"$400 to $600 depends on condition and when you buy it"

More like upwards of $1000.

The reputation of the lens is excellent, but it is very pricey and difficult to get hold of. Of course depth of field at 1.4 is very thin and not easy to manage well.

John Black wrote:
Paul - Some things to consider when try to hedge your bets for the "3D look" -

1) Background is important - both in content and distance. I think the background provides context. People know rocks are sharp, the rocks above aren't sharp. thus the Christina looks sharper in contrast (relative sharpness). Your picture above had the right mix.

2) Subject needs to be sharp. The subject needs a sharp edge against the blurred background. If the subject is OOF'd, then there isn't a crisp line/edge separating the subject from the background. I'm not saying this is a hard-fast rule, but in the case of the C/Y 100/2 it works for me.

3) Adequate DOF. F2 is not a must. Many of my shots are F4 to F5.6. I'm looking for backgrounds far enough way from the subject so I don't have to shoot F2 or F2.8. By shooting F4 to F5.6 I guarantee there's plenty of DOF to "wrap the subject", thus getting those sharp edges.

4) Lighting from the side. This seems to help in giving the subject a roundness - a sense of volume. This probably isn't as critical as some of the points above, but it helps.

5) Post processing! The above picture had its levels tinkered with and the plane of focus was selected (drawing an outline with the freehand selection tool and feathering it) and sharpened with USM.



I think John has hit the nail on the head, here. And I'll add that lighting seems to
be a very big part of what gives perceived 3D effect. And adding a small amount
of fill flash can help too. Please excuse the non-Alternative gear here, but these
were shot with a 5D and a 24-70L, at f/7.1 and 54mm focal length.

This lens is not commonly spoken of as a 3D master, but lighting, slight fill flash, and
adequate depth of field allow the edges of the people's features to appear
contrasted against the diffused background. Hence, 3D.

More of the same. 100% crops included.

Its a confusing subject but to me (well this week any way), '3d' is a quality which goes with a lot of cine imagery. Similar to the pictures by trumpet guy, the subject is sharp and there is a distinct separation between subject and background yet the background still retains enough information in the bokeh to give a sense of place and the transition from in focus to out of focus does not appear abrupt.

The subject is clearly defined and stands out from the background yet retains some connection to the background and thus creates 'depth' within the image.

sorta like the way we look at a person with our eyes and they appear all sharp in front of a fuzzy background

I think some of Cogitech's old environmental portraits from the rokkor illustrate this fairly well.

As for different names for different types of bokeh, i know that there are some technical names for different types such as nissen bokeh..

hmmm I forgot to add, another thing which seems to give a sense of three-dimensionality to an image is the distribution of contrast. Lenses which get labled '3d' tend to have hightened micro and macro contrast on the plane of focus, once again making the subject 'jump' out of the picture.
- One of the reasons why the C/Y Planar 100/2 is so desireable methinks

Max,

Good analysis. I would very much enjoy shooting with a C/Y 100/2 Planar or the new
ZF Makro-Planar 100/2 to explore its 3D qualities. I see so many good images from
these lenses here.

I was surprised with how much 3D pop I was getting with my gear that day. It was a
day of high contrast lighting. And I was stopped down enough to get people in focus
in group shots; I think that contributed to the sharpness of the subjects, and hence
to the 3D aspects.

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

Rokkor 3D (58 1.2) Sort of portrait

jamesdak wrote:
The Contax Zeiss 135/2.8 has not really inspired me so far. This in one of the few people shots with it:

Most unfortunate 3D...

I thought you wanted a real 3D effect lol. vivitar has one where it had a blue and red filter. you need 3D glasses to see it properly.

Oly 135 3.5 @ 5.6

When I think of the ingredients for that mysterious 3D look, the first thing that comes to mind is the sort of lighting that is able to etch out a subject from its background. Often that involves a brighter subject against a dark background plus side and rim lighting with just the right amount of fill. Regarding lenses, Zeiss lenses do seem to etch out their subjects quite well probably due to the micro-contrast characteristics the lenses are known for but any decent lens given the right lighting can give the effect. Below is landscape shot at Yellowstone a while back with the old Canon 20-35mm 2.8 L lens on a T-90. Sometimes the lighting just before or after a storm can give the landscape that 3D look:

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

I agree the last shot is quite amazing. I have personally found that photographing people levitating usually doesn't work (might have something to do with the cosmic forces in play). Anyhow, this shot nailed it.

(By the way, how does she do that?)

DocsPics wrote:
I agree the last shot is quite amazing. I have personally found that photographing people levitating usually doesn't work (might have something to do with the cosmic forces in play). Anyhow, this shot nailed it.

(By the way, how does she do that?)

Trampoline? What is amazing is that she is so relaxed and at ease, weightless and floating as if underwater. The image immediately reminded me of the underwater work of someone like Howard Schatz but I have to say that this shot by Richard has an unpretentious, natural and innocent feel about it that is really unique.

http://www.thearticleworks.com/weightless_page.htm

Trampoline is correct - well spotted. What amazes me even more is that this is less than half the frame - it was shot in landscape orientation. I made an A2 print for her parents and it looked fantastic. The 1Ds3 and 200 f1.8 is a killer combination for sharpness with high contrast 3D effect. With gear like that it just a question of "f1.8 and be there".

A lot of the 3D effect of lenses like the 200 f1.8 and Contax 35 f1.4 seem to come from their very natural contrast rendition. They are not lenses which try to compress contrast like many Leicas, and as a result they generate an effortless natural look to the image and really take you there. Accurate handling of light and shade is very important for verity in photos, more important than sharpness or any other factor IMO. The Contax 100 f2 is another lens that has this very natural contrast range. The Canon 85 f1.2 also wastes little contrast.

It does seem like that 35mm 1.4 gives a great feel to it. Wish there was a Nikon equivalent. In my experience the Sigma 50mm gives a great 3D feel. My Tamron 90mm macro had a great 3d effect. Sold it though and I don't know that I've used my Nikon 105mm VR enough to see if it has that same effect. I've also noticed it on my Nikon 24-70mm. Which just happens to be the most spectacular zoom lens I've ever used, very neutral bokeh and rendering.

I'll see if I can dig up some examples to post when I get home.

Anyone have any experience/examples of any good nikon 35mm's that have this effect?

Eric Schwab wrote:
It does seem like that 35mm 1.4 gives a great feel to it. Wish there was a Nikon equivalent. In my experience the Sigma 50mm gives a great 3D feel. My Tamron 90mm macro had a great 3d effect. Sold it though and I don't know that I've used my Nikon 105mm VR enough to see if it has that same effect. I've also noticed it on my Nikon 24-70mm. Which just happens to be the most spectacular zoom lens I've ever used, very neutral bokeh and rendering.

I'll see if I can dig up some examples to post when I get home.

Anyone have any experience/examples of any good nikon 35mm's that have this effect?

The ZF 35/2 would probably be a good place to start. The Nikkor 35/1.4 has some 3D-ness but not nearly as much as the Zeiss. The slower 35's aren't worth bothering with if you want 3D.

If I remember ... the 35-70 3.4 Zeiss has some nice 3D to it at the short end ... but I would not have considered 35mm a portrait lens. Will have to try it & see.