It is much better to comment on specific lenses.
And even then, there is often much repeated misinformation.

 

[trendland]

I should clarify: I am certainly not an expert in optics by any means, but I endeavour to try and understand it as it pertains to photography, to the best of my ability.

I didn't mean to imply that the coatings themselves had a significant impact on the path of light in terms of refraction/dispersion and so on (although it is still accounted for in the calculations). Rather I meant that the improvement in coatings over the years has enabled the use of more glass elements in lenses, and therefore improved overall performance.

Not a book, no. Just a white paper. However, I apparently got the authorship wrong; Dr Nasse wrote various technical papers, but that was not one of them. It is by Dr Blahnik and Dr Voelker, also of Zeiss. I managed to find it again (but I warn you, it gets quite technical in places):

https://pixinfo.com/wp-content/uplo...reduction-of-reflections-of-camera-lenses.pdf

I just remember lessions from an trainee period at technical school (Air force) Title was : Reflection and absorbtion of radio wafes. The ground basis with light wafes is on the one hand simular but not realy the same from physical side. But we all shall have not the capacity for optical construction.
For me it ended on the maths. But the rest is not so easy to follow too.
So we may be glad at last because we all are just photographers.

 

[Ian Grant]

Strictly my opinion:
1. The idea that one brand or another produces lenses with more contrast is just hype. Perhaps multicoating I every surface can make a percentage point difference but really not noticable.

The problem is that one brand can have a different contrast, particularly in terms of micro contrast and apparent sharpness compared to anther, which gives a slightly different feel/look to final images. This is how Nikon lenses became so popular with war correspondents during the Korean War who preferred them to the Zeiss lenses of their Contax cameras. This is despite Nikon often copying Zeiss lenses, the specific design criteria differed. This wasn't about coatings at that point Zeiss were at the forefront , and you see similar differences between Leica lenses and most Japanese lenses.

Ian

 

[trendland]

The problem is that one brand can have a different contrast, particularly in terms of micro contrast and apparent sharpness compared to anther, which gives a slightly different feel/look to final images. This is how Nikon lenses became so popular with war correspondents during the Korean War who preferred them to the Zeiss lenses of their Contax cameras. This is despite Nikon often copying Zeiss lenses, the specific design criteria differed. This wasn't about coatings at that point Zeiss were at the forefront , and you see similar differences between Leica lenses and most Japanese lenses.


From my "feeling" Leiz is an other example were one is allowed to state a brand with such or such special characteristics is given. And this company (during all the time in the near of bankruptcy)
have done a real hart job to advance on the top.
The latest impact to Leica is their coming reputation on Film works - but (also) here Leica is top in lens characteristics AND top in highest pricing.

best example is Leicas Thalia series.

with regards