p.2 #2 · 3D effect ... Do You have A 'Go To' Lens?
Out the dozen or so Canon lenses I have owned, only one could produce 3D pictures in my hands, 135L. Out of the 4 Zeiss lenses I own, all of them do....if all the rest is right...
p.2 #3 · 3D effect ... Do You have A 'Go To' Lens?
RustyBug wrote:
But do you have a 'go to' lens for producing it ... or would you put your life on the line with just any 'good' lens?
No, I actually couldn't care less about this "3D" thing. A photo is 2D, so why not just be happy with that? I seldom shoot stuff that would sort of benefit from looking more 3D than what I get with the lenses I own. Sometimes it's there anyway. What I look for in a lens is good relative "speed/size factor", nice bokeh and a character of its own. Most of the time I just pic one or two lenses that I like and go out.
Edit: But alright, I believe that the one of my lenses that produces results that more often than the others could look somewhat "3D" is the CV 40/2.
p.2 #4 · 3D effect ... Do You have A 'Go To' Lens?
The C/Y 35-70 does it for me. Although the 50/1.7 can go a long way, the zoom enables me better to adjust my focal length to the distance of my subject
p.2 #6 · 3D effect ... Do You have A 'Go To' Lens?
Of all the shots posted here in the various '3d look' threads, the Zeiss 100/2 has consistently done it for me. There's just something about the shots from that lens.
p.2 #7 · 3D effect ... Do You have A 'Go To' Lens?
SloPhoto wrote:
I clicked that I had one in mind, but in reality, I have 3 lenses that I would use without hesitation. I also have a 4th that would work if needed...
I love the images that all of my voigtlanders have made (some of my favorites), but they do not even come close to making this particular list.
+1 about the Voigts ... love the look, but not producing much 3D. I think the design difference between a Zeiss & a Voigt would make for a great shootout comp that would easily show the significance of lens design relative to the 3D effect.
It's funny ... people will almost universally agree that lens design dictates the bokeh of a lens (although significant bokeh can be achieved by virtually 'any' lens in a WO mfd shot) ... yet when it comes to 3D, people resistently argue that the lens design doesn't matter, citing that it 'can' be achieved with 'any' good lens. For some strange reason, nobody gets too bent out of shape when people sing the praises of great bokeh producing lenses, but on the subject of 3D ... wow, that's a different story.
I think the Voigts would qualify as a 'good' lens ... yet they don't yield the 3D effect nearly like many others ... they simply have a different drawing style, which I do like as well.
p.2 #8 · 3D effect ... Do You have A 'Go To' Lens?
RustyBug wrote:
yet when it comes to 3D, people resistently argue that the lens design doesn't matter, citing that it 'can' be achieved with 'any' good lens.
Probably because many of us don't agree that there is any "3D" in 2D pictures. All I see in these "3D" pictures is great sharpness, contrast combined with proper PP. It sure looks great, and that's because a good lens was used (if you like sharp and contrasty images).
p.2 #9 · 3D effect ... Do You have A 'Go To' Lens?
Well, since there are more than one definition of "3D effect" (as found in the many 3D threads) it is pretty difficult to choose a single "go to" lens that might be used to produce all kinds of 3D.
If it is the type of 3D that Samuli likes to shoot, which is also shown in my shot of Boldt Castle, then you'll want something with buckets of resolution and a heavy dose of both contrast and micro-contrast. Several Zeiss lenses do this very well, both 21mm distagons, in particular. One might be able to coax a similar look out of a Zuiko 21 with some PP, but the end result just doesn't have the same feeling.
If it is the type of 3D that relies more on DoF (ideal depth of) to provide subject isolation, then the lens selection expands somewhat. Proper technique, lighting and post-processing can very much produce this type of 3D. The technique is to "wrap the focal plane around" your subject. The lighting should provide enough balance of highlight and shadow detail to give us those visual queues of texture and shape. The PP should optimize both global and local (micro) contrast. Some lenses make photos appear this way by accident more often than not. The 100/2 Planar is an example and to a lesser extent the 135L. Many other lenses can be used to achieve this effect, though. It is just a matter of a bit of forethought and a few PP tweaks.
Finally, presentation is key. An under-sharpened image will never appear 3D, no matter what. Also artifacts produced by over-sharpening and/or image compression will ruin 3D. The level of sharpening needs to be optimized for the size and the media. The resolution of the media in relation to the viewing distance is also very important. Any visual queue that indicates that one is looking at a photo will immediately drop us into the realm of 2 dimensions. Film grain and digital noise are also factors which will draw us back to the 2D world. The goal is to trick the viewer into believing that he/she is "looking into a scene" (as through a window), not "looking at a picture".
