europanorama wrote:
3d-lens in a cap or 3d macro lens in a cap.... real 3d not virtual... by loreo.com ALL NEW.

You will probably be banned here also, like on dpreview, if you continue to do this. Sharing experiences is good, not simply advertising. This is considered spam.

Paul Yi wrote:
Then, why does the review says it's so expensive?



supply and demand?

New used to be $800


You can check out the Pentax SMC 85mm 1.8 as well

Nikkor 200/4 AI

Lovely....

i think that the lens used is important
but the light used is just as or even more important.

its so hard to describe, choose, and play with light in order to get very specific effects outside of a studio environment

I need to spend more time with my C/Y Sonnar 2.8/135

Am sure if I practice I will find the correct environment to use its full potential .

s23chang wrote:
$400 to $600 depends on condition and when you buy it

Paul Yi wrote:
AhamB wrote:
Which Pentax 85/1.4? There is an SMC A* version and a FA* (AF) version.

Ok, I think it's the A version that has the better reputation.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/pentax85/index.html


How much is this lens going for ?
Sounds tempting...


Yeah, good luck finding one of those. Let alone finding one for less than $600.
The FA* version will easily go upwards of $1k.

JayT

kennmon wrote:
i think that the lens used is important
but the light used is just as or even more important.

its so hard to describe, choose, and play with light in order to get very specific effects outside of a studio environment

I agree. I think the "3d effect" that people look for is more a function of what aperture is used combined with lighting (and processing/contrast) and subject placement.

Lenses do have different looks, but if I shoot several lenses at the same subject at the same time, I'll have to look hard to see which one is which, especially on 35mm. I even have dificulty picking out which focal length was used sometimes, if a different composition or location was on different lenses. Large format lenses on larger sheets of film seem to show their 'character' much easier than 35mm lenses from what I've seen anyway. Or perhaps that's because there are a greater number of large format lenses being used that are very old, versus most "classic" 35mm lenses being 20-40 years old, using more modern lens-element configurations and modern glass.

walshy64,

I think the problem with this image is that the top of his head is in shadow and the bush / tree is way, way too close to him. If he were sitting a bit to his right, so you could crop out the bush / tree and had some light to frame his head (very flat hair), you'd have a winner - oh, and some selectively applied USM.

-Tom

brainiac wrote:
It seems to me that the Sigma shot above isn't quite achieving the same 3D effect as the Zeiss here because there is a touch ..... .

I'm far from an experienced pro, but I think the difference is more because of the 135mm focal length than any other factor, even though other factors such as lighting & aperture are surely involved.

Doesn't perspective play a huge role in the quality of the 3D look? (Wini's amazing shot notwithstanding.)

Also, some lenses give more 3D than others, something I wish I understood better, but it sure seems to me that a shorter FL, shot close to the subject, is the best way to emphasize 3D.

If you've ever taken a portrait with a 200mm, you know exactly what I mean. Everything flattens out.

Do folks here disagree?

I haven't been shooting many portraits, but my Elmarit-R 135 is getting to be a favorite:

Heh funny that, I'm currently tossing up between my EF85/1.8 and Planar 85/1.4
One of the 2 has to go and I'm taking similar shots with both to compare.
Here is my wide open portrait test:

EF @ 1.8

(sorry about the noise it was lightly underexposed and my 5D didn't miss a chance to punish me for it)

CZ @ 1.4


And, just because I had it handy, a third shot with my zuiko 55/1.2 @ 1.2


The Zeiss is certainly not a perfect lens, not my copy/adapter anyway, but at the moment it grabs me in terms of 3D. I like how it retains detail in the oof areas without distorting them like the zuiko or wiping them out completely like the Canon. Notice how with the Zeiss you can still see the stripes on the suit, even if the dof is thinner? The CZ is more... real if thats the look you're after.

Cheers,
Spyro

Sirfishalot wrote:
s23chang wrote:
$400 to $600 depends on condition and when you buy it

Paul Yi wrote:
AhamB wrote:
Which Pentax 85/1.4? There is an SMC A* version and a FA* (AF) version.

Ok, I think it's the A version that has the better reputation.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/pentax85/index.html


How much is this lens going for ?
Sounds tempting...


Yeah, good luck finding one of those. Let alone finding one for less than $600.
The FA* version will easily go upwards of $1k.

JayT

And the FA* is the cheaper of the two. The A* is typically in the $1300+ range if you can find one. One case where buying Zeiss is just downright cheaper (the ZK Zeiss is $1K new). Buying 85's in K mount is an exercise in either frustration or spending too much cash. Even the cheap ones cost a fair bit compared to other mounts.

mawz wrote:
Sirfishalot wrote:
s23chang wrote:
$400 to $600 depends on condition and when you buy it

Paul Yi wrote:
AhamB wrote:
Which Pentax 85/1.4? There is an SMC A* version and a FA* (AF) version.

Ok, I think it's the A version that has the better reputation.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/pentax85/index.html


How much is this lens going for ?
Sounds tempting...


Yeah, good luck finding one of those. Let alone finding one for less than $600.
The FA* version will easily go upwards of $1k.

JayT

And the FA* is the cheaper of the two. The A* is typically in the $1300+ range if you can find one. One case where buying Zeiss is just downright cheaper (the ZK Zeiss is $1K new). Buying 85's in K mount is an exercise in either frustration or spending too much cash. Even the cheap ones cost a fair bit compared to other mounts.


Has anyone tried adapting the FA 77mm f1.8 Limited? I sounds close to the A* in performance and costs ~$600-700 new.

CVickery wrote:


Has anyone tried adapting the FA 77mm f1.8 Limited? I sounds close to the A* in performance and costs ~$600-700 new.


It's been done. Same issues as any other K lens, but the adaptation is mostly reversable. You need to remove the mount and aperture stop-down lever, reinstall the mount and (permanently) shorten the guard for the stop-down lever. Keep the lever and it can easily be reinstalled.

The 77 Limited is a real gem of a lens.

Canon 135mm f/2 L is extraordinary.

Current 50mm summilux E60 is a great example.

To be honest the most 3D shot I've seen was with a CZ 35mm, I think Brainiac posted it a while ago. I know its not a recommended focal length for portraits and not very flattering for people's faces, but telephotos do tend to flatten things a lot. Harder to get a 3D shot out of them.

Funny that we talk about 3D, and how some lenses seem to flatten the image. If any one here knows any spanish, you know that planar means to flatten.

Anyone have anything to say about the 3D effect of the Contax 85mm N, the one that can be converted to canon AF? my eyes are medically totally screwed up so MF is out but I do really love the 3D effect of zeiss glass.

phuang3 wrote:
Current 50mm summilux E60 is a great example.

My most '3d' lens is the Leica 90mm f2 Summicron, and that's between a fair number of primes.

There's just something so eye-catchingly 3d about the way that lens renders.

Shot wide and near wide open, it's just otherworldly.

The older radioactive Super-Takumar 50mm f1.4 deserves an honorable mention. Shot wide open, of course. Very dreamy, lush and 3D.

This is a straight up across the table portrait. 5D with the girlie-man 85mm 1.8.






5D with 90mm Summicron. Subject distance ca 5 feet.

Paul Yi wrote:
Lovely....

dittoes!

I really like the look of the 135L ... my next planned lens purchase. Here are some Flickr link samples taken by others:

http://flickr.com/photos/jjjohn/2695638324/sizes/o/
http://flickr.com/photos/jae_nj/2511292929/sizes/l/
http://flickr.com/photos/astragony/2557541915/sizes/o/