Best m/43 lenses for micro contrast

Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn · Jul 21, 2024

What would you say are among best m/43 lenses for micro contrast performance similar to Zeiss and Canon L glass?

I have heard a lot of great things about Olympus primes but do not quite have the experience with them myself, there also the Sigma primes and Leica, but can they provide?

Photongraphy · Jul 21, 2024

Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn said:
What would you say are among best m/43 lenses for micro contrast performance similar to Zeiss and Canon L glass?

I have heard a lot of great things about Olympus primes but do not quite have the experience with them myself, there also the Sigma primes and Leica, but can they provide?

Danielvr · Jul 21, 2024

Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn said:
What would you say are among best m/43 lenses for micro contrast performance similar to Zeiss and Canon L glass?

High resolution (detail) and overall contrast (clarity) are desirable optical properties. When a lens has both, it also has high microcontrast (or the potential for it, when you apply a bit of Unsharp Mask).

However, high microcontrast alone is *not* desirable, to me anyway, because it is often achieved using coatings that result in a sterile, harsh rendering that is easily mistaken for sharpness.

cba_melbourne · Jul 21, 2024

Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn said:
What would you say are among best m/43 lenses for micro contrast performance similar to Zeiss and Canon L glass?

I have heard a lot of great things about Olympus primes but do not quite have the experience with them myself, there also the Sigma primes and Leica, but can they provide?

Among the 20 or so lenses that I own personally, I would say the 15/1.7 has to be among the best for micro contrast.

From hearsay and sample pics (as I do not own these myself) the 75/1.8 and the 17/1.2 are likely two other top contenders.

Regor250 · Jul 21, 2024

Micro contrast means different things to different people. Best to give us an example of what YOU are after as lens character goes.

jalywol · Jul 21, 2024

Oly 12mm f2

Most of the PL (Panasonic-Leica) lenses

Oly 90mm macro

And, I am sure a lot of the higher end Oly lenses also, but I have used relatively few of them, so I am only commenting on the ones I have.

-J

kenw · Jul 21, 2024

Regor250 said:
Micro contrast means different things to different people. Best to give us an example of what YOU are after as lens character goes.

Exactly this!

The OP did mention Zeiss, but even Zeiss fans often can’t articulate what their famous “3D pop” is exactly.

As an aside I have an old m43 image that when posted without EXIF on a landscape forum elicited a “nice Zeiss pop!” comment from someone. It was shot with the original Panasonic 14-45 kit lens that came with the G1…

danart · Jul 22, 2024

Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn said:
What would you say are among best m/43 lenses for micro contrast performance similar to Zeiss and Canon L glass?

I have heard a lot of great things about Olympus primes but do not quite have the experience with them myself, there also the Sigma primes and Leica, but can they provide?

I get where you are coming from. But it is certainly a subjective topic.

I find there are no issues with any of the m43 lenses I have tried and own re: sharpness/contrast. There are however lenses that have a little something special that I belive you are referring to at varying degrees.

The Oly 12mm f2 is probably one of my favourite lens for any system. Its a toss up between this and the 75mm. The 45mm 1.8 is also special IMO as to how it renders. Its these lenses that give me a lot of love for the format. Depsite having owned lenses that are significantly more expensive (although the 12mm is not cheap) From a pure "character" POV, there is that "hard to put your finger on" quality both the 12mm, 75mm have and you will see it in your pictures.. I feel the 17 and 45mm 1.8 have this quality also but to a lesser extent.

I have what i understand was the first batch of the 12mm "Made in Japan" and my copy is excellent. These are hard to find though. If buying the 12mm f2 or 17mm 1.8 make sure to get a current sample "made in Vietnam. QC issues exist with certain production runs. Id buy these new vs used.

The 17mm/45mm 1.2 I own are very nice, and super sharp if not a little too clincial IMO These lenses really beg to be shot wide open. And its only for extra light gathering and weather sealing that I own them. I find I still prefer the "look" of the 12/75mm

The small oly primes 12,17,45 and 75 all of which I own, provide what I would call IQ continuity. They produce a similar "feel" but all hold what I'd call character. They are not the sharpest or techically "best" but they are special IMO. whilst this important to me, others might not notice or care. I could live with these lenses and a two body set up and be done in all honesty. I'd take the 17 and 45 over the pro versions, because of my preference for a smaller kit. IQ is just not an issue here.

