Lens contrast: how much does it really matter?

puketronic · Nov 11, 2012

OK so all of my lenses (rangefinders, mostly) are fairly old: Zeiss-Opton and Leica. I haven't done any comparisons but the difference in contrast doesn't really stand out. I scan (a sin here?) my negatives mostly and print my few favorites. It works out fine, i guess, but I'm not that good in the darkroom or meticulous about my metering/developing/scanning/printing.

Well for certain focal lengths/speeds modern lenses are more practical (Zeiss and CV mostly). The general agreement is that for b&w film low contrast is preferable, but does it really make that much of a difference?

AgX · Nov 12, 2012

puketronic said:
The general agreement is that for b&w film low contrast is preferable, but does it really make that much of a difference?

Except for certain applications (where special filters or special lenses are used) the highest "lens contrast", as you put it, is generally aimed at in photography.

puketronic · Nov 12, 2012

well i'm not trying to get into the debate that you would always want a certain contrast level. I mean, to me, it seems obvious that the film, exposure, and development play a large role in determining the contrast levels.

What I mean is that if you took a semi-modern lens like a Dr Summicron and the latest Summicron (whichever version that is). Would you be able to really tell the difference on the same roll. If this can be quantified, I'd imagine the difference to exist but be say 5% or so. I really do not know because all my lenses are old.

Also because I'm mostly a 35mm photographer and I do not meter meticulously I'd imagine that changing lenses from say a DR Summicron to a the latest Summicron wouldn't be so offensive.

Peltigera · Nov 12, 2012

I use a range of camera lenses dating from 1930 to 2012 and they are all different contrast wise and all produce very usable negatives. Except for one lens - the Novar on my Tenax I dating from around 1941/2. Contrast is so low as to be unusable.

If the lens is not visibly damaged (my Tenax I has a visible white cast to the lens), then you can compensate in exposure/development.

RalphLambrecht · Nov 12, 2012

this makes me think about an interesting test. i have a fe brand new and 40-year-old nikkors. i wonder how they compare.

AgX · Nov 12, 2012

But what shall you compare: MTF-charts, resolution-chart photos, or photos of the same, typical for you, object? I assume the latter is what the OP is thinking of.

Peltigera · Nov 12, 2012

AgX said:
But what shall you compare: MTF-charts, resolution-chart photos, or photos of the same, typical for you, object? I assume the latter is what the OP is thinking of.

The latter is the only test that matters for a photographer. Other tests are for technicians, not photographers.

darkosaric · Nov 12, 2012

RalphLambrecht said:
this makes me think about an interesting test. i have a fe brand new and 40-year-old nikkors. i wonder how they compare.

I have nikkor 50/1.8 AF-D, nikkor-H 50/2, nikkor Ai 50/1.8 and nikkor-S 50/1.4

They are all very similar in contrast except nikkor-S which has lower contrast.

ic-racer · Nov 12, 2012

The title of this thread should read "Lens contrast: how much does it really matter when I print digitally?" and posted on another forum.

What is the latest on some forum software filter for eliminating having to view posts about digital photography?

Peltigera · Nov 12, 2012

ic-racer said:
The title of this thread should read "Lens contrast: how much does it really matter when I print digitally?" and posted on another forum.

What is the latest on some forum software filter for eliminating having to view posts about digital photography?

The Forum title is "35mm Cameras and Accessories". It is not "Darkroom Printing on Light Sensitive Paper". The opening poster was asking about using lenses on their 35mm film camera and so is quite appropriate here. The issue is whether he would end up with usable negatives. Quite what use he puts those negatives to is neither here nor there.

pdeeh · Nov 12, 2012

The OP doesn't say he prints digitally. He says he scans. And he refers to printing, and to his darkroom skills.
That doesn't make it a "digital thread"

Steve Smith · Nov 12, 2012

ic-racer said:
The title of this thread should read "Lens contrast: how much does it really matter when I print digitally?" and posted on another forum.

It's also a valid question if printing optically.

