where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
I can't find much out about lens's /contrast/, most reviews I've seen focus more on distortion and sharpness and things like that.
I ask because when I take photos outdoors I always end up getting a ton of highlights or the photo is too dark and murky. Maybe I am just shooting wrong, but that is a different topic.
What is an example of a sharp, high-contrast fixed focal length lens?
That's a great question! I have the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D, and it seems pretty flare-resistant. Perhaps the f/1.8 is even more flare-free. Maybe even better, the AF 60mm Micro-Nikkor f/2.8, or its 55mm f/3.5 variant, since the front element on those lenses is so far recessed. On second thought, any of Nikon's new, Nano-coated lenses should exhibit superior flare-resistance.
I do know that the smaller the glass, the less dispersion, so based on that, the old 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor may be the winner, with its ultra-tiny, recessed front element.
Internal flare can also be minimized by shooting with a bellows-style matte box attached to the front of your lens. The ones made for the Mamiya RB/RZ67 and 645 medium-format cameras are just large enough to fit some of Nikon's smaller primes. Unfortunately, these accessories are no longer made, and must be purchased used. Lee, and others, make bellows matte boxes for still photography, but tend to be fairly expensive.
Lens contrast is normally pretty good for all lenses, as you can see from test charts and MTF figures (yes, I know the difference between contrast, accutance and resolution), so I doubt it is a factor in your images. It could be lens flare, which most review sites test, or an issue with your lens (dirt, moisture, fungus), which obviously is a case by case issue. Alternatively, it could be a camera setting or an issue with your lighting, which again is not lens related.
Still, though, I have to say that I'm not sure what you are referring to, so I'd like to see some of the images that are giving you problems to be able to talk about it more.
I agree with jeri. The issues you are describing does not seem to relate to contrast but more to do with incorrect exposure. lens contrast relates more to the amount of stray light getting to the dark areas. This stray light can come from several things.
1) The lens coating. if the lens coating is not of good quality the internal reflections bouncing around between the lens elements reaches the sensor and dulls the dark areas.
2) The texture and colour on the internal surface of the lens barrel. again any light reflecting off these surfaces may eventually get to the sensor. (that's why a lens hood is a good thing)
3) Internal surface texture and shape of the camera. same as for the lens barrel but can be less or more effective depending on the lense. Ie if the lens has a much larger image circle then a bad camera body will result in lower contrast for that lens.
4) If you were using a lens hood you can improve contrast.
5) Dirty lens - dust and grime can defract light and distribute it across the sensor. also out of focus dust spots also get distributed across the sensor causing loss of contrast.
6) were there any strong sources of light in frame like the sun? or spot lights. These things usually reduce contrast. (they also can confuse the light meter resulting in bad exposures)
Almost every lens made in the last 10 years has good contrast. Key things for maximum contrast: multi coated UV or Skylight filter or no filter at all. Good filters usually cost a sum more - basically $30+ for a 52mm. I found the cheap filters tend to cause low contrast.
My Zeiss 35mm ZF F2 is extremely sharp and gives amazing contrast I think. Its really something with black and white images especially. The 50mm 1.8 D is not bad either, and as studio460 mentions its almost impossible to see flaring. The G is probably even better in this regard. I will be upgrading my Zeiss 35mm for the newer .2 version so I can get in camera aperature control it will cost me $600 once I trade in my current 35mm.
You must log in to post.