For flexibility and WR I really like the 12-45mm f4 and prefer how it renders vs the 12-40 f2.8

The sigma 30mm 1.4 is a great given its price (I havent tried the 16 & 56mm but hear very good things) the 14mm 2.5 a steal. I like how the 14mm renders. The 15mm is worth considering, it has a unique rendering and probably the answer for most if only pairing 1 prime with a system of zooms etc.. As good as it is, it just rendered too differently to my other primes. I suspect it falls more in line with the other panaleica lenses as to its rendering signature.

John Bean (UK) · Jul 22, 2024

kenw said:
Regor250 said:

Micro contrast means different things to different people. Best to give us an example of what YOU are after as lens character goes.

Click to expand...

Exactly this!

The OP did mention Zeiss, but even Zeiss fans often can’t articulate what their famous “3D pop” is exactly.

As an aside I have an old m43 image that when posted without EXIF on a landscape forum elicited a “nice Zeiss pop!” comment from someone. It was shot with the original Panasonic 14-45 kit lens that came with the G1…

I still use the 14-45 a lot because of its rendering. I'm a bit wary using the term "micro contrast" sometimes because of the mixed opinions of its meaning, but over the decades I've always favoured lenses that render a "look" reminiscent of pre-ASPH Leica lenses, a look I think of as "sharp-smooth". The 14-45 images have that look but images from the later smaller, arguably "sharper" Panasonic kit zooms do not.

The "Zeiss look" is a bit different with more emphasis on "sharp" rather than "smooth", and it has always amused me that I often think of Panasonic's Leica-branded lenses as having more of a "Zeiss look" and it's Olympus lenses that have more of a "Leica look"

All very subjective of course.

JKdad · Jul 22, 2024

All I know is I love the “look” of just about all of the PL lenses, especially the 15 1.7.

Not a fan of the Olympus Pro lenses (look).

Totally subjective.

Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn · Jul 22, 2024

Regor250 said:
Micro contrast means different things to different people. Best to give us an example of what YOU are after as lens character goes.

Well lets just go with the Theoria Apophasis explanation of micro-contrast or as he calls it, image fidelity. There is also the Zeiss interpretation but I found their examples to be poor showcase of it.

Personally in my own experience which is not scientific, I found Canon 50mm F1.2 and the Zeiss 24-70mm F2.8 A-mount to produce astonishingly good micro-contrast on product shoots, specifically in a studio, its most noticeable in finer details on the products, both the Zeiss and Canon are often stopped down to F4 just to keep the products in focus.

This is just an example of my own collection for a Sigma 24-70mm that I put on sale a month ago. This shot was taken with Zeiss 24-70mm F2.8 at 70mm at F2.8, ISO 100Notice how the finer details around the zoom ring show exceptional depth and detail which I have not previously seen in other lenses before, now its true I could have taken a side by side comparison, admittedly I do not own any respectable m/43 primes that could match the Zeiss, perhaps the Leica 12-60mm F2.8 or the Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 might.

I see some people refer to "3D Pop" and I am not too fond of this netizen terminology, I agree with most older film photographer that this is mostly just a composition effect that people are seeing.

But micro-contrast is certainly something that only came up on my radar a while ago while trying out the Sony Alpha 900 with the Zeiss glass and also testing out the Canon L primes on my G9M2 with a passthrough adapter.

I understand some people have different opinions on what is and what is not, I am not interested in a flamewar, I am just interested in what people think is the best micro-contrast lens on m/43 system based on their own experience and perception, I have no qualms of just buying the lenses later down the road and just testing it out, if not I just sell them since m/43 lenses for some reasons hold their values really well in my country.

Danielvr · Jul 22, 2024

kenw said:
kenw said:

Micro contrast means different things to different people. Best to give us an example of what YOU are after as lens character goes.

