Trying to choose between voighlander 28mm f2 apo and f1.5 Nokton for the Nikon mount. Does the new APO have a digital look to the images because of the high micro contrast? I have a 40mm 1.2 Norton and it's great for portraits but need a 28mm mostly for everyday and some street photography. Thank you!
stevemya123 wrote:
Trying to choose between voighlander 28mm f2 apo and f1.5 Nokton for the Nikon mount. Does the new APO have a digital look to the images because of the high micro contrast? I have a 40mm 1.2 Norton and it's great for portraits but need a 28mm mostly for everyday and some street photography. Thank you!
I have this combo. I still need more time with the Apo-Lanthar to really know it, but for street and travel I wanted the APO. It gives me something different in rendering.
The 40mm f/1.2 is a gorgeous lens as well, but having two lenses with very similar signatures would feel redundant. I’d rather have contrast in character than a subtle variation on the same theme.
In the end, it comes down to personal preference. Neither is objectively “better”.
stevemya123 wrote:
Does the new APO have a digital look to the images because of the high micro contrast?
I see no technical reason why high micro-contrast should cause a "digital look".
Microcontrast manifests itself on the focal plane. The digital look is due to the abrupt tonal transitions that occur between the focus plane and the out-of-focus planes, in front of and, above all, behind the focus plane; like a cardboard cutout superimposed on the background. Many people confuse the "cardboard effect" with the 3D rendering/pop of a (large aperture, w/open) lens...
Feb 22, 2026 at 09:41 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Ripolini wrote:
I see no technical reason why high micro-contrast should cause a "digital look".
Microcontrast manifests itself on the focal plane. The digital look is due to the abrupt tonal transitions that occur between the focus plane and the out-of-focus planes, in front of and, above all, behind the focus plane; like a cardboard cutout superimposed on the background. Many people confuse the "cardboard effect" with the 3D rendering/pop of a (large aperture, w/open) lens...
I think there is a technical reason that high micro-contrast does lead to abrupt focus transitions. To get really high microcontrast (e.g., greater than 60% or 70% contrast at 40 lp/mm), lens designs often greatly reduce spherical aberrations, and spherical aberrations slow down the focus transition. I don't think it is useful to call abrupt focus transitions the digital look, because some lenses designed for film have that sort of transition too and many lenses designed for digital do not. There also may be some ways to make the transition less abrupt rather than allowing some spherical aberration to be left uncorrected, but I think that removing spherical aberrations, which is one common way to increase microcontrast, will lead to a more abrupt focus transition unless something else is done to offset that reduction. In practice, I think this means that unless designs specifically try to address the focus transition, when they try to increase microcontrast one common side effect is a more abrupt focus transition.
What’s another way to improve focus transition if not through spherical aberration? The 600 TC seems to be both insanely sharp while maintaining that nice focus transition - I’m not sure if the same could be said about the 400 TC
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think there is a technical reason that high micro-contrast does lead to abrupt focus transitions. To get really high microcontrast (e.g., greater than 60% or 70% contrast at 40 lp/mm), lens designs often greatly reduce spherical aberrations, and spherical aberrations slow down the focus transition. I don't think it is useful to call abrupt focus transitions the digital look, because some lenses designed for film have that sort of transition too and many lenses designed for digital do not. There also may be some ways to make the transition less abrupt rather than allowing some spherical aberration to be left uncorrected, but I think that removing spherical aberrations, which is one common way to increase microcontrast, will lead to a more abrupt focus transition unless something else is done to offset that reduction. In practice, I think this means that unless designs specifically try to address the focus transition, when they try to increase microcontrast one common side effect is a more abrupt focus transition....Show more →
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think there is a technical reason that high micro-contrast does lead to abrupt focus transitions. To get really high microcontrast (e.g., greater than 60% or 70% contrast at 40 lp/mm), lens designs often greatly reduce spherical aberrations, and spherical aberrations slow down the focus transition. I don't think it is useful to call abrupt focus transitions the digital look, because some lenses designed for film have that sort of transition too and many lenses designed for digital do not. There also may be some ways to make the transition less abrupt rather than allowing some spherical aberration to be left uncorrected, but I think that removing spherical aberrations, which is one common way to increase microcontrast, will lead to a more abrupt focus transition unless something else is done to offset that reduction. In practice, I think this means that unless designs specifically try to address the focus transition, when they try to increase microcontrast one common side effect is a more abrupt focus transition....Show more →
+1
The "rate of transition" is the base that influences perception ... slower, gentler transitions generate a different perception than more acute transitions.
While an optic can have high resolving capability, it also is designed with how rapid / slow the transition is away from the focal plane. Therein lies the "art" of the optical design choices ... we often associate that with level of under / over correction of SA, etc.
Where optical designers choose to land that rate of transition can range from very slow to very abrupt.
