Medium v High Contrast - Lenses for Black & White?

<p >Recently, during the course of reading a lens review I was interested by a comment to the effect that for black and white (b&w) photography a high resolution MEDIUM contrast lens may well be preferable to a high resolution HIGH contrast lens. As I understand it, the argument is that a high contrast lens may cause some of the tonal range which is vital for b&w work to be lost i.e. ‘blown out’.</p>

<p > <br>

This set me thinking as, for a while, I have been considering shooting some black and white film instead of my usual colour work. It’s over twenty years since I last shot b&w and so I’m basically a novice in this medium. Looking at my own FD / FD-compatible lens collection the vast majority of them fall into the high contrast category, in some cases VERY high contrast (e.g. FDn 35 / F2). I was therefore wondering if any members out there, particularly members with experience of b&w, can recommend lenses which they consider are particularly suited to b&w work. I am especially interested in lenses in the wide to standard range. I’d also be interested in comments on whether the assertion that medium contrast lenses are more suited to black and white photography is a valid one.</p>

<p>I think it is all in what you seek in your B&W photos. Some subjects really benefit from higher contrast and resolution, IMHO, and others benefit from a creamy transition of shades and lower contrast. Commenting on your question, however, I think generally the more important issue is the choice of film and development technique than lens. I would take an excellent lens (high resolution and at least med-high contrast) any day and worry about adjusting contrast in the film, than selecting a med or low contrast lens. My experience with FD lenses is that stopped down, the better lenses tend to all exhibit med-high contrast, I can't speak for some of them, as I've usually selected only those which deliver on the crisp side. An excellent high contrast film, IMHO, is Ilford's XP2. Good old Plus-x or Tri-x can be easily manipulated in development. Welcome back to B&W!</p>

<p>In my opinion the best FD lens for b&w is the 35/f2 with the concave front element. It has kind of a build-in yellow filter ;-)</p>

 

<p>Scanning/inkjet vs optical printing might be relevant. A TIFF/RAW file from a scan allows more control of highlight/shadow detail in an inkjet print than chemical/enlarger/paper variables allow on gelatin silver...scan/inkjet detail @ 4000ppi (Nikon) reliably beats enlarger as well, especially in corners and as print sizes get larger.</p>

<p>"a high resolution MEDIUM contrast lens may well be preferable to a high resolution HIGH contrast lens" ...</p>

<p>I think this is .. well .. not true. If the tonal range of the scene is likely to exceed the tonal range of the film - then reduce development time.</p>

<p>It's also pretty much a moot point when dealing with Canon FD optic's because aside from the 35mm f2.0 with the concave front element and non corrected yellowing all Canon FD lenses are made to be very similar in contrast. Canon went out to create a lens line that all had the same look as upposed to Nikon and some of the makers who had lenses that ranged a lot in contrast.</p>

<p>I would think that if it has been 20 years since you have shot B&W you would be much better off spending your thinking time on how to see a scene in B&W rather then worry about some silly bench racing idea of what is going to improve a B&W shot that last .002%</p>

<p>My advice is to buy some of the many B&W films available and work on learnign the film and the style of B&W that suits you before thinking any one lens will improve you work over the other.</p>

<p>IMHO</p>

 

<p>Thanks to <strong>Mark W</strong> for his erudite comments. I don’t have any problem with visualising B&W scenes. I frequently find a subject that will ONLY work in B&W – that’s why I’m thinking of having a go. I also find the assertion that Canon lenses essentially were designed to provide the same level of contrast unsupported by a) Gary Reese’s detailed testing and b) my own experience. For example, the FD 50mm 1.8 that came with my Canon AE1-P was one of the worst lenses I’ve ever used – flat, lowish contrast prints – nearly put me off the Canon system for life. Come to think of it, may be I should give it a go with B&W. I know some people have had good results with that lens but to me it’s from a different planet to the stellar FDn 35 2 / 2.8 lenses and the very good but not stellar FDn 50 1.4mm. I also find the FDn 24 / 2.8, FDn 135 / 2.8 and FDn 85 /1.8 simply not in the same league as the 35’s.<br>

