B&W Lens

There a certain lens you like to use for B&W because of contrast or other reasons?

shooting in monochrome on Nikon dslr

There a certain lens you like to use for B&W because of contrast or other reasons?

Errrr, no!

Everything is shot in colour, because it gives the flexibility to alter filtration in post.

 

Being able to change the B&W tonal value of red, yellow, blue and cyan (mainly) subject areas is priceless. Otherwise you'd need to carry a whole bag of filters, and even then you wouldn't have the finesse of control that post-processing a colour image gives you.

Well, there are sometimes different colour effects that you could get by specific use of narrow-band filters, more distinct than the spectral response of the RGB filters on the sensor. But generally, no argument that it's better to shoot RGB and post-process; I often shoot my Coolpix A in monochrome JPEG mode so I can get a feel for its mono output (for some reason I tend to think of it for mono images), but I'm capturing a colour raw file at the same time. The only time I've used conventional colour filters has been for monochrome film, except for LPR and nebula filters for astrophotography (and I'm still trying to combine time and energy with clear skies, in the wrong country).

 

Exceptions in dedicated filters for infrared (which does influence lens choice), but I assume that's not what we're talking about here.

 

So; lens I like to use for mono? Not really. Fixed-lens camera I shoot mono? Coolpix A, but mostly because a fixed 28mm equivalent doesn't lend itself to sweeping landscapes, portraits or wildlife, and when it comes to gritty street shooting I tend to like mono to pretend I'm being artistic.

 

There are lenses I've had where they've been better in mono than colour. My 135DC springs to mind, because the LoCA drove me nuts in colour. Just pulling one channel out of the result (or filtering it beforehand) would help. I've probably done the same with my 85mm f/1.8, which also has fairly strong LoCA. In the end I've just replaced both lenses with ones that have less visible LoCA (Sigma 150mm macro, 200 f/2, 85mm Sigma Art), so I can shoot colour and choose retrospectively whether the subject is more mono-friendly.

I don't mean in a way that is there a lens made specific for B&W but if you choose a lens to use for a B&W shot that may have more micro contrast.

There are lenses (well, all lenses, but some more than others) which will be improved more by restricting the range of wavelengths on which they're operating - lenses don't focus all wavelengths to the same plane, and lenses with particularly poor correction are likely to focus better if they're dealing with one wavelength at a time. Sites that review lenses by absolute resolution sometimes mention specialist lenses that are highly corrected but only at a single wavelength. Without filtering, the LoCA (or indeed LCA and other colour shifts) on some lenses may be more distracting in colour than a small amount of softness in monochrome.

 

That answer is kind of backwards to the question - "which lenses gain the most from shooting in black and white" (possibly with suitable filtering) rather than "I'm shooting in black and white anyway, what lenses will do best?" Any modern lens that's well corrected for colour is likely to benefit monochrome shooting as well, since under-corrected wavelengths will still contribute softness even to a monochrome output.

 

This assumes you want sharpness, or the rendering of a modern lens. The colour fringes of the 105mm and 135mm f/2 DC lenses or the old 85mm f/1.4 AF-D don't stop them giving a pleasant slightly soft focus effect with very nice bokeh, so you may find the monochrome output preferable to that from a more conventional good performer. Personally I'd rather have an apodisation element to get nice bokeh, but that's not been Nikon's way (historically).

 

Does that help at all?

Well, I like to shoot with a certain lens because the micro contrast, and I always use it with b&w film... I think I have never used it with color.

Also, I like to use two extremely soft lenses with b&m film as well, because the low contrast and bokeh they provide. Never used them in color, too.

I'm realizing that when I shoot color I use to go with digital modern lenses, and that "clinical" look.

Very occasionally I take the fastest MF Nikkors with digital, to get that soft wide open "bokeh" color images; but unconsciously, I tend to assume that color is digital with sharp modern lenses and b&w is film with "character" lenses.

Funny, never considered it before. But I suspect you're referring to another topic...

Name the lenses, Jose?

 

I do like the "soft focus"/under-corrected spherical aberration/halation (yes, I used to shoot HIE) look in monochrome, in its place. Likewise selective vignetting. In colour, I think it's too associated with a "porn filter" (strong soft-focus filter, or shooting through vaseline to hide blemishes) - though from the spots in the bokeh, you can see a lot of TV content seems to be shot with some kind of soft focus/diffusion filter over the lens.