As to the "digital look" ... I think it is mostly the matter that the timing of when optical designs became ever more prevalent at greater levels of aspheric use, and correction of SA ... it has largely advanced during the "digital era", thus the ( iffy ) moniker of "digital look". In some regard, not unlike the moniker of "medium format" or "Leica" or "Zeiss" look. Each owing to differing optical design approaches, basically related to how those transitions occur in and away from the focal plane.
Ripolini wrote:
I think my 100/2 Makro-Planar has both micro-contrast and gentle transitions.
The ZF 100/2 is the most perfect blend of high contrast and resolution + gentle focus transition I've ever seen. I remember the Zeiss promo material hinting that the 100/2 had "inherited DNA" from their Ultra Prime cine lens line.
Ripolini wrote:
I think my 100/2 Makro-Planar has both micro-contrast and gentle transitions.
Yes, it does but if you define microcontrast as percent contrast at 40 lp/mm, however, it does not have nearly as much microcontrast as many modern lenses. It has about 60% according to the MTFs published by Zeiss.
Feb 22, 2026 at 02:16 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
fnzmf25 wrote:
What’s another way to improve focus transition if not through spherical aberration? The 600 TC seems to be both insanely sharp while maintaining that nice focus transition - I’m not sure if the same could be said about the 400 TC
Good question, I don't know the answer but I don't want to say that spherical aberrations are the only thing that affects focus transitions either.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, it does but if you define microcontrast as percent contrast at 40 lp/mm, however, it does not have nearly as much microcontrast as many modern lenses. It has about 60% according to the MTFs published by Zeiss.
Any definition of micro-contrast on the basis of % of MTF at 40 lp/mm is rather arbitrary. We should know how vary the % MTF as function of lp/mm, distance from the image center, magnification and aperture; then, we should calculate the multiple integral by setting some (arbitrary) integration limits form x% to y%, from 0 to x mm from image center, aperture from w/open to f/? and magnification from 0 (infinity) to 1:? ...
Now, without getting bogged down in arbitrary thresholds or multiple integral calculations, you know that the 100/2 Zeiss Makro-Planar has rather flat MTF curves (independently of aperture and magnification). This means that the 60-65% value @ 40 lp/mm is maintained everywhere across the frame; a performance that is not so common even in "modern lenses". It doesn't suffer from spherical aberration (no "visible focus" shift, and very low "measurable" focus shift) but has great out-of-focus rendition with smooth focus transition (even @ f/11) that makes the photographed scene look real, without a digital look.
When I compared the 100/2 Zeiss with the Z 105 MC, I didn't see any major differences, apart from the LoCA and the straight diaphragm blades of the Zeiss, which penalize it a little in terms of bokeh performance at apertures smaller than f/2. Yet the 105 MC is definitely an excellent & modern lens.
I could have mentioned the 135/2 Apo Sonnar; this lens has a higher MTF % value in the image center (> 70% @ 40 lp/mm), similar MTF value at the borders (approximately 57 +/- 8%), but greater astigmatism (see graphs below).
They are two different lenses, of course, but I have no complaints about 135/2 micro-contrast and quality of the transitions between focus and out-of-focus planes. Isn't it a "modern lens" ? Isn't its high micro-contrast high enough to prevent it from producing images with a digital look?
Finally, I could have even mentioned my Z CV 50/2 Apo Lanthar, a lens with tons of micro-contrast. Does it produce harsh tonal transitions from the plane of focus and oof planes? I don't think so.
Therefore, the answer to my previous (rhetorical) question is: I see no technical reason why a lens with excellent MTF values at 40 or 50 lp/mm cannot produce smooth and gradual tonal transitions. Even if it is highly corrected insofar as spherical aberration is concerned.
Feb 22, 2026 at 04:43 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Any definition of micro-contrast on the basis of % of MTF at 40 lp/mm is rather arbitrary. We should know how vary the % MTF as function of lp/mm, distance from the image center, magnification and aperture; then, we should calculate the multiple integral by setting some (arbitrary) integration limits form x% to y%, from 0 to x mm from image center, aperture from w/open to f/? and magnification from 0 (infinity) to 1:? ...
Now, without getting bogged down in arbitrary thresholds or multiple integral calculations, you know that the 100/2 Zeiss Makro-Planar has rather flat MTF curves (independently of aperture and magnification). This means that the 60-65% value @ 40 lp/mm is maintained everywhere across the frame; a performance that is not so common even in "modern lenses". It doesn't suffer from spherical aberration (no "visible focus" shift, and very low "measurable" focus shift) but has great out-of-focus rendition with smooth focus transition (even @ f/11) that makes the photographed scene look real, without a digital look.
