Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       5       end
  

Archive 2011 · Lenses for "3D" look?

  
 
keira007
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · Lenses for "3D" look?


lovinglife wrote:
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.


Wonderful shots, lovinglife.

IMHO, the Zeiss 21mm is better than the Zeiss 100mm when it comes to 3D. The Zeiss 100mm is still excellent, though. But still, I don't like the thoughts of buying the very best glasses available on the first try. They will be there sooner or later in the "ultimate" kit, but not for now.

MF is for everything except running people and dark places. In those circumstances I much prefer AF over MF. Probably I will get one lens for those as well, the 135L maybe.



Mar 20, 2011 at 06:26 AM
AhamB
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · Lenses for "3D" look?


philip_pj wrote:
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."


Regarding "plasticity": you're right, that's the conventional definition. I like to use that word to make clear I'm not talking about DOF separation, and mainly because of this thread: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/842949/
I wish there was a more fitting English word for it though.



Mar 20, 2011 at 06:29 AM
lovinglife
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · Lenses for "3D" look?


keira007 wrote:
Wonderful shots, lovinglife.

IMHO, the Zeiss 21mm is better than the Zeiss 100mm when it comes to 3D. The Zeiss 100mm is still excellent, though. But still, I don't like the thoughts of buying the very best glasses available on the first try. They will be there sooner or later in the "ultimate" kit, but not for now.

MF is for everything except running people and dark places. In those circumstances I much prefer AF over MF. Probably I will get one lens for those as well, the 135L maybe.


Thanks Keira -

You may be right about the 2.8/21 being better than the 2/100 - of course we r comparing 2 polar opposite focal lengths
I cannot comment, since i've never owned the 2.8/21 though it is very tempting to buy- instead i ended up with the 24mm TSE II which is an excellent lens as well. I may buy the 2.8/21 in the future (or the upcoming 1.4/35).

As much as I love alternate lenses, my main problem is my eyesight is not getting any better and the benefits of autofocus cannot be overstated


That being said, I still firmly stand by the fact that 35L, 85L II and 135L are 3 of the very best and definitely hold their own, along with all the new version II lenses.

Edited on Mar 20, 2011 at 07:32 AM · View previous versions



Mar 20, 2011 at 07:27 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · Lenses for "3D" look?


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


With a link to a 38 page, two year long thread with countless images from glass of all kinds ... there are probably many of us who really don't want to go through that all over again.

MANY FM contributors have already "brought the goods" over that two year period ... please take the time to read through those efforts before casting the "Zeiss Zealot" stone. Please also note that plenty of scrutiny is also offered up in that two year long thread ... and that which has come through it has definitely proven itself as 'battle tested'. No need to take up a new fight on the issue.



https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/829238/0?keyword=3d#7701654

lovinglife wrote:
As much as I love alternate lenses, my main problem is my eyesight is not getting any better and the benefits of autofocus cannot be overstated


That being said, I still firmly stand by the fact that 35L, 85L II and 135L are 3 of the very best and definitely hold their own, along with all the new version II lenses.


+1 @ also well battle tested glass ... just a different battle.
BTW ... props to the Canon "trinity" as it served as the basis for my Mamiya 'trinity'



Mar 20, 2011 at 07:32 AM
keira007
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · Lenses for "3D" look?


This is a bit off topic but is it just me or the Zeiss lenses gives much "fresher" color than the C/Y lenses?



P/s: My 50/1.7 will arrive in 1-3 days. This waiting is killing me



Mar 20, 2011 at 08:39 AM
Peire
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · Lenses for "3D" look?


keira007 wrote:
This is a bit off topic but is it just me or the Zeiss lenses gives much "fresher" color than the C/Y lenses?

P/s: My 50/1.7 will arrive in 1-3 days. This waiting is killing me



Z series lenses render visibly "fresher" colours than C/Y in most circumstances,however this difference is not always that apparent.



Mar 20, 2011 at 11:04 AM
Grenache
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · Lenses for "3D" look?


Peire wrote:
Z series lenses render visibly "fresher" colours than C/Y in most circumstances,however this difference is not always that apparent.



