I will risk getting tossed from this forum with a contrarian view. I believe the entire 3D "phenomenon" is placebo effect. I have as much obsession with it as I do with bokeh, which is not at all. And I have and regularly use some of the aforementioned Zeiss lenses.
OT:I had the opportunity to personally thank Mike Johnston over a great breakfast in his hometown of Waukesha, Wisconsin, for starting the entire bokeh craze in 1997 with the three articles published in "Darkroom Techniques" magazine. Every mediocre shot of a sprig of leaves showing "bokehliscious" backgrounds I now hold him personally responsible
jbfaulconer wrote:
I must be lucky because my Canon 35L 1.4 is one of the sharpest lens I own. It seems like a lot of people here like the Zeiss lens. I am sure they are excellent lens, but for my shooting I need very fast AF and if I am not mistaken the Zeiss lens are all Manual focus. I gave up on second party lens last year when I was talked into a Tamron. I have tried many Sigma and Tamron lens and none of them stack up to Canon's lens.
It might be sharp but it is no where close to the distagon 35/1.4 when it comes to Pop/3D.
jbfauluconer ... using a Tamron to guage and NOT TRY a Zeiss and deciding to stick with Canon is like using a Big Mac to decide to NOT TRY a Filet and deciding to stick with a Sirloin, Rib-Eye or T-Bone.
Yes, the Zeiss are MF and if you truly are dependent upon AF, then I could see your perspective ... but if you have any tolerance for MF, there are numerous lenses (Zeiss & non-Zeiss alike) that have wonderful drawing styles that differ from Canon in many ways that can be quite preferable for a variety of subject matter or reasons.
While much of this dialog has included Zeiss ... I'm not a Zeiss zealot, as I additionally use Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Sigma, Oly & Mamiya ... ALL on my 5D and 1D MK II N. Alternative glass really does open up your palette of drawing styles options. Of course, Leica, Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlander, etc. are possible as well. Dismissing all those wonderful options because of your Tamron experience is
anscochrome wrote:
I will risk getting tossed from this forum with a contrarian view. I believe the entire 3D "phenomenon" is placebo effect. I have as much obsession with it as I do with bokeh, which is not at all.
Not 'getting tossed' ... but are you suggesting that there is no such thing as good bokeh, bad bokeh or nervous bokeh, etc. ... because there is no such thing as bokeh ... or just that you don't concern yourself with bokeh because people jumped on the 'bokeh bandwagon' and misapply bokeh to simply refer to an oof background ??
+1 @ Makten's 35/2 ... he has routinely brought us wonderful images for quite some time now with it.
RustyBug wrote:
Not 'getting tossed' ... but are you suggesting that there is no such thing as good bokeh, bad bokeh or nervous bokeh, etc. ... because there is no such thing as bokeh ... or just that you don't concern yourself with bokeh because people jumped on the 'bokeh bandwagon' and misapply bokeh to simply refer to an oof background ??
I wonder this too.
Do some people not see the difference in bokeh quality between lenses?
Or maybe they shoot everything at f8 or higher?
I can't imagine doing any portrait or macro shots without considering bokeh quality.
inglis wrote:
Are there any texts, either articles or books, on lens qualities or drawing styles in English or European languages?
John
Articles and reviews about a lens's optical quality and build are everywhere, because there are standards for them. Drawing styles, however, don't have any standards. If you want to know about a lens's style, the only way is to look at its images. It's a matter of taste, though.
It may even still be available as it isn't marked as sold. I would say that is a typical price. The new ZE/ZF 35mm f/1.4 will go for close to $1,500 or more, but it should be possible to find the older C/Y or Rollei mount for less than $1,000. There is actually not much difference in price between the C/Y 35mm f/1.4 and the ZE/ZF 35mm f/2. They are very different designs, however. The f/1.4 in my view is better for 3D from what I have seen and is more suited for portraits with the wider aperture. The f/2 is probably a better landscape lens if you shoot stopped down. It seems to have much better corners.
The C/Y Zeiss 100mm f/2 is an excellent lens and in the forums here many people think it has a better 3D effect than the MP 100 f/2. See this review at pebble place:
anscochrome wrote:
I will risk getting tossed from this forum with a contrarian view. I believe the entire 3D "phenomenon" is placebo effect. I have as much obsession with it as I do with bokeh, which is not at all. And I have and regularly use some of the aforementioned Zeiss lenses.
Yes, there is no such thing as 3D in a 2D image.
What we're trying to create is a 2D image that gives people the feeling of "3D". If you don't have that feeling, well, it can't be helped.
