From all lenses I have tried these three have been remarkably good:
Olympus OM 90/2 Macro
Contax Zeiss Planar G 45/2
Pentax SMC-P 31/1.8 Limited
But, I have as usual misunderstood everything:
Makten wrote:
It's high MTF at low frequencies. Which means that a bright area doesn't "infect" a dark adjacent area with its brightness. This isn't necessarily connected to high resolution (which is high MTF at higher frequencies). Think of it like "good sharpness" but at a larger scale than the finest details.
I thought that was macro contrast while believing micro contrast was good contrast (high MTF) at higher frequencies (like 30lp/mm for FF and 60lp/mm for small Olympus and Panasonic sensors). Oh well.
David Baldwin wrote:
Sorry to be ignorant, but I've often wondered what micro contrast actually means, but have always been ashamed to ask.
What is this quality, exactly please?
Here is some good and accurate information about contrast and MTF. It seems to confuse photographers to no end, and they end up inventing terms like micro contrast which has no definition, so its something subjective which cannot be measured.
Here's an odd recommendation - Mp-e 65mm from what i've seen of many many macro images (have one on the way) it's a macro lens that really pops.
But very difficult to use effectively of course.
Makten wrote:
It's high MTF at low frequencies. Which means that a bright area doesn't "infect" a dark adjacent area with its brightness. This isn't necessarily connected to high resolution (which is high MTF at higher frequencies). Think of it like "good sharpness" but at a larger scale than the finest details.
Is it (high MTF at low frequencies) simply called contrast?
or is micro-contrast = high MTF at mid frequencies?
Frankly, i don't know the exact defintions.
i've always assumed contrast (high MTF at low frequencies, 5 10 lp/mm for 35mm format) and resolution (high MTF at high frequencies). macro contrast = contrast and micro contrast = resolution.
systemlayers wrote:
Here's an odd recommendation - Mp-e 65mm from what i've seen of many many macro images (have one on the way) it's a macro lens that really pops.
But very difficult to use effectively of course.
I agree. It has alot of POP IMO.
My experience says except for the one above:
Distagon 21
Distagon 35/1.4
Vario-Sonnar 35-70/3.4
Sonnar 85/2.8
There is something about the Zeisses that makes magic.
I don't know the exact definition, if there is any. My understanding of micro contrast is ability of the lens to resolve fine structures and details in highlights and shadows and to separate elements of the image from each other. High contrast at 5-10lp/mm on MTF charts is probably another possible description.
There is only one Nikkor 24-70; the AF-S f/2.8. Great lens, but too large and heavy for my taste.
Jonas B wrote:
I thought that was macro contrast while believing micro contrast was good contrast (high MTF) at higher frequencies (like 30lp/mm for FF and 60lp/mm for small Olympus and Panasonic sensors). Oh well.
I think the problem here is that "low frequencies" doesn't tell anything about HOW low I meant. Global contrast is of course "high MTF at very low frequencies".
Micro contrast might be high MTF at something like 5-10 lp/mm. The word "relatively" should perhaps be in the equation too, since "high" MTF at very high frequencies will probably still be lower than at lower frequencies.
Agreed. Micro-contrast is high mtf at low frequencies.
It is interesting to notice the invariably high micro-contrast in Zeiss lenses' MTF (at 10 lpmm) regardless whether resolution is good or not (at 20 and 40 lpmm).
Good micro contrast = high mtf, high frequencies, 40 lp/mm. Good contrast = high mtf low frequencies, 10 lp/mm. We call a lens sharp when it has good micro contrast. Interestingly the OM 90 is super sharp, micro contrast, but has rather low contrast, imo. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml
Dan
www.danbrownphotography.com
David Baldwin wrote:
Sorry to be ignorant, but I've often wondered what micro contrast actually means, but have always been ashamed to ask.
What is this quality, exactly please?
I used to think micro and macro contrast were 'subjective' qualities like 3D, etc., but they really aren't. Macro contrast is just the contrast of the whole image (think histogram and contrast control in photoshop) while microcontrast deals with differentiating tonal differences of small features. Here is a link that talks some about microcontrast.
DanPBrown wrote:
Good micro contrast = high mtf, high frequencies, 40 lp/mm. Good contrast = high mtf low frequencies, 10 lp/mm. We call a lens sharp when it has good micro contrast.
I dunno about the first part, (though it contradicts the general consensus here) but I know for SURE that the second part is incorrect:
We call a lens sharp when it has both good contrast AND high resolution. That's not up for debate.
