Micro-contrast has been a hotly debated topic in photography over the years. We’ve heard it called lens pop, Zeiss pop, 3D Pop, inter-tonal detail, micro-contrast, etc.
Why is it so complicated to explain? Explaining the phenomenon is difficult because we’re dealing with photon science, which is still very messy with inconsistent ideas. But I will try.
What Is Micro-Contrast?
Micro-contrast is how well the light is structured when it hits the sensor. It’s like an analog version of bit depth, 8-bit vs 10-bit.
To add some validity to this claim, I have noticed that controlled lighting seems to improve it, which means photon coherency and structure play a role. This is similar to how the grain of ISO 12800 under direct sunlight looks better than the grain at ISO 12800 in low light when the shutter is adjusted to the same exposure.
If you’re always under direct studio lighting or outside, it might not be as obvious which lens has better micro-contrast; they all look pretty decent. But you’ll benefit from the lower-element lenses with less glass under natural lower lighting with less photon coherency. So it seems anyway.
The science should be pretty obvious; you all know what chromatic aberrations are, and you’ve all seen that picture of a prism producing a rainbow. With each added element, the different frequencies of light will bend slightly, so more elements at the perfect geometry or coatings can be added to try to keep it all aligned, but it can never be perfect since it’s all on a spectrum. Then, of course, there are impurities in the glass and on the surface that can chip away at that structure of light. That makes sense, right?
Micro-Contrast Samples
For these samples, I adjusted the histograms in Lightroom to match exposure. Sometimes, an image seems brighter, but that’s just the lens’s characteristic.
Kipon 75mm f2.4 vs Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 II
I compared the Kipon 75mm f2.4, a 5-element lens in 5 groups, to the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 II, which uses 20 elements in 15 groups.
This is a perfect example because the Canon lens is noticeably sharper with better contrast. It should technically have better coatings as well. As you can see, the Kipon blacks are not fully black, likely some internal light scatter, or it’s catching some flare from the light, which I, unfortunately, did not flag off. I did try to move it into a position in front of the lens where it was not directly causing flare. These Kipon lenses also produce a little bit of glow.
Natural Lighting
This natural lighting shot handheld on the Canon R. Taken only a few seconds apart, Kipon was shot at f2.8 at ISO 2000 and Canon at f2.8 at ISO 2500. I wasn’t planning on using this as my test run, so I didn’t lock the ISO, but it showed good results, so I’ve shared it.
The difference between all these samples is subtle; try to look at the colors and tones, not the sharpness. Look for how they transition and blend.
Looking at the left side of the image, it’s very clear that the colors and tones in the cheek are smoother, almost like there is more color and tonal information, even though the Canon image is sharper and has better global contrast.
Highlights on the Canon image also tend to get slightly blotchy and lack color.
Controlled Lighting
This is a controlled lighting shot on the Canon R, and both lenses are set to f2.8 at ISO 1000. It’s not too bright and not under a strobe since I wouldn’t want the light coherency to be too good so as not to show results.
The Kipon image came in slightly warmer with more saturation, so I pumped the Canon image a little to match. Also, the focus plane here did not perfectly match. The Kipon is just slightly front-focused, making it look a little softer, and her face angle changes somewhat. I just couldn’t get it perfect on a manual focus of 75mm with a 7-year-old who wouldn’t sit still. I tried.
When looking at the two samples, it should again be obvious that the Canon has slightly better global contrast. However, the tones look a little muddier and a little blotchier overall compared to the Kipon—just tonally, it’s not as rich.
The highlights on the Canon become blotchy and yellow, and the warm cheek tones on the Kipon feel a little more lively and have a smoother and calmer transition into different colors and tones.
Sitting back, the Kipon looks cleaner, even though the Canon image is sharper with deeper blacks. But it’s not as obvious here, I don’t think, as with natural lighting.
Close-Up | Natural Lighting
Here is a 50% crop. The Kipon again has better shape and color transitions, but the Canon is sharper.
Industar 50-2 vs Nikon 50mm f1.8 S
Now we’re on a Nikon Z6, which does have a heavier AA filter, and this will likely change the look and probably reduce the micro-contrast as it’s just one more thing to interfere with the photon structure. Maybe I’ll retest these one day on a Nikon Z8.
This sample is not as obvious since the Nikon 50mm f1.8 is still a decent lens for Micro-Contrast.
I’m trying not to be biased since I am a believer, so I left both samples on my computer, woke up the next morning forgetting which was which, and immediately thought the Industar 50mm f3.5 image was better tonally, but it’s harder to tell now as a JPG with web compression, especially if you’re on a consumer monitor or smartphone.
I want to point out that these two images are also corrected to match, but straight out of the camera, the Industar always produced a prettier look with nicer colors, and I don’t know why; maybe it’s just a warmer lens, and that always looks good on portraits.