Going back to the subject of the original post, like many people I suspect, I find ‘vintage’ b&w images (e.g. those taken in the 40’s, 50’s 60’s) very pleasing on the eye even though they were often taken with lenses that by today’s standards would definitely not be considered high contrast. This does at least support the view that medium contrast leneses will produce very nice b&w prints (whereas in the colour medium they probably would probably produce flat, lifeless prints).<br>

Anyway, learning b&w is clearly going to be a voyage of discovery. It also gives me the excuse to purchase another camera body. For nostalgic reasons I fancy an old FTBn if I can find one in good condition. I reckon that would be a nice combination with b&w film.</p>

<p>I have the 35/2 FD SSC and I have given it the UV treatment so it works nicely even with slide film now. It is indeed a very sharp lens. I also have four 35/2 New FD lenses. All of them have some play in the focusing mount. These are also very sharp lenses but they are not nearly as well made as the FD SSC model. I have just one 50/1.8 New FD. Apart from the fact that it has only five aperture blades and that out of focus rendition can sometimes be less than good, I find it adequately sharp. My favorite 50/1.8 is the black front SC with the aperture switch on the back. This lens is well made, decently coated and sharp. <br>

You mentioned some of the other New FD lenses. I don't have the 24/2.8 but I have the others. If you have a 50/1.4 New FD in good condition and you can't get good results with it, it's not the lens. I find the 135/2.8 and 85/1.8 New FD lenses to also be excellent. I don't know whether you wear corrective lenses but you might benefit from a diopter correction which attaches to the camera. In general it should be possible to adjust contrast much more in developing and printing than by using lower or higher contrast lenses. Cosina made both single coated and multicoated versions of the 40mm lens lased on the assumption that the lower contrast lens would be better for some lighting situations. I don't know whether anyone has ever shown that this is the case.</p>

 

<p>Hello Nigel: I don't think you will have any problem with the Canon lenses and I am surprised with your poor experience with the FD 50mm f/1.8. As said above, your film choice, exposure, developer type, dilution, time, temp and processing technique will be much more important in determining final image contrast. You don't say if your final output is for optical printing or scanning. I have found that for optical printing, I want a meatier neg with contrast to print well on a #2 paper. For scanning, I prefer a somewhat thinner, slightly flatter neg. The whole imaging system should be tuned and adjusted for a specific desired output. The overall consistancy of the FD lenses is an advantage as the above listed variables can then be controlled to accomplish that without a large jump between lenses. The CN Pre-SCC, thorium element 35mm f/2, I would say is an exception as mine consistantly yields higher contrast but the others fall in line very nicely. Also each lens will have a "sweet spot" where contrast and sharpness will "POP" slightly at certain aperture settings. Some higher speed lenses may drop slightly in contrast at maximum apertures. This is common and normal with many lenses. If you really want the "vintage" dreamy look, Canon makes a soft focus lens, that is quite expensive, or one can adapt any number of older vintage M39 and M42 lenses that you may find more pleasing. A couple of my FD mount Vivitar lenses are sharp but render a hair less contrast and have smoother OOF areas than their FD equivelents. </p>

<p>Hi.<br />Photographic B / W paper goes from contrast grade 0 (Very low) to contrast grade 5 (Very high) Playing with contrast is very easy with a colour head on your enlarger and multigrade paper.<br>

I think that paper contrast has a much, much bigger influence than contrast in a lens.<br>

Then, there are special techniques like silver - mask printing and pre - exposing the paper that allow you to print really extremely contrasty negatives.<br>

Also, you can vary contrast in the film itself by varying the developing process or choosing different developers.<br>

I'm sort of crazy about high contrast B / W prints. They're sort of graphic.<br>

I think the lenses with highest contrast I have are the FD 100mm F2, and the FD 20 - 35mm L.<br />The lens with the lowest contrast I had was the FD135 F 3.5. I gave it away.<br>

I have the concave 35mm F2 lens but I've not used it yet. Guess I should give it a try sometime.<br>