I think that this has a lot more to do with personal style and post processing. I own three CY lenses and have shot the ZE 21, 35, and 85. The difference that I felt was consistent in the Z vs CY had more to do with the steepness of contrast (higher in the Zs) than color. The richness of colors I find to be the other way around. For instance, although the white balance is not impacted by this, I find it quite easy to saturate my sensor when shooting anything red with my CY 1.7/50. My CY 1.4/85 tends to have the same tendency with deep blues. I did not see this from the Zs. I surmise this relates to coatings but it is just a guess.


Jim



Mar 20, 2011 at 11:50 AM
toddbee
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · Lenses for "3D" look?


Any one had the chance to compare the nikon 35 1.4g to the zeiss 35f2? Any 3d to it? I have seen a couple pics that look really nice but was wondering others experiences.


Mar 20, 2011 at 06:42 PM
contas
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · Lenses for "3D" look?


Here is from contax 645 80mm f/2 on 5DII at noon f/13 ,1/2500s , ISO 200.This is a beggar , asked for 2000 ðong # a US dime, I was suprised when looked at her hand on photo:



You can see it in better quality (magnify it to see the details):
https://picasaweb.google.com/102196166329914542439/Mar222011#5586737410879956514

Edited on Mar 29, 2011 at 05:32 AM · View previous versions



Mar 22, 2011 at 01:25 AM
keira007
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #10 · p.4 #10 · Lenses for "3D" look?


Thanks contas.

That is a good example of 3D, but I feel that the subject can pop out more than that. It is rated as a "Strong-" in my book.



Mar 22, 2011 at 03:52 AM
contas
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #11 · p.4 #11 · Lenses for "3D" look?


Thanks Keira007, this photo from the first day of that converted Contax 645 plannar 80mm f/2 on Canon it has fast and accurate AF and auto-aperture with some limitations ( I have a plan to correct it soon ), with f/2 it is bright in dark shooting.I still haven't seen any combination like that before , anywhere hope to share photos from others - this combo brings 2 advantages together: professional optical look and Digital convenient and certaintly has 3D.


Mar 22, 2011 at 10:58 PM
denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #12 · p.4 #12 · Lenses for "3D" look?


Judging from this thread and others earlier, it looks to me like a lot of people consider simple shallow DOF to be 3D. I can't argue with that as there is no good definition or general agreement to what constitutes '3D', but I think it is generally unrelated to DOF. Yes, a moderately shallow DOF can help things along but often IMO it detracts from the '3D'.

I'll give two examples here, shot with Philippe's Zeiss 50 Planar, one at f/1.4 and one at f/5.6:


http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss50-169.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss50-170.jpg

To me the f/5.6 image shows as much '3D' as the f/1.4 shot although the f/1.4 shot is easier to instantly read as '3D'. Had the DOF been smaller I think it would have detracted from it.



Mar 23, 2011 at 12:12 AM
keira007
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #13 · p.4 #13 · Lenses for "3D" look?


denoir wrote:
Judging from this thread and others earlier, it looks to me like a lot of people consider simple shallow DOF to be 3D. I can't argue with that as there is no good definition or general agreement to what constitutes '3D', but I think it is generally unrelated to DOF. Yes, a moderately shallow DOF can help things along but often IMO it detracts from the '3D'.

I'll give two examples here, shot with Philippe's Zeiss 50 Planar, one at f/1.4 and one at f/5.6:

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss50-169.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss50-170.jpg

To me the f/5.6 image shows as much '3D' as the f/1.4 shot although the f/1.4 shot
...Show more

+1
The second image looks much more "3D" than the first. However I think that depend on the subject. For subject that is likely needed to be isolated like people, flowers.... background blur may have certain impact on "3D" effect. However for scenery it is more likely to have 3D when everything's in focus.

The 135mm STF (Sony or Minolta) is a good example of isolating the subject to create "3D" effect. To me the effect of this lens may be better than the Sony ZA 135.



Mar 23, 2011 at 01:09 AM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #14 · p.4 #14 · Lenses for "3D" look?


To me they both look quite 3D, maybe the first a little more, but I completely agree with you: foreground/background separation has nothing to do with 3D, and only gives depth.


Mar 23, 2011 at 02:53 AM
sebboh
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #15 · p.4 #15 · Lenses for "3D" look?


carstenw wrote:
To me they both look quite 3D, maybe the first a little more, but I completely agree with you: foreground/background separation has nothing to do with 3D, and only gives depth.