However, even when corrected to match, the highlights hold more color information, the Industar image color transitions and tonal transitions are smoother, and the warm tones are rosier, making the image feel more realistic. Overall, the global contrast is slightly better on Nikon, where the blacks are blacker.
Regarding sharpness, the Nikon is only slightly sharper than the Industar here at f4.
Nikon 24-120mm f4 vs Industar 50-2
It’s not the best sample, but I’ll put it up because why not? I went through many lenses quickly, so not everything was well executed.
It’s hard to tell which is better here because the faces don’t match, but the Industar here feels richer and smoother. The Nikon zoom lens feels a little muddier.
I’ve been generally unhappy with the Nikon 24-120mm lens’s color and tonal rendering. The highlights tend to glow, and they usually feel a little flat. It’s a great lens, but the color and tonal rendering are not fantastic; it’s kind of a muddy lens with what it does to the colors.
Nikon 50mm f1.8 S vs Zeiss Plannar 50mm f2
Here is a Zeiss 50mm f2 vs the Nikon 50mm f1.8 S.
This one is very tricky, as both lenses are very good, so I spent a little more time trying to WB them and match their exposure. These two have a dramatically different rendering. The Zeiss T* coatings push the shadows and mid-tones much deeper. This is likely why Zeiss lenses feel like they have more “Zeiss Pop” since they have that stronger contrast in the shadows and mid-tones.
I tried to adjust some settings to make them match. I had to add a little more saturation and warmth to the Zeiss, as the Nikon had more saturation. Nikon could be adding baked-in profiles since the Nikon profiles should be color-balancing the lenses.
The Nikon lens has a bigger front element and uses more elements at 12 in 9 groups. The Zeiss uses only 6 elements in 4 groups. Nikon has all the latest modern technology, whereas the Zeiss was released in 2006.
To me, the Nikon has better saturation and sharpness, but the Zeiss has a slightly nicer shape and more pop, although the shadows feel muddier on the Zeiss.
It’s hard to say what I like better here; I’m leaning toward the Nikon. When you flip to black and white, the Zeiss image jumps out slightly. This could actually just be from deeper contrast in the mids and shadows, more so than a micro-contrast thing.
Micro-Contrast Is It Real? | Bottom Line
While it might not seem like a big deal in these side-by-side images, over a larger body of work, shooting in various situations, the higher micro-contrast lenses generally shine through, becoming a lot more obvious.
I generally don’t worry too much about micro-contrast when buying a lens; if a lens looks good, it looks good. However, there are so many other attributes to consider that also make an even bigger difference. A lens’s coatings, its optical formula, aspherical elements, and focus technology can also significantly affect the look of the image.
A lens with no aspherical elements will produce a much more dramatic look with its classic bokeh compared to a lens loaded with aspherical or other exotic elements for that perfect field curvature.
When you buy a lower-element lens, you’re stripping out a lot of tech that was refining the look. This inevitably contributes more to the classic rendering, a classic field curvature, and unique focus falloff, which, to some people, just looks cooler.
I personally like to have a few lower-element lenses in the mix since their rendering is noticeably different from our modern lenses, including the better color tonality. However, sometimes, the modern lenses look amazing as well. The Nikon 35mm f1.8 is one of the best-looking 35mm lenses in terms of its artistic rendering. I love that lens even though it has a more modern feel to it.
We should also pay attention to our zoom lenses. A 16-element Nikon 24-120mm does not have as nice a tonality as a 13-element Nikon 17-28mm. The 17-28mm has so much more life, even though there is only a 3-element difference. Are lower elements causing better micro-contrast, or is the design making something better happen in the 17-28mm? I’m not sure here; it’s probably a combination of both.
In all my lens reviews, this “lower element lenses have a better micro-contrast theory” has been pretty consistent, as, without fail, higher element lenses generally have the worst tonality in the way they render. But there also does seem to be something happening with lens design where some lenses with close to the same number of elements can outperform. Maybe the chemistry (index of refraction), geometry, or glass thickness is also at play. This makes sense as none of our elements are 100% translucent. You stack twenty UV filters over your lens, and you should expect to see a drop in image quality.
| **This website contains affiliate links. We will earn a small commission on purchases made through these links. Some of the links used in these articles will direct you to Amazon. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. |
Great article. I too am in the micro contrast club – its noticeable. I wish you would have included the nikon 40mm in your test because from my experience, that lens produces the most incredible micro contrast of all the lenses I have shot with. Thanks – keep up the great work !
Thanks, I actually shot all this over a year ago and forgot about it. Now that I have a Z8 I’ll try some more in the future.
This is an interesting topic.
I would suggest to inspect the linear raw (I don’t know if it possible in Lr).
I might be able to get a profile for it. I’ll look into this and thanks for the tip!
Nice article. To test the microcontrast of a lens I use a white coat hanger (ahah) to see the subtle variations of shadows on it. It works great.