Steve.

removed account4 · Nov 12, 2012

puketronic said:
OK so all of my lenses (rangefinders, mostly) are fairly old: Zeiss-Opton and Leica. I haven't done any comparisons but the difference in contrast doesn't really stand out. I scan (a sin here?) my negatives mostly and print my few favorites. It works out fine, i guess, but I'm not that good in the darkroom or meticulous about my metering/developing/scanning/printing.

Well for certain focal lengths/speeds modern lenses are more practical (Zeiss and CV mostly). The general agreement is that for b&w film low contrast is preferable, but does it really make that much of a difference?

hi

to answer your questions directly .. it really doesn't matter at all.
if you are happy with the results you get with your optics
and your processed film, then don't change anything .. but if you aren't satisfied ...

there are always going to be people who talk about lenses and their contrast and sharpness
and "stuff" but in the end it is the results that matter.
as for dark room and technical skills, they are just learned and practiced ...
like pretty much anything else.

good luck !
john

Chuck_P · Nov 12, 2012

puketronic said:
The general agreement is that for b&w film low contrast is preferable, but does it really make that much of a difference?

Whether or not a high flare lens is "preferrable" (not for me) with b&w is debatable for sure, but IMO, the short answer is that you can certainly experience a flare factor of 2 (one stop) to 4 (2 stops) with a lens that is not coated or poorly coated. The newer lenses of today and I guess even as of a decade or so ago are pretty well coated, I would think.

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 12, 2012

It does matter with regard to film speed. When I use my old Summitar lens I can easily shoot Tri-X using an exposure index of 400 - box speed. When I use a more modern lens, I have to lower my exposure index to something like 250 to get the same shadow detail. This is probably due to flare, but it does have an impact on the final contrast of the negative, and how it prints.
But once you know this, it's easy to compensate for it, and it's not really something to worry about anymore. It is just one variable of many that affect negative contrast.

dsmccrac · Nov 12, 2012

Hopefully this is not too much of a stupid detour from the OP's question. If it is feel free to ignore ;-)

Ignoring the effects of aging on a lens, what are the criteria that determines its contrast levels? Some lenses are famous for it (and it is considered sought after by some) such as a lot of Konica Hexanon lenses and certain Russian ones amongst many others. I presume coatings are a big component. I presume materials are a big deal as is the actual design. Were designers looking to build contrasty lenses or was that just the way they were coming out? Clearly everyone wants a 'sharp' lens but contrast seems to be a slightly different beast and clearly lots of folks think stuff can be too contrasty. Contrast, sharpness and acuity do not seem to be entirely synonymous.

Sorry if these are stupid questions. I have been wrapping my head around lens contrast (and the related issue of the role of the lens in colour reproduction).

puketronic · Nov 12, 2012

skimmed through the responses, very good discussion.

Just to clarify a few things.

I scan my negatives and make wetprints in the darkroom. I care about my wetprints and negatives more than I care about my scans...
I have no problems with the contrast levels of my current lenses but I have not tried anything modern. I would be interested in perhaps changing lenses mid-roll. Say for instance a 1950's 50mm Sonnar with a 2012 28mm Biogon. Things like that.

ntenny · Nov 12, 2012

puketronic said:
I have no problems with the contrast levels of my current lenses but I have not tried anything modern. I would be interested in perhaps changing lenses mid-roll. Say for instance a 1950's 50mm Sonnar with a 2012 28mm Biogon. Things like that.

It's hard to do a real-world apples-to-apples test. For instance, if you change lenses mid-roll, it's hard to separate "this lens is sharper" from "the coffee finally caught up with me and I started focussing better", or "this lens is contrastier" from "the light got contrastier". There's also that 62 years of aging on the Sonnar to think about---maybe the coatings aren't all they once were, or whatever, and the results could tell you something about old vs. new lenses but not necessarily about "classic" vs. "modern" lenses.

If you don't have problems, I think you shouldn't worry too much about the theoretical alternatives. The question is interesting, though, and I suspect careful testing would turn up some surprises.

-NT

AgX · Nov 12, 2012

Contrast, sharpness and acuity do not seem to be entirely synonymous.

Actually in my reply I rather thought oft micro-contrast (which effects acuteness)

-) lens aberrations effect microcontrast

-) flare (lack of coating, bad barrel design, lack of lensshade) effects both overall contrast and microcontrast)

Acuteness is the empiric description of what we by vision call sharpness.