+1

also, i think that distance shot is what zeiss must have designed the z* 50/1.4 for.



Mar 23, 2011 at 02:57 AM
surf monkey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #16 · p.4 #16 · Lenses for "3D" look?


denoir wrote:
Judging from this thread and others earlier, it looks to me like a lot of people consider simple shallow DOF to be 3D. I can't argue with that as there is no good definition or general agreement to what constitutes '3D', but I think it is generally unrelated to DOF. Yes, a moderately shallow DOF can help things along but often IMO it detracts from the '3D'.


I totally agree that DOF and "3D-ness" are independent of each other.
I think that some people see shallow DOF as exhibiting 3D and this is where the debate over the existence of 3D gets confused. If shallow DOF is the same, then why call it 3D at all?
I think that the term 3D is also confusing, because true 3D is based on a stereoscopic effect, which to my eyes looks far less realistic. I'd rather use the terms "extra depth", "add depth" or "more dimensional quality" to explain what I'm seeing, an effect that adds realism to a photo and is also independent of DOF.



Mar 23, 2011 at 10:08 AM
Silverfox1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #17 · p.4 #17 · Lenses for "3D" look?


I recently ditched my Canon lower FL range of lenses [17-55/f2.8,15-85, etc.] and have the CY 35-70/f3.4 and the CY 50/1.7, and at present have the 35/f2 ZE coming tomorrow from LensRentals for a function this weekend. I have been testing several 35mm fast primes including the Leica, MIR24 35/f2, & a Rokkor. After this weekend i will determine which fast 35mm will be in my bag.

Although it does not produce any 3D effect the little cheap $125.00 MIR24 35/f2 Russian lens performs very well wide open.

For what its worth this past weekend i took some test shots across a lake with a tall treeline on the adjacent shoreline around a 100 yds. away across the water and used the CY 35-70 @ 70mm f8.0 and my Canon 70-200 f2.8 MKII @ 70mm f8.0 not 5 minutes apart on a nice bright day, and on my 24" monitor their is absolutely no denying the Zeiss performed better then the stellar reviewed Canon in both colors, contrast, & definitely the 3D effect that the Canon is absent from producing.

Once i decide on a fast MF 35mm i will start testing the wider FL`s since after spending what i did on the 70-200 MKII i am satisfied with what i have over the 70 range.

Found this 28/f2.8 below with a EX rating i assume alot of you folks like but these lenses are really going up fast in price it seems:

http://www.keh.com/camera/Contax-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-CX060000025000?r=FE

Regards to the OP in his decision making objective,




Mar 23, 2011 at 11:49 AM
keira007
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #18 · p.4 #18 · Lenses for "3D" look?


It would be great to see some comparisons, Siverfox

I'm trying to find one 28/2.8 below 350$. Hope there's still one.



Mar 23, 2011 at 12:44 PM
Silverfox1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #19 · p.4 #19 · Lenses for "3D" look?


keira007 wrote:
It would be great to see some comparisons, Siverfox

I'm trying to find one 28/2.8 below 350$. Hope there's still one.


I already dumped the comparison testing shots but you can take my word for it along with others around here and on other MF forums the Canon lenses cant compete with rendering the 3D effect like a variety of the Zeiss & Leica`s can. Dont get me wrong the IQ & sharpness of the 70-200 MKII is outstanding and along with the older 70-200 f4 IS is still the two best variable zooms Canon has ever produced to my knowlege.

Are you stuck on the 28/2.8 or would you consider another MF lens in that FL that might not render quite the 3D effect ?



Mar 23, 2011 at 01:27 PM
Edgars Kalnins
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #20 · p.4 #20 · Lenses for "3D" look?


keira007 wrote:
This is a bit off topic but is it just me or the Zeiss lenses gives much "fresher" color than the C/Y lenses?

P/s: My 50/1.7 will arrive in 1-3 days. This waiting is killing me


I have had some c/y both in AE and MM along with ZF line. when using ZF after AE lenses I noticed better results. After that I bough couple MM and was pleasantly surprised at how good they were. I have not compared AE with MM directly but I believe that MM could have improved coatings and thus better colours/contrast than AE. I think it was Zeiss themselves that said that Z* lenses differ from the old ones by better coatings. (besides other improvements).



Mar 23, 2011 at 02:07 PM
1       2       3      
4
       5       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       5       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.