It is true than a lot of lenses with low elements produce excellent microcontrast but some lenses with a lot of elements like the SL APO Summicron or the Panasonic Leica zooms have also a lot of microcontrast.
Yeah, it’s interesting. I thought there could be a few other things besides element count. That is why I mentioned Nikon 17-28, which is great, but Nikon 24-120 is bad. There are only three three-element differences.
Maybe very high index of refraction elements makes the situation worse. And some elements are even hybrids, glass + resins.
Or it could just be optical formulas. Some elements refract light, and then they add more to try to recorrect. If the formula is not perfect, I imagine you lose color and tonal information. So, having fewer elements automatically reduces this.
I have the z24-120 and before that I had the 24-70 f/4 and I have been struggling a lot with the Z6ii colors or maybe it’s just a problem of the high element zoom lenses? I haven’t tried other lenses much so it’s hard to know. I can’t get the in camera picture controls to produce an image that looks consistently good straight out of camera. I’m wondering, what settings do you use in the picture controls? I find it hard to get colors that seem naturally full without feeling over saturated. I don’t know how to explain it but the colors seem to hit a sort of ceiling and then if I try to increase the saturation, they just look cheesy without ever feeling properly full, I’m not sure if I’m just insane or that’s just the way the Z6ii processes colors in camera or if I just need to find the right settings or use a different lens or a colorchecker or what.
The Nikon 24-120mm naturally has a ton of glow and is pretty low micro-contrast. I love the lens but have some issues with it in that regard. I’ve been working on a review of it, but the problems you’re describing are what I’m dealing with as well. It just lacks punch and clarity. So I use it more for Landscapes and travel and a little less for portraits
Some of the Nikon-branded Tamron lenses actually have a lot more punch to them if you want a zoom. Or see if you can get your hands on a 26mm, 28mm and 40mm to see if you get a bit more pop with the colors and contrast. Those are probably Nikons three best primes in that regard.
When I shoot on Nikon (I had the Z6 before the Z8) I typically shoot on the Portrait profile and usually manual white balance with Sunny or Cloudy settings. But you’re not going to be able to get any punch out of that 24-120mm lens. It’s a very glowy/dreamy lens with the way it renders.
Also, the Z6 and Z6II do have almost a more pastel way to how they render. I don’t know if it’s from the optical low-pass filter, but I do actually like it; it’s actually one of the reasons I fell in love with that camera. It feels a bit more vintage or analog than what a lot of the other cameras are doing. But generally, Z6 cameras have a bit of a softer (I call it pastel) look to them. Pair that with a 24-120mm and you’re getting a fairly dreamy image.
I tried messing with a custom tone curve in the vivid profile and it got me almost to where I want the image to be but in certain lighting conditions the saturation just doesn’t feel right. I actually got the idea to mess with the tone curve from one of your old YouTube videos. I don’t know if there’s a way to share profiles but I wouldn’t mind sending it to you if you’re interested, although I don’t know if it works on the Z8.
My 40mm actually just got delivered today so I’ll try that out.
By the way, with the image compression, I think it’s pretty hard to see much of a difference between the images in this blog post. Maybe you can upload them to smugmug.
Really? You open by stating that the more controlled the conditions are, the less observable this alleged characteristic is (which you mention in order to “add some validity,” at that), saw no issue with that statement, and then went on to write an entire article? Not to mention the rampant pseudoscience-type speak.
None of the sample images match each other in lighting, posing, or exposure, the focus planes are all over the place, and you explain this away by your choice of a restlesss subject. All to prove a characteristic that you conveniently made up your own vague definition for (most people claim it’s “contrast in the fine detail areas” i.e. contrast + sharpness).
I thought it was a rage-bait/joke post at first—or maybe it is and I fell for it? Looking back, I feel like maybe the joke went over my head, and I’m the fool… If so, props, because this is hilarious. But please stop spreading misinformation.
Yes, because it has to do with photon coherency. Similar to when you do a double-slit experiment, you need to use a high photon coherency light source to get observable results. With less light, the diminishment of the structure due to refraction is more easily observed for this sample.
All the samples use the same lighting and are taken on a tripod in the same location. I just used natural light from a window.
I preferred not to use direct sunlight or strobes because I wanted to work with a lower-coherency light source and not use direct sunlight.
Some lenses are longer than others, so the point where the light enters the lens is different. The 70-200mm is a very long lens. I can’t control the length of the lens. I could move the tripod a little, but that would cause other issues.
It’s all there and observable. There is a clear difference between the 70-200 and the Kipon 75mm, even though the Canon lens is sharper.
I’ve never understood why the anti-micro-contrast movement has become a religious experience for some people. This stuff is backed by science. There are photons. Surfaces scatter the photons. The more surfaces (elements), the more scatter. Coatings can only be so good. There is glass. It refracts light, more or less, at different wavelengths. Glass is imperfect and never has a 100% transmittance. The more glass, the less perfect the light structure that hits the sensor.