Click to expand...

Exactly this!

It simply means high pixel-to-pixel contrast.

If you resize and sharpen your images to suit the output format, and you use a decently sharp lens, its micro contrast is basically irrelevant because the processing overrules it.

kenw said:
The OP did mention Zeiss, but even Zeiss fans often can’t articulate what their famous “3D pop” is exactly.

There's no magic involved. You get 3D pop when you have a sharp foreground with sharply defined edges (which is where micro contrast comes in), a fuzzy background, and preferably color and/or brightness contrast between FG and BG.

Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn · Jul 22, 2024

JKdad said:
All I know is I love the “look” of just about all of the PL lenses, especially the 15 1.7.

Not a fan of the Olympus Pro lenses (look).

Totally subjective.

I see a lot of people mention the 15mm F1.7 over and over again on this forum and other places, there definitely seems to be an anonymous vote that this lens is indeed special, worth a purchase just to see what it is, thankfully the used market has not caught up on the speciality of the lens since the prices are like lowest I saw was 80 euros on one in mint condition.

ZodiacPhoto · Jul 22, 2024

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62654440

and

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62785647

There is no clear definition of Micro-contrast. Some people tried to hijack the term to use it for tonal definition / separation. This is my understanding:

--
flickr.com/photos/zodiacphoto1
"The function of art is to hold the mirror up to nature" - Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Thin_Ice · Jul 22, 2024

Good definition, but is this what we want?

if you want extreme sharpness, get a hig MP digital back mounted on a cambo technical camera with the best rodenstock lens money can buy, apply tilt& shift,…. Probably good for a product shoot or illustrations in a scientific magazine, but photography?

I prefer lenses that give a special look that I like.

for MFT:

oly 12/2

Voigtlander 17,5 (probably also the others, but I don’t own these,)

oly 45/1,2

medium format:

rolleiflex ( still sorting out what lens i prefer, I own a yashica mat)

large format:

voigtlander heliar ( rare lens, don’t own one)

in general, over all formats the current, discontinued and antique lenses from voigtlander are worth looking at.
In the antiques category there are obviously some other gems that cost €€ €€€

I also like the old tessar lenses from Zeiss (or other comparable lenses).

Steven

danart · Jul 22, 2024

ZodiacPhoto said:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62654440

and

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62785647

There is no clear definition of Micro-contrast. Some people tried to hijack the term to use it for tonal definition / separation. This is my understanding:

It’s a term from film and it does relate to the a lenses ability to capture very fine detail via tonal variation as represented by specular details in a films grain structure. Micro-contrast is represented by a combination of lens, film and processing. The same applies to digital.

A lens with good micro-contrast can preserve these specular details found in the shadows and highlights that are represented by fine tonal variations and give more details as a result.

This is not simply the characteristics of a sharp lens. A sharp lens can present low micro-contrast where it represents sharp details with too much contrast. The same as if a lens does not have enough contrast, detail will be lost or eaten by the grain or pixel structure of the film/sensor.

A lens does not need be sharp to present good micro contrast and a sharp lens can be void of micro contrast. Hence you can buy very sharp lenses that are cheap and very expensive lenses that are not necessarily the sharpest.

John Bean (UK) · Jul 22, 2024

danart said:
ZodiacPhoto said:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62654440

and

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62785647

There is no clear definition of Micro-contrast. Some people tried to hijack the term to use it for tonal definition / separation. This is my understanding:

Click to expand...

It’s a term from film and it does relate to the a lenses ability to capture very fine detail via tonal variation as represented by specular details in a films grain structure. Micro-contrast is represented by a combination of lens, film and processing. The same applies to digital.

A lens with good micro-contrast can preserve these specular details found in the shadows and highlights that are represented by fine tonal variations and give more details as a result.

This is not simply the characteristics of a sharp lens. A sharp lens can present low micro-contrast where it represents sharp details with too much contrast. The same as if a lens does not have enough contrast, detail will be lost or eaten by the grain or pixel structure of the film/sensor.