I am quite curious to see if we can get an absolute-verified definition of MICRO contrast, since there are differing opinions here. The idea that it is contrast at low frequencies, and that this affects plasticity (verses just "contrast") makes sense, intrinsically, since that's what you will find at the edges of objects in a photo.
kidtexas wrote:
Here is a link that talks some about microcontrast.
Great link, thanks. -but actually, they don't use the term "micro contrast" at all, unless I missed it.
They use "LOCAL contrast" which I take it is the same basic idea.
I like this term better, because it more clearly defines what it is, by specifying the areas in question. Perhaps we should also adopt this term, and retire the fairly-confusing "micro contrast" designation altogether?
DanPBrown wrote:
Good micro contrast = high mtf, high frequencies, 40 lp/mm. Good contrast = high mtf low frequencies, 10 lp/mm. We call a lens sharp when it has good micro contrast. Interestingly the OM 90 is super sharp, micro contrast, but has rather low contrast, imo. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml
Dan
www.danbrownphotography.com
I'm sorry but you totally misread the article you link to. MR says that high frequency= high resolving power which is correct, and low frequency is for contrast, which is incorrect in a way. It is for what we call micro-contrast. Macro contrast can be read by a simple histogram, but does not show on mtf.
This is not to say that MR cannot be an idiot sometimes, as he can and has proven to be several times, although not as often as KR
I don't know what the hell "micro contrast" is exactly, but I think most people mean that certain mixture of color intensity and detail that Zeiss has perfected. It has an undeniable eye candy appeal.
I would say the Contax G Zeiss 45mm f/2 Planar is the lens that best defines those characteristics IMO. Beware (!), the focusing is just maddening on non-Contax G cameras.
Close seconds would be the Olympus 24mm f/2.8 and the Hexanon 40mm f/1.8 pancake.
Cableaddict wrote:
Great link, thanks. -but actually, they don't use the term "micro contrast" at all, unless I missed it.
They use "LOCAL contrast" which I take it is the same basic idea.
He mentioned microcontrast several times I thought. Not that the whole article was on that.
I have a feeling microcontrast might be a technical term that has a specific meaning. We just aren't always clear on what that is. I could be wrong about that of course.
Sorry, after thinking, I have to totally disagree that 5-10 lp/mm is micro contrast. It is simply contrast (macro or global or whatever).
A full image viewed on the 17" monitor is roughly about 300mm in width. Assuming this image is taken by a FF sensor, it's original size is 24 x 36mm. There is a magnification of 300/36 = 8.3x. So referring to the width (ie 36mm) of the image, 5-10 lp/mm (taking 8.3 lp/mm for convenience of calculation) on 36mm translates to about 1 lp/mm on the image on screen. if you use a ruler to measure the details on the screen where one would call "micro-contrast", the details are definitely finer than 1 lp/mm. This means that micro-contrast cannot be in the range of 5-10 lp/mm on the 24x36mm area.
In simple term, 1 lp/mm means there is one black (dark) line and one white (light) line per mm. Alternatively, one can take the width of the line (of whatever colour) as 0.5mm.
Please do not confuse with pixel as it's not relevant.
Following your logic, even 40 lpmm will make a total of 2880 lines per frame length, much lower than the resolving power of any current sensor.
We all know that even film could resolve 160 lpmm (slide film) and up to 400 lpmm (black and white).
makron wrote:
Sorry, after thinking, I have to totally disagree that 5-10 lp/mm is micro contrast. It is simply contrast (macro or global or whatever).
A full image viewed on the 17" monitor is roughly about 300mm in width. Assuming this image is taken by a FF sensor, it's original size is 24 x 36mm. There is a magnification of 300/36 = 8.3x. So referring to the width (ie 36mm) of the image, 5-10 lp/mm (taking 8.3 lp/mm for convenience of calculation) on 36mm translates to about 1 lp/mm on the image on screen. if you use a ruler to measure the details on the screen where one would call "micro-contrast", the details are definitely finer than 1 lp/mm. This means that micro-contrast cannot be in the range of 5-10 lp/mm on the 24x36mm area.
In simple term, 1 lp/mm means there is one black (dark) line and one white (light) line per mm. Alternatively, one can take the width of the line (of whatever colour) as 0.5mm.
Please do not confuse with pixel as it's not relevant.
Great lens, but too large and heavy for my taste.
Global contrast is of course "high MTF at very low frequencies".