The only monochrome work I've done recently were from a D810 + Sigma 24-35mm f2 @ 24mm f5.6 of, what was in effect, a monochrome seascape; grey sea, grey water and white horses. There was no real difference as to what colour I made which tone ie all the B/W sliders in PShop had pretty much the same effect.

 

The only colours were very unsaturated blue/greens which converted nicely to cold greys. Overall and micro-contrast took a bit of balancing though.

 

Luckily, the sky was pretty dark too so I didn't need a grad ND. You can't camera bracket with moving waves...;)

I shoot only with Nikon primes, I find they have better contrast and sharpness than zooms.. When shooting mono (digital) or with film I like to use a yellow filter. I find a get a more pleasing tonal range and nicer looking skies.

Nikkor-S 5.8cm F1.4. Lower contrast, preserve shadow detail and limits clipping. Very close to a Leica Summarit in design.

Nikkor-P 10.5cm F2.5, the same reasons. I've used this lens for B&W film for Nikon SLR's, and the Leica mount version on the Leica M Monochrom.

+1 on the 5.8cm/1.4, I like the way it renders people. The 10.5/2.5 rangefinder Nikkor I have seems especially good, also.

People glibly talk about 'micro-contrast' as if it's some separate entity from the contiguous MTF response of a lens-sensor/film combination. It's not. And it can easily be enhanced by digital sharpening, or less controllably by processing film to provoke adjacency effect or 'Mackie lines'.

 

It's also a transient phenomenon, inasmuch as diffraction and the slightest degree of OOF impart their own transfer functions onto the MTF curve. So there's quite a narrow window-of-opportunity in terms of aperture selection and DoF to see the effect. Assuming it's real in the first place!

Well, there are sometimes different colour effects that you could get by specific use of narrow-band filters, more distinct than the spectral response of the RGB filters on the sensor.

Hmmm, but you've always got the Bayer filter responses superimposed on any filter used.

 

I've moaned about the gaps between the too-sharp RGB filters used before - for example it's impossible to photograph a natural continuous spectrum without losing the cyans almost entirely, and the yellows to a great extent.

 

So if you want to use a narrow filter that falls down those brick-wall filter gaps, then the effective ISO speed of the sensor is drastically reduced. With an almost certain distortion of reproduction of the filter colour as well.

 

And film users needn't gloat. The filtration used in 3 or 4 layer colour film isn't innocent of spectral losses either.

Edited February 10, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

Name the lenses, Jose?

Andrew, my "microcontrast" lens is a Summicron M 35 ASPH (latest film version). It has a distinctive sharp look overall.

The "soft" lenses I like are the Canon 50/1.2 in LTM mount (which I use with a M adapter), I find it sooo soft up to f2.8 or just soft up to f8. Plenty of focus shift, not a forgiving lens, somewhat vulgar image wise, but I like it for certain use. The other is the classic original Zeiss Sonnar 50/2 that I like so much.

As mentioned, this lenses are used almost exclusively for b&w (film) shooting. If I think of color, I now take a digital camera (Nikon or Fuji) with current lenses (in the past it was mostly with chromes and Nikon lenses).

Don`t ask me why, I rarely get b&w digital images. Sometimes in the iPhone... I know it`s nonsense.

The only "non digital" lens I (scarcely) use for colour work (so digital), is the 85/1.4 AiS. Maybe because I don`t have an updated version.

Edited February 10, 2019 by jose_angel

The other is the classic original Zeiss Sonnar 50/2 that I like so much.

 

One of my favorites as well. I've converted a few pre-war 5cm F2 Sonnars to Leica mount.This one is from 1934.

 

Wide-Open on the Leica M Monochrom (CCD Version)

My favorite lenses for B&W are the uncoated Sonnars, I've converted ~50 Sonnar 5cm F1.5's to Leica mount, maybe 10 of the 5cm F2 Sonnars. The 13.5cm F4 Sonnar also converts well, but I've only done one of them.

Edited February 10, 2019 by Brian

The same lens, before converting to Leica Mount, on a Contax IIIa. Wide-Open. Also the same subject, how the years fly by.