RustyBug wrote:
While much of this dialog has included Zeiss ... I'm not a Zeiss zealot, as I additionally use Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Sigma, Oly & Mamiya ... ALL on my 5D and 1D MK II N. Alternative glass really does open up your palette of drawing styles options. Of course, Leica, Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlander, etc. are possible as well. Dismissing all those wonderful options because of your Tamron experience is
That's interesting, can I use some Minolta lens, namely the 135mm STF, on my future 5D?
jbfaulconer wrote:
I must be lucky because my Canon 35L 1.4 is one of the sharpest lens I own. It seems like a lot of people here like the Zeiss lens. I am sure they are excellent lens, but for my shooting I need very fast AF and if I am not mistaken the Zeiss lens are all Manual focus. I gave up on second party lens last year when I was talked into a Tamron. I have tried many Sigma and Tamron lens and none of them stack up to Canon's lens.
You are lucky to have the Canon 35L. It is realy a nice lens. It is almost on par with the Zeiss.
But could you tell me what you need fast AF for, with a 35mm lens? MF is faster with the 35L and can be used all over the frame not just were the AF points are.
And the 35L is lacking the triangular apparture.
Dont get me wrong, I liked the 35L best of all Canon lenses I tried. They are just not god enough.
keira007 wrote:
Yes, there is no such thing as 3D in a 2D image.
What we're trying to create is a 2D image that gives people the feeling of "3D". If you don't have that feeling, well, it can't be helped.
It is indeed a fact that any sensation of 3D-ishness in a 2D medium image is an illusionary response ... but Trompe l'Oeil has been a part of imagery for centuries, with photography only being another medium for which it to be applied.
While it is truly an illusionary response, it is not a placebo effect. For those aspiring to create a Trompe l'Oeil sensation, soliciting or suggesting such is counterproductive, because people then begin 'looking' for it ... and as such, might involve a placebo effect for them to say they 'see it'.
Rather, it is the unsolicited response that yields the degree of success a Trompe l'Oeil has achieved ... and the repetition of which the illusionary response sustains. Similar to other optical illusions where 'some people get it' and 'some people don't', the basis that all vision is a function of the brain, as presented by the eyes, give it an individual capacity to be realized.
I don't disagree that some people may apply the 'placebo effect' in saying they 'see it' ... but I do disagree with the notion that it is ONLY a placebo effect ... as it is an illusionary response that creates the sensation. The fact that some people may not 'see it' while others do, in itself, does not negate its presence.
In studying other media, i.e. painting, sculpting, succeeding in Trompe l'Oeil efforts ... it comes to my attention that one (not only) aspect is the degree of intricate detail that seems common to those which succeed on a more compelling level. In this regard, the issue of micro-contrast seems to play a corresponding part in the photographic medium. Again, it is not a singular issue, but it would seem that lenses that have a higher degree of micro-contrast hold a piece of the puzzle for generating the effect moreover than those lenses with a lesser degree of micro-contrast.
^^^ +1. Saying that 3D is a placebo effect is almost like saying that contrast is a placebo effect.
Btw, the plural of medium is media.
Microcontrast is what generates plasticity (the perception of near tangibility of objects in pictures because of their realistic looking textures). Plasticity doesn't necessarily give the impression of large depth, because it can even make a flat wall look "3D". DOF separation can give the impression of depth.
No red face needed, Kent; your usage required no plural of the term, as the three instances in your post were preceded by: 'a', 'another' and 'the'.
I believe it best not to introduce incorrect terminology - the subject is sufficiently difficult to approach intellectually as it is! The definition of the word 'plasticity' is:
"Capable of being shaped or formed: plastic material such as clay."
Placebo effect? Well, I guess we all 'see' images differently.
lovinglife wrote:
It would be nice if those who present an opinion could also include a sample image to demonstrate the "3d-ness" of a lens?
This would make it a whole lot more interesting than 'all my zeiss lens are awesome, everything else sucks' kinda discussion
Samples are very easy to find here, by searching a bit for some 3D threads or some C/Y / Zeiss threads. This is not really a thread to demonstrate the "3D" look. However sample images are more than welcomed
If you really want a 3d looks - Then get a Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro Planar on a 5D or other full frame camera (D700 or whatever else). One of the best in my opinion.
Manual focus is a pain many times though, thats why I'm sticking to L lenses.
Here's a few with the Zeiss 2/100 ZF + on Nikon D700 body and a few w/5D
(whether using nikon or canon bodies - the image attributes seem to be extremely similar. The lens seems to be the determining factor).
... but are you suggesting that there is no such thing as good bokeh, bad bokeh or nervous bokeh, etc. ... because there is no such thing as bokeh ... or just that you don't concern yourself with bokeh because people jumped on the 'bokeh bandwagon' and misapply bokeh to simply refer to an oof background ??