When I compared the 100/2 Zeiss with the Z 105 MC, I didn't see any major differences, apart from the LoCA and the straight diaphragm blades of the Zeiss, which penalize it a little in terms of bokeh performance at apertures smaller than f/2. Yet the 105 MC is definitely an excellent & modern lens.
I could have mentioned the 135/2 Apo Sonnar; this lens has a higher MTF % value in the image center (> 70% @ 40 lp/mm), similar MTF value at the borders (approximately 57 +/- 8%), but greater astigmatism (see graphs below).
They are two different lenses, of course, but I have no complaints about 135/2 micro-contrast and quality of the transitions between focus and out-of-focus planes. Isn't it a "modern lens" ? Isn't its high micro-contrast high enough to prevent it from producing images with a digital look?
Finally, I could have even mentioned my Z CV 50/2 Apo Lanthar, a lens with tons of micro-contrast. Does it produce harsh tonal transitions from the plane of focus and oof planes? I don't think so.
Therefore, the answer to my previous (rhetorical) question is: I see no technical reason why a lens with excellent MTF values at 40 or 50 lp/mm cannot produce smooth and gradual tonal transitions. Even if it is highly corrected insofar as spherical aberration is concerned.
I have used all the lenses you have mentioned in the post extensively. Do I think any of them have focus transitions that are too abrupt? For me only the CV 50 f/2 APO. That said I do see a correlation between MTF at higher lp/mm (what some might define, perhaps arbitrarily as microcontrast) and more abrupt focus transitions. The higher contrast at higher lp/mm the more abrupt transition are to my eyes for all of these lenses and more lenses as well. Whether this is caused by residual spherical aberrations that are nowhere near enough to cause focus shift. I don't know. I thought and still think that is a possibility. For my eyes I rarely (and I think never) have seen a lens with focus transitions that I find too abrupt that does not have really high % contrast at higher lp/mm, and I find this true even as the same lens gets stopped down. That is what I see perhaps you see something different. My observation is consistent with the idea (technical reason if you will) that the more you correct residual aberrations the more abrupt the focus transition will be.
Your examples of lenses in my experience do not refute this idea, but rather pretty broadly support it. Perhaps you are right and my perceptions are wrong, but your examples do not change my view of these issues. At least not yet.
Oh, at when we discuss MTF it is usually called percent contrast at X lp/mm and not percent MTF at X lp/mm.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I have used all the lenses you have mentioned in the post extensively.
I know
Steve Spencer wrote:
Do I think any of them have focus transitions that are too abrupt? For me only the CV 50 f/2 APO. That said I do see a correlation between MTF at higher lp/mm (what some might define, perhaps arbitrarily as microcontrast) and more abrupt focus transitions. The higher contrast at higher lp/mm the more abrupt transition are to my eyes for all of these lenses and more lenses as well.
Does the same hold for the 35/2 Apo Lanthar, whose MTF plots (40 lp/mm) exceed 70% at f/2, and 80% @f/4?
Look at my pictures, posted here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1695782/59#16938258
Do you see abrupt transitions?? Do they have a "digital look"?
Of course, the "amount of transition" depends on focus distance.The greater the distance from the subject, the slower the transition from focus to blur, with the same aperture. Image #4 has the more gradual transition, but this doesn't depend on MTF values or micro-contrast.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Oh, at when we discuss MTF it is usually called percent contrast at X lp/mm and not percent MTF at X lp/mm.
Look at the y-axis name in the plots I've posted above. Those plot show MTF vs mm (distance from image center). You can express MTF as fraction (0-1) or % (0-100).
Feb 22, 2026 at 05:50 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Does the same hold for the 35/2 Apo Lanthar, whose MTF plots (40 lp/mm) exceed 70% at f/2, and 80% @f/4?
Look at my pictures, posted here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1695782/59#16938258
Do you see abrupt transitions?? Do they have a "digital look"?
Of course, the "amount of transition" depends on focus distance.The greater the distance from the subject, the slower the transition from focus to blur, with the same aperture. Image #4 has the more gradual transition, but this doesn't depend on MTF values or micro-contrast.
Look at the y-axis name in the plots I've posted above. Those plot show MTF vs mm (distance from image center). You can express MTF as fraction (0-1) or % (0-100). ...Show more →
I haven't never owned the CV 35 f/2 APO, so I have less of a feel for that lens. I do think both your shots and others I have seen have a quite abrupt focus transition consistent with it being a lens with very low residual spherical aberrations. I also know that in discussing the Leica SL APO lenses Peter Karbe at Leica described the abrupt focus transition of these lenses which he purposely designed as arising from dramatically lower the residual aberrations, so that is influencing my thinking as well. Again, I think there is a relation between residual spherical aberrations and a slower focus transition, and I don't really see that as being inconsistent with any of the examples you have provided. Perhaps, my idea isn't right, but I don't think your evidence has contradicted that point so far.