Bye,</p>

<p>Dirk.</p>

<p>Stupid is as stupid does, Mr Yeats. For many individuals still learning about photography, the array of choices of equipment and techniques combined with the mutitude of opinions ones finds on the web can be confusing. It is incumbent upon the more experienced members to help those new to photography achieve good results and have a positive experience. This often requires maturity and a collegial tone when dealing with those who are struggling to get a grip on the basics. Not everyone comes here with your level of experience and knowledge. We all start with baby steps and fundementals.</p>

<p>As a user of the Imacon 848, I fail to see anything masochistic about it. Additionally, as a user of a modified Epson v750 scanner I submit your statement about desktop scanners is patently incorrect. Period</p>

<p>As for your advice to follow the "pros" lead and forget about film and shoot digital, I would say that it is your advice that is pointless and severely misplaced on a forum dedicated exclusively to film cameras and film camera enthusiasts. Think about sharing your photographic skill with a generous spirit instead of berating those that are simply seeking knowledge.</p>

<p>"if you want fast effective results go digital"<br>

"Pros don't have time to faff around and ask truly pointless rhetorical questions."</p>

<p>The OP wasn't a rhetorical question and since many probably make a healthy living without touching a camera don't give a stuff what a working pro would do with a digital camera. Though it would seem that some who purport to be "Pros" have time to waste writing abusive replies with questionable english in the Canon FD forum.</p>

<p>I suggest that you should spend that time and energy earning that living and letting those of us who don't have to enjoy our archaic kit.</p>

<p>Thanks to <strong>Jerome Y</strong> for your post - it's the funniest thing I've read in a long time! <strong>Louis M</strong> sums it up perfectly - this forum is a place for the friendly exchange of information.<br>

That said, Jerome, you raised the issue of digital and even though I'm clearly a 'novice' my understanding is that Black and White is one medium that, even now, digital has not yet managed to replicate totally successfully. Of course I might be wrong because I don't even own a digital camera!<br>

Thanks to all the others who posted useful information. I conclude that choice of film and processing are far more relevant than choice of lens. On a more general note, I have taken on board the idea of using some vintage lenses via use of an adapter. I'd never previousy considered that.</p>

 

<p>Try some cheap third party lenses. As an example I bought a Ricoh 50mm for my Pentax K1000 and shot it along side my Pentax 50mm F2 for comparison. The Pentax lens was "just" noticeably better but if I had to shoot a portrait I would reach for the Ricoh with the slightly lower contrast.</p>

<p>I don't use my FD lenses for B&W much, but I shoot a lot on Leica and Hassy, with both old lenses and the latest aspherical lenses.</p>

<p>To me the lens matters a lot less than the film and development, which matters less than the scene to begin with. Some films have low contrast, some are high contrast, and with processing you can extend the contrast during development, and with multigrade you can vary the contrast during printing. But most important is the scene itself. If the lighting is flat on the main subject, there really isn't that much you can do. No magic lens is going to turn the scene into a contrasty scene.</p>

<p>So don't worry too much about the lens properties. You can, through trial and error, adapt your processing and darkroom techniques to bring about the look you want.</p>

<p>Wai-Leong Lee said it best. It doesn't matter too much if the lens is "high contrast" or "low contrast." Truth is that any modern multi-coated lens is a high contrast lens. Single coated lenses are al little less contrasty. Uncoated lenses are the least contrasty. With the exception of completely uncoated lenses with more than 3 or 4 elements, the differences are minor provided you are not shooting with a light source in the frame or with side light glancing off the front element of the lens. These "low contrast" lenses generally suffer from internal flare which lowers the overall contrast of the image because of light bouncing off the surface of each element. The same effect can be seen when driving into the sun with a less than pristinely clean windshield. Coated lenses minimize these reflections and provide an image with more cleanly separated details. If you like the look of a low contrast image, control that with exposure, development, and paper grade. If you prefer, manipulate the scanned image with the editor of your choice. To imply that a low contrast lens is somehow better for B&W photography is sheer fallacy.</p>

<p>The following link might be of interest. By no means am I qualified to assess its content. I'm merely passing it along.</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/lens-contrast.shtml</p>