[Guest]

micro-contrast is important. As Klaus indicated the amount of micro-contrast is a combination or sensor and lens (new tests?). One of the fame of zeiss lenses is that many of them have very high micro-contrast. I don't know if this is due to optical design; lens coating or myth. My personal opinion is that it is more than myth but not unique to zeiss. Part of the issue is that in a non-control test overall contrast plays a role in how you judge a picture as well as  lighting.  I'm not sure if it shows up in current mtf but I presume that the lens portion could be measured. I think folks on the contax forum said it showed up in mtf at some point but then I was confused between micro-contrast and contrast.

-

I will say that when I switched from olympus to contax I believed I noticed  a difference. Certainly I used the same film with my (then infrequently used olympus kit) as with my contax kit and certainly the zeiss lenses had higher contrast but I imagined that I frequently noticed significantly greater tonal range. My olympus kit was small (mostly vivitar 90f2.5 and 50f1.8 with an occasional vivitar 28f1.9 (which was a snazzy lens)); since my contax (aria and 6 lenses) was acquired 20 years after the olympus kit I had $$ to buy better lenses but even the 50f1.4 as well as the 35-70f3.4 showed what I presumed was significantly greater tonal range. The 90f2.5 was a fine lens but it had lower contrast and I believe noticeably less micro-contrast.