What is on the y-axis on those graph is the MTF expressed as 0-1. It is a function of the contrast that the lens can resolve. When multiplied by 100 it can be expressed as the percent contrast. MTF is on a scale from 0 to 1. Contrast is expressed as a percent, but they are in fact two ways to express the same measurement in two different units. See this link for more details:
Steve Spencer wrote:
I haven't never owned the CV 35 f/2 APO, so I have less of a feel for that lens. I do think both your shots and others I have seen have a quite abrupt focus transition consistent with it being a lens with very low residual spherical aberrations....
The characteristics of a lens (MTF plots, residual aberrations, etc.) are independent of the medium used to record the image (film or sensor). Therefore, talking about “digital look” and micro-contrast does not make much sense. It's like saying that a photo taken with a VM 35/Apo Lanthar and a Leica film camera has a “digital look”!
When images are recorded on a digital sensor, harsh transitions are mostly caused by excessive sharpening; lenses with high micro-contrast require less sharpening than softer lenses due to residual aberrations ((at least this is my experience with cameras having a low pass AA filter). Paradoxically, therefore, lenses with high micro-contrast may actually produce - at the end of the photo editing process - a less digital look.
Steve Spencer wrote:
See this link for more details:
Ripolini wrote:
The characteristics of a lens (MTF plots, residual aberrations, etc.) are independent of the medium used to record the image (film or sensor). Therefore, talking about “digital look” and micro-contrast does not make much sense. It's like saying that a photo taken with a VM 35/Apo Lanthar and a Leica film camera has a “digital look”!
When images are recorded on a digital sensor, harsh transitions are mostly caused by excessive sharpening; lenses with high micro-contrast require less sharpening than softer lenses due to residual aberrations ((at least this is my experience with cameras having a low pass AA filter). Paradoxically, therefore, lenses with high micro-contrast may actually produce - at the end of the photo editing process - a less digital look. ...Show more →
+1 optical projection remains independent of medium
Your paradox is interesting ... because it was the point of my non-AA Kodak DCS SLR/C (pre-dating today's non-AA bodies) that the need for "less sharpening" (to offset the AA filter) produced fewer artifacts ... and then, the differences in my optics were better revealed. Sharpening (global, etc.) can be a bit like ketchup or sugar ... it's easy to add enough (or so much), that it masks / flavors things to desensitize the ability to differentiate the other nuance.
That said, I still consider that the "digital look" is an "era" of time correlated moniker ... but, your point about sharpening may simply be one part of the learning curve that the industry has gone through, in the quest for where to land things. Whether that has been OEM / JPG algorithm development or personal PP (industry wide), the matter of sharpening (and the historic quest for better / less artifacts, etc.) ... while optical designers have been chasing MTF development ... OEM / 3rd Party software has been chasing sharpening (et al). Both of these occurring at ramped developmental paces since the "digital" era grew legs ... crawl, walk, run, gold medal.
So, the combination of "things" (i.e. sharpening, vastly more ASPH glass, etc.) that have been occurring (in parallel) during the era's ramping curve still place the development of the moniker associated to a time era ... even if the factors for it are multiple / variable. People may indeed associated the corollary to it's "simplest" attribute, even though other attributes are also in play.
How does the zF 100/2 compare with the Nikon z 1.2 lenses and plena?
Keith B. wrote:
The ZF 100/2 is the most perfect blend of high contrast and resolution + gentle focus transition I've ever seen. I remember the Zeiss promo material hinting that the 100/2 had "inherited DNA" from their Ultra Prime cine lens line.
fnzmf25 wrote:
How does the zF 100/2 compare with the Nikon z 1.2 lenses and plena?
I've never compared them side-by-side; however,
1) the ZF 100/2 has visible LoCA at the wider apertures;
2) the ZF 100/2 has straight diaphragm blades and can form a slightly polygonal bokeh at apertures > 2;
3) the ZF 100/2 shows vignetting, and consequently cat's eyes in the borders/corners;
4) the ZF 100/2 is MF;
5) the ZF max. aperture is f/2 (just).
Nevertheless, it's a beautiful lens (going to 1:2)!
My initial impressions of the Z mount version have been nothing but positive so far. Very sharp, even wide open at both long and short focusing distances. Great build quality and I was also pleasantly surprised by the size - it was bigger in diameter than I expected, but is a very nice balance as such for the Z8. I think some of the pics I saw were of an adapted lens on a Z body. I was looking for a 'compact' replacement for the 28mm f/2.8 AiS lens, this one appeared to fit the bill. Not a huge fan of adapted lenses for a walk around setup, there is just something funky about the ergonomics. The awesome thing with the 28 APO is that it appears to have all the nice mechanical properties of a good MF lens coupled with absolutely top shelf image quality. This is my first Voightlander Z mount lens, but will very likely not be my last.
