philber ... thanks.

Here is the original before cropping.

The derailleur shot is an 'of course' 3D subject due to perceptual expectations, together with the gentle fade off from sharp focus - along the rear arm, chain and soil. Helped also by bright objects in the foreground sharp focus area, with less bright subject rendition in the defocus areas. The eye will naturally travel from bright to dark, sharp to unsharp, colourful to muted tones, contrasty to flat.

Even without the sidelight/wall render effect in Makten's shot, fine detail shaping (a trademark effect of that lens) provides excellent depth - witness the door, the downlight side of the 134 lamp and even the low grated windowframe.

For those whose main subject matter is best rendered in (more or less) clear focus, this effect is a winner if depth is considered desirable. There are many shots in this thread that are simple exercises in bokeh, a truly contrived and unconvincing (albeit often very attractive) effect, because the eye can never see defocus to a high degree in the real world. It is literally focused elsewhere. The sparrow shot on p29 puzzled me, it has 3D in spades, despite the bokeh - but the bird itself has convincing depth, as does the seat top. Lovely lens also, a classic. The Nizamuddin image is high contrast, decreasing its 3D potential - is another factor in 3D the actual tones of objects, do midtone objects render it better?

Many shots depend on longitudinal diminishing lines, fences disappearing into the distance - a pure optical device that should guarantee a 3D cue, but may not be 'enough'. So I guess I feel the opposite of RustyBug's comments above at 11.24 this page. Opinions as always.

philip ... thanks (I think ??)
I do try to obtain the 3Dish using as many different elements as possible, with the lens itself being but one of them, so your recognition of the other attributes is well received. I must admit however, I sometimes wonder how I'd do with something like the Planar 2.0 of Paul Yi's to play with or the Leica 100 APO or ?? some of the Sonnar's..

Trying a little B&W with Nikon 28 2.8 AI-s

because the eye can never see defocus to a high degree in the real world. It is literally focused elsewhere.

You obviously don't need bi-focals ... YET

RustyBug wrote:
something in Zeiss designs is causing it since it's happening much more consistently.

Agreed ... and nicely put that while they are not exclusive ... but seemingly lead the consistency of purpose in this area of lens design.


Yes, I read somewhere that this is one of the guiding priciples for the Zeiss engineers. As opposed to, say, Leica, who put more emphasis on color rendition. Minolta had yet a third main priority, but I forget what it was.

Canon's thing seems to be rich, almost over-saturated colors. (or maybe just profit.) There are a few Canon lenses with good-to-great plasticity (the 85/1.2's and of course the 200/1.8) but most are painfully flat to my eyes. I don't enjoy bashing Canon, far from it, but that's just how I see it.
Even the new 70-200/2.8 MK II is a bit underwhelming.

Also note that even Zeiss can miss. Witness the ZF / ZE 50/2 makro. It's an incredible lens in almost every way, but compared to the Planar 50's, it's rather flat. The new 100/2, while sharper than the Planar version, seems just a tad less plastic (though it's hard to be 100% sure)
While the new ZE 35mm is just absurdly, ridiculously good.

That's odd to hear about the 50/2 Macro.

From the pics that I've seen and the MTF's I've read ... I'd love to see what I can do with it ... but can't 'justify' the $$$ since I shoot 50mm so little (and already have the C/Y 1.7, which I rarely shoot as is).

If someone wants to 'loan' me their 50/2 macro ... I'll take real good care of it

Cableaddict wrote:
Also note that even Zeiss can miss. Witness the ZF / ZE 50/2 makro. It's an incredible lens in almost every way, but compared to the Planar 50's, it's rather flat.


I have both the ZF 50/2 MP and the ZF 50/1.4, and from what i see, I simply can not agree that the 50/2 MP is "rather flat" in comparison to the 50/1.4. In fact, the only advantage the 50/1.4 has over the 50/2 is an extra stop of speed. The 50/2 MP is to my eyes superior in every way, and is certainly not "flat" compared to any lens. In fact, if there is a "miss" by Zeiss in the ZF/ZE lenses it is the 50/1.4. Zeiss should have done a lot more to improve their classic design. While it's an excellent, competitive and competent performer, one would have thought that the 30+ years since the Zeiss Contax 50/1.4 would have produced more than the rather modest improvement we see in the ZF 50/1.4. Most expected more. In consolation for this disappointment, however, we do have the 50/2 MP.

While I agree the 35/2 is a great lens, I don't think the 50/2 is a slouch or "flat" in its drawing style. While I have not used it much, here is a quick snapshot I took the other day of my wife and her mother. While not a poster child image for 3d, I don't find it "flat" either. This is with the ZE 50/2 wide open hand held.

Lotusm50 wrote:
I have both the ZF 50/2 MP and the ZF 50/1.4, and from what i see, I simply can not agree that the 50/2 MP is "rather flat" in comparison to the 50/1.4. .



Then (respectfully) you haven't tested them carefully, or correctly, or you are mistaking DOF for plasticity, or, well I dunno.

I own both and have done many such tests, and it's no contest. That's why I still have the Planar.
I'll see if I still have any of those test pics. It was a while ago, and the results were so apparent that I didn't feel a strong need to ever check them again.

I think you need to send me your 50/2 mp so that I can do some test shots

This is one of mine that people regularly comment that it looks 3D....

Cableaddict wrote:
Lotusm50 wrote:
I have both the ZF 50/2 MP and the ZF 50/1.4, and from what i see, I simply can not agree that the 50/2 MP is "rather flat" in comparison to the 50/1.4. .


Then (respectfully) you haven't tested them carefully, or correctly, or you are mistaking DOF for plasticity, or, well I dunno.



I see. I'm just an idiot who is incapable of using his eyes. ;-) Please tell me, how would you "correctly" test these lenses for this characteristic? We all need to learn as apparently several of us (including perhaps, diglloyd?) from all the comments about the 50MP over many months, must obviously be doing something incorrectly. ;-)

I'm happy to do a test, if I can find sometime tomorrow, and I will faithfully follow your learned instructions (as I couldn't possibly figure out how to do it myself). ;-)

BTW, if you read my posts in this thread over time, I'm clearly not mistaking DOF for "plasticity" (if that's the term of art you prefer).

N.B. please forgive the over abundance of sarcasm in this post. < g >

Lotusm50 wrote: We all need to learn

Yes, gentlemen! I would be very interested in a test set up that is very likely to test the "plasticity", "true 3D, not to be mixed with ordinary DOF effects" of any lens. Such test would without a doubt educate many of us that struggle on our personal path towards true 3D.

Lotusm50 wrote:
N.B. please forgive the over abundance of sarcasm in this post. < g >



Kind of hard not to!


Still friends?

Z250SA wrote:
Lotusm50 wrote: We all need to learn

Yes, gentlemen! I would be very interested in a test set up that is very likely to test the "plasticity", "true 3D, not to be mixed with ordinary DOF effects" of any lens. Such test would without a doubt educate many of us that struggle on our personal path towards true 3D.

Unfortunately, Z250SA, 31 pages of discussion have been unable to produce such as test. As even a definition of 3D/plasticity has not been agreed, how to set up a test for something we could not define?

I have an idea that might work well for folks who normally "can't see it." - but it will take me some time to set it up. (when I do tests just for me, & not for public viewing, then can be pretty ugly.)

Stay tuned.

Even Lotus will be amazed.

Cableaddict wrote:
Lotusm50 wrote:
N.B. please forgive the over abundance of sarcasm in this post. < g >



Kind of hard not to!


Still friends?



Mais, bien sur mon ami.

(when I do tests just for me, & not for public viewing, then can be pretty ugly.)

So true for me as well.

Don't keep us waiting too long.

Z250SA wrote:
Yes, gentlemen! I would be very interested in a test set up that is very likely to test the "plasticity", "true 3D, not to be mixed with ordinary DOF effects" of any lens. Such test would without a doubt educate many of us that struggle on our personal path towards true 3D.


OK. While we're waiting for this test for plasticity or "3-Dness", I decided to whip together a quick comparison. The ZF 50/2 Makro-Planar and the ZF 50/1.4 Planar, side-by-side, same subject, same camera, position and lighting, the same image processing. Aperture used was f5.6 so there are few DOF distractions and misinterpretations, and both lenses are in their optimal performance range. Now with all these things essentially equal, does one of these lenses appear to produce an image that is noticeably "flatter" than the other?

The contrast is different in those two shots. #2 has more. In #2, more of the background scene behind the window is burnt out though. Somehow the 2nd shot seems to have slightly less veiling glare, making it look a bit less flat, or more 3d than the first one.