 

 

I use a Jupiter-8 focus mount to house the Zeiss optics barrel. On the F2 lens you must also remove the original aperture ring and use the Jupiter-8 aperture ring.

 

I modified one Nikon S2 to use Zeiss lenses, added 0.4mm shim to the mount and then calibrated the RF for a 50mm F1.5 Zeiss lens. Works with all the Contax mount lenses.

Edited February 10, 2019 by Brian

Just to keep things in topic...

I think I shoot b&w film just to get the "real thing" from an end product point of view. Right now I'm working on 6x9 contact prints on FB paper that I cut with filigree scissors, leaving a thin white border, like it was a century ago. Its not only the image, but the whole thing that is also perceived. Lens reproduction defects (aberrations) are right to produce some feelings or sensations. Brian`s first image produce on me sensations, even being taken recently, this kind of look transports me to a past time.

Well, I´m not an expert, but I think specialized editing software provide almost endless possibilities when processing to monochrome images. I`d say any good, resolutive lens is "enough"; bokeh, contrast, vignetting, uniform resolution, field flatness, etc. are desirable characteristics for almost every lens, despite of shooting b&w or color.

Instead of the lens, I`d search for the right editing software.

Edited February 11, 2019 by jose_angel

As an aside, a number of lenses back when were made with radioactive rare earths, among other things. Such lenses can turn fairly yellow as a result. These lenses would work fine for B&W film, but not so well for color film.

 

With modern digital and AWB cameras, of course, this is much less of a concern.

 

Brian Ailing used to have a simple solution for the yellowing, but has taken down the listing (in a video, he showed smashing the lens glass with a sledgehammer).

a number of lenses back when were made with radioactive rare earths

So, being about 2" from the film, wasn't there a risk of radiation fogging..? :)

 

Brian Ailing used to have a simple solution for the yellowing, but has taken down the listing (in a video, he showed smashing the lens glass with a sledgehammer).

 

Is that the guys name? The Thorium Glass is not an issue unless you ingest it, like breathe it in. One of the most stupid videos I've ever seen with regard to the lens and anyone trying this at home.

 

Use UVA or UVB light to bleach the yellowing from thoriated glass. It works, and does not induce the heat that leaving the lens in sunlight will cause. I have several Thorium Glass lenses, work fine with color after bleaching the damage out.

 

Thorium is an Alpha emitter, the "hot-Glass" was not used on the rear elements. The radiation did not damage the film as it did not pass through the rear element. My collapsible Summicrons have several Thorium elements, including the front element. I keep a filter on it. UVC light does not seem to work, from reading about other people trying it. I believe that is because The UVC does not penetrate deep enough into the glass to bleach it out, it is absorbed too quickly at the surface.

 

But- in original form, the Hot Glass Yellow is equivalent to a Y44 filter, light yellow.

So, being about 2" from the film, wasn't there a risk of radiation fogging..?

 

If you slept with it every night over your ovaries or testicles, in a year or so it might heighten your mutation rate, I suppose. Don't eat it, anyhow. I'd personally recommend leaving it for the Hazmat team. ;)

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by JDMvW

One of the most stupid videos I've ever seen with regard to the lens and anyone trying this at home.

 

Ailing was JOKING, BTW.

I used sunlight to bleach out a distinctly brown discolored 50/1.4 Pentax Super -Takumar. Basically wrapped it in aluminum foil to keep the internal temperature down, and used an aluminum foil reflector on the side of the lens away from the sun to reflect light back thru the lens. Secured it to a tripod which I put on my deck, aimed at the sun about 9am, readjusted it about 2pm, and every other day switched whether the front or rear lens was facing the sun. It took about 3 weeks of treatment, but came out crystal clear. As for the radioactivity issue...do your science...as others mentioned not enough to cause issues unless you ingest it. Wearing a watch with luminous hands or dials will give you more radioactivity than these lenses.

Hmm... radioactive lenses...

what will humans think of

next...?

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

Thorium Glass has a high refractive index with low dispersion. It was used in quite a few famous lenses, including some from Nikon and Canon.

 

When seeing the video of the Super-Tak being destroyed, all I could think of was my Physics Teacher impressing on everyone in Physics Lab to not ingest any of the material being tested, that it could cause internal damage. I remember measuring the radioactivity from an alpha emitter and Paper being effective in blocking it.