A lens does not need be sharp to present good micro contrast and a sharp lens can be void of micro contrast. Hence you can buy very sharp lenses that are cheap and very expensive lenses that are not necessarily the sharpest.

Excellent summary, expressed far better than I've managed to do in the past when trying to explain why I often dislike lenses others describe as "really sharp" but all I see from them are images with good edge sharpness but no texture; they look flat and dull to me.

Some lenses with astonishingly high resolution can produce awfully dull pictorial results unless some noise ("grain") is added to give some artificial "bite" to the image.

--
John Bean [GMT+1]
RIP Elliott Erwitt 26 July 1928 - 29 November 2023

Skeeterbytes · Jul 22, 2024

Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn said:
What would you say are among best m/43 lenses for micro contrast performance similar to Zeiss and Canon L glass?

I have heard a lot of great things about Olympus primes but do not quite have the experience with them myself, there also the Sigma primes and Leica, but can they provide?

Hard question because it's so subjective, but kind of know the pull having transitioned to Oly and 4/3, m4/3 from a mostly Zeiss diet across multiple systems. Was accustomed to heightened contrast and color saturation, but with film. They also tend to trend warm.

Lenses that come to mind are the 12/2, 12-40/2.8 at the wide end, 40-150/2.8 at the long end, 17/1.2, 300/4. Of my 4/3 lenses the 7-14/4 and 11-22 seem to have heightened saturation, perhaps contrast too, even while not especially sharp. Think the design philosophy was a bit different with the 4/3 lenses, not emphasizing clinical resolution to the extent the better m4/3 lenses present today. "Oly color" seems less pronounced to my eye now, than with the E-series. Saturation and micro contrast are hard to tease apart.

That said some camera-lens combos are more harmonious than others, among my m4/3 kit. I'd hesitate to recommend, say, a 17/1.2 on a GX-9 without having first tried the combo.

Cheers,

Rick

Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn · Jul 22, 2024

ZodiacPhoto said:
ZodiacPhoto wrote:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62654440

and

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62785647

There is no clear definition of Micro-contrast. Some people tried to hijack the term to use it for tonal definition / separation. This is my understanding:

Okay, but I am not interested nor do I care about starting arguments about what is and what is not.

DPReview dwellers seems to love discussing these topics then just devolve into insulting each other.

Micro contrast exists, I am interested in what other people think has the best micro contrast in a m/43 lens, not starting another argument about what is micro contrast.

So far, there are a few compelling options, I already bought the Leica 15mm F1.7 as I see so many people not just here but in a lot of places singing the praise about it, the Oly 75mm is also another lens that is sung highly of.

In another forum, I saw people giving compelling reasons for Sigma primes on m/43, I bought both the 56mm and the 16mm, so to me it will be interesting to test them in the field.

Regor250 · Jul 22, 2024

Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn said:
Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn said:

ZodiacPhoto wrote:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62654440

and

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62785647

There is no clear definition of Micro-contrast. Some people tried to hijack the term to use it for tonal definition / separation. This is my understanding:

Click to expand...

Okay, but I am not interested nor do I care about starting arguments about what is and what is not.

DPReview dwellers seems to love discussing these topics then just devolve into insulting each other.

Micro contrast exists, I am interested in what other people think has the best micro contrast in a m/43 lens, not starting another argument about what is micro contrast.

So far, there are a few compelling options, I already bought the Leica 15mm F1.7 as I see so many people not just here but in a lot of places singing the praise about it,

The 15mm/1.7 is sharp and high contrast, but as character goes, I for one don't particularly care for it. To me good micro contrast = sharp yet silky soft rendering, but I'll reiterate it depends on what YOU are after. If sharp and high contrast then you'd like the 15mm, if creamy and sharp at the same time, not so much. There are plenty of examples online to judge for yourself if you like it's rendering or not.

Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn said:
the Oly 75mm is also another lens that is sung highly of.

In another forum, I saw people giving compelling reasons for Sigma primes on m/43, I bought both the 56mm and the 16mm, so to me it will be interesting to test them in the field.

--
Roger

Best m/43 lenses for micro contrast

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts