Aspherical lens on film

<p>Does anyone have experience/seen pictures using aspherical lens with film? It's weird because I've seen people say that its "too contrasty" and some say that it doesn't make a difference. I haven't been able to find any sample pics so I'm not sure about this. I'm asking this because I just bought an M6 and am using it with my summilux asph. </p>

<p>I had an asph a while ago on my film bodies. I preferred the look of the pre-asph for the work I do. The answer to your question however, is since each of us sees things differently, to try it out yourself and see if it works with your style and your films.</p>

<p>yeah, i know its down to preference. what are the distinguishable differences though? </p>

<p>Film, especially color negative film, will mask a lot of exposure/optical qualities. It's made to give a lot of people the chance of getting decent images with anything from good to mediocre exposure accuracy, so using it to test the optical qualities of any lens would be dubious at best. The last thing I would call color negative film, is too contrasty and black & white is all about how you expose and process it.</p>

<p>They must have been talking about side film, which is the type film you need to be shooting if you really want to see how much a lens can resolve or how accurate your exposure technique is. As good as digital photography is these days, I wouldn't touch slide film with a 10 foot pole. No one in my area will process it anymore, most labs that do, do a terrible job of scanning it, I own no equipment to project them and my own scanning abilities/equipment do well just dealing with the few rolls of black & white I shoot and process from time to time.</p>

<p>The best use of your ASPH lens will be in resolving detail on a digital sensor.</p>

<p>35mm film has one significant drawback. One needs the best optics, films and exposure to be able to make large prints, something more easily achieved with 120 or LF film. If across the frame resolution and other aspects of IQ are important for you in 35mm, an aspherical lens rather than a non aspherical one will often provide better edge and corner performance at the wider apertures. The lens designers did not choose aspherical lens solutions as a fashion (although marketing often seems to suggest that) but simply to better correct lens aberrations and to optimize the quality of the rendition in practice.</p>

<p>I much liked the quality of my 35 mm Summicron c1980-1990 when stopped down, but the aspherical Summicron of that focal length seems to me (as I long ago sold that 35mm lens) to allow larger more detailed prints across the full frame, especially at the wider apertures. The choice of an aspherical lens or not for film depends to some degree on how much image quality you need across the frame.</p>

<p>"Better for digital" depends I think on other factors than simply that of aspherical or not, owing to the different receptivities of film and digital sensors to off axis rays. The lens should be made compatible with the digital sensors and the need for rays to arrive perpendicular to the sensor, or nearly so, rather than at acute angles.</p>

<p>As Arthur points out, the main benefits of Aspherical lenses are better sharpness into the corners. Thus, these lenses are at, or often near their optimum sharpness into the corners wide open. With older lenses, you often have to stop them down 2 stops from wide open to achieve similar results in the corners.</p>

<p>With extreme wide angles, your film cameras are actually at an advantage compared to digital sensors. Lenses such as the original Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 ASPH image just fine on film, but have problems with color shifts on digital sensors. This is because the rear of the lens comes very close to the image plane. On digital sensors the rays going into the corners are too acute, whereas film doesn't care what angle the image forming rays are coming from. Later wide angle lenses are now retrofocus, to try to get the corner rays going into a digital sensor at a more perpendicular angle of incidence.</p>

<p>Contrast will be a function of today's multicoating, newer optical glass requiring fewer elements, improved transmission in the optical designs and better internal blackening in the lens mounts.</p>

<p>The net result IS visible on film - even color negative film. There is little to no "veiling flare" visible wide open. Contrast is high from wide open, and you adjust the aperture to achieve depth of field.</p>

<p>Modern Lenses that behave this way are plenty (and not all are ASPH). These are from my experience:<br /> 21mm Zeiss Biogon 2.8 (spherical)<br /> 28mm f/2.8 Leica Elmarit ASPH<br /> 35mm f/1.7 Cosina Voigtlander Ultron M ASPH (New design, not the older LTM lens)<br /> 35mm f/2 Leica Summicron ASPH<br /> 90mm CV f/3.5 Apo-Lanthar LTM (spherical)<br /> 90mm f/2.8 Leica Elmarit M (spherical)<br /> 135mm f/3.4 Leica Apo-Telyt (spherical).</p>

Aspheric optics reduce focus shift, reduce spherical aberration. The latter is a key factor in out of focus highlights. My

35/1.7 Ultron Asph (LTM) and 50/1.5 Nokton Asph (LTM) both give very smooth out of focus areas, reason enough to use

them. I prefer the handling of the LTM lenses: they do not focus as close, but have a much more traditional focus ring and

aperture.

<p>I don't think one can generalize as each lens has to be judged individually. A typical trope is that aspherical lenses are very sharp and contrasty but have generally poorer bokeh than non-aspherical lenses. The first part is generally true as aspherical lenses can correct aberrations better and so generally make sharper more contrasty shots at wider apertures. As with so many bokeh discussions direct bokeh comparisons, like-for-like, are rare so it is difficult to say to everyone's satisfaction that A is better than B.</p>

Best bet would be to shoot some pics with the lens on film and see how they look.

 

From my experience with a 28mm Elmarit asph, it's very sharp and bites a bit contrast wise but hold shadows well. With Tri-X it's great, sun or overcast. It doesn't handle metallic reflections in bright sun well at all though when shot on an M240 digital Leica.

<img src="https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5754/23860838300_8721650cd6_o.jpg" width="1024" height="681"><p>

<p>

35mm F1.2 Nokton, wide-open.<p>

 

<p>

<img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5584/14426189841_32356abf47_o.jpg" width="1024" height="681"

alt="Pilot's Day 2013"><p>

 

35mm F1.7 Ultron, wide-open.<p>

 

<img src="https://c6.staticflickr.com/4/3925/14777244237_837f0d8d07_o.jpg" width="1024" height="681" alt="Udvar

Hazy Air and Space"><p>

 

3.5cm F2.5 Nikkor (same 1-2-2-1 spherical formula as the Leica Summaron)<p>

 

<p>

<img src="https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7539/27799529050_547cec3eed_o.jpg" width="681" height="1024" alt="Endless

Caverns"><p>

 

50mm F1.5 Nokton, wide-open.<p>

 

I find the Nokton 50/1.5 asph, Nokton 35/1.2 Asph, and Ultron 35/1.7 Asph to have smoother Bokeh than the spherical lenses of similar focal length/F-Stop. Of course the 35/1.2 is faster than any spherical wide-angle that I have. They are bargains, the 50/1.5 was under $400 used and the 35/1.7 was $300. Both are black-paint versions, very well made. I do not care for the handling of the M-Mount versions, prefer the traditional control layout of the LTM versions. I useually have a Sonnar formula lens on my cameras. I've been making a special effort to use the "non-Sonnars" more. Very different look.<p>

<p>Brian's shots demonstrate what I mean precisely: bokeh comparison shots are rarely exactly equivalent. I, too liked the Nokton 50/1.5. Here's shot with it.</p><div></div>

<p>I use old lenses, as I use film.<br>

The 50nn Collapsible Summicron, 35mm Summaron Goggle.<br>

Arthur Plumpton wrote of using Medium and large format for "better" results.<br>

When there was no digital, no internet, one did make large quality prints from 35mm.<br>

Slower films, steady cameras and good developers.<br>

In South Africa the late Sam Haskins used a Pentax Spotmatic and 50mm lens,<br>

to make huge prints!<br>

6' x 4' of a girl, the 35mm contact in a corner.<br>

I too made large display prints and even by today's sizes were large and very good.<br>

Yes! Medium format (Mamiya C- series, Hassie) were "creamier".<br>

Less rough grain.<br>

4x5 was amazing but depth of field or lack there of was my blocking point!<br>

Aspheric are sharper but I find the bokeh esp. of Leica lenses looks like shattered glass.<br>

Make photos, make big prints, within reason!<br>

My standard size was 6" x 9" inches and 11x 14 inches.<br>

Where the heck does one store monster size prints..?<br>

Largest print from 35mm color neg., about 18 ft. x 12 feet approx.</p>