Brian C. Miller · Nov 12, 2012

puketronic said:
Well for certain focal lengths/speeds modern lenses are more practical (Zeiss and CV mostly). The general agreement is that for b&w film low contrast is preferable, but does it really make that much of a difference?

For black & white, contrast is not controlled by the taking lens. Contrast is controlled through film development and printing.

How critical is an uncoated lens? Color photography was developed before lens coating. Take a look at old, well-preserved color photos, and see the effect of an uncoated lens. Do you actually see a problem?

Contrast lost through lens flare is always a problem. Somebody posted a link to a test where a box with a test target in it was photographed against the sun. The test shots were made with and without a lens shade. The photographs with the lens shade showed much better shadow contrast and detail.

What you need to do is make tests for yourself, and see what works for you.

RalphLambrecht · Nov 13, 2012

Brian C. Miller said:
For black & whiteis not controlleded by the taking lens. , contrast is not controllContrast is controlled through film development and printing.

Contrast is controlled through film development and printing and the taking lens and lighting conditions

Ian Grant · Nov 13, 2012

Unfortunately film development can't compensate totally for the lack of contrast due to internal flare with older uncoated or poorly coated lenses, I include some Multicoated lenses in that statement.

Michael R is right about many 1950's coated lenses being almost equal in terms of contrast to modern Multi-coated equivalents, there's also a misconception that lenses have a single coating, some do but others have more than one coating layer Zeiss used 2 quite early on and some pre- Multicoated lenses were not far different in terms of their coatings.

Early coated lenses were problematic with colour films often giving quite a strong blue cast and warm up filters were introduced to compensate. Lens manufacturers overcame this in the 1960's with newer coatings and often these lenses were designated to reflect this, Color Skopar, Pancolor etc.

My experience using an uncoated 1930's 135mm f4.5 CZJ Tessar, a mid 1950's 150mm T coated 150mm f4.5 CZJ Tessar, a late (2000/1) coated 150mm f5.6 Xenar and also various Multi-coated 135mm & 150mm Symmars & Sironars is that apart from the uncoated lens the results are almost indistinguishable in terms of contrast even shooting into the light. In any light there's a drop in micro-contrast with the uncoated Tessar and that's the same for my other uncoated lenses, there's a loss of detail in subtle highlights. The 50's Tessar is very heavily coated and visually give a blue cast but it's remarkable good for B&W work and micro contrast which is imprtant for fine detail is as good as a modern MC lens, and it's very flare resistant.

The problem with discussions like this is not all manufacturers coated their lenses properly, they wouldn't coat every air glass surface or coatings were poor.

A classic for poor Multicoating was the Hoya range of lenses in the late 1970's or early 80's launched with a lot of hype. They were very sharp lenses but Hoya skimped on the coatings and many suffered from severe flare, the result was Hoya dropped the entire range and went back to the drawing board, the new range was launched under their Tokina brand name.

So the choice of lens does have an effect on the contrast and particulary micro contrast, highlight and shadow separation, varying exposure and film development time can only help to get the bst from the inherent contrast of the lens itself.

Ian

Dismayed · Nov 13, 2012

Peltigera said:
The Forum title is "35mm Cameras and Accessories". It is not "Darkroom Printing on Light Sensitive Paper". The opening poster was asking about using lenses on their 35mm film camera and so is quite appropriate here. The issue is whether he would end up with usable negatives. Quite what use he puts those negatives to is neither here nor there.

Every photo displayed on this site was scanned. Try not to be so pedantic.

AgX · Nov 13, 2012

Ian Grant said:
Lens manufacturers overcame this in the 1960's with newer coatings and often these lenses were designated to reflect this, Color Skopar, Pancolor etc.

So far I thought such "Color" designations reflected a better lens-design concerning spectral aberrations. Am I wrong?

Ian Grant · Nov 13, 2012

AgX said:
So far I thought such "Color" designations reflected a better lens-design concerning spectral aberrations. Am I wrong?

I was referring to overcoming the casts caused by early coatings, however improved coatings are an intregal part in improving lens designs alongside optical imporovements.

Ian

Lens contrast: how much does it really matter?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency