Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #8 · 3D discussion in the canonforum |
More about the body than lenses. Jordan made a comment and posted the only 3D photo in the thread (Sonnar 85/2.8...).
The rest of the photos are not 3D at all. A few with the 135L have good pop.
Anyone who can explain it to them? Brainiac? :-)
The problem with your claim, as with all "3D" claims, is that you had the benefit of knowing the image was taken with a Zeiss lens.
If I presented to you a series of images taken with a variety of lenses, with all metadata removed, and asked you to pick out which of those images have that "3D" look, I believe the results would be far more credible.
I often see photographers claim to know that a particular image was taken with a particular lens, or has a particular "look." Yet not a single one of them has defined it, nor have they passed a blind test designed to verify their ability to do so. Now I should point out that there are very real optical differences between lenses of different manufacturers--but that is not the issue at hand. Rather, what I call into question is the existence of some kind of nebulous quality that, if it truly exists, should be able to be expressed in precise terms.