I think the more fascinating aspect about this discussion is how someone clearly sees '3D' in a photo where others think it looks flat as a pancake. How about this?

Hmm, that image looks like it *should* produce some 3D, but for me it does not, possibly because the light is so even and flat.

carstenw wrote:
Hmm, that image looks like it *should* produce some 3D, but for me it does not, possibly because the light is so even and flat.

+1

Interesting - and kind of confirms how different we can see certain aspects of IQ. To me it clearly has some 3D, or 'aliveness'. It certainly isn't flat in my eyes, even with flat, dull light.

mortyb wrote:
Interesting - and kind of confirms how different we can see certain aspects of IQ. To me it clearly has some 3D, or 'aliveness'. It certainly isn't flat in my eyes, even with flat, dull light.

It does have some 3D, but this is not a typical 3D scenario. To think about it, it does have enough 3D for such a flat subject. Perhaps a lower angle would have enhanced the effect.

Yes, I definitely see 3D in the rope shot.

The rope photo was shot with the ZF 35/2. The above with the 21/2.8. Both stopped a bit down. I remember some of Anden's shots with the 35/1.4, completely flat subjects, still with 3D in spades. An amazing feature of the Zeiss lenses IMO.

ZF 35/2 3D-ish?

Brilliant shots, Mortyb, Lotus!

I'm not saying this image is "3D", just adding it to contribute to the "lens makes a difference" argument. This shot is f/11, so no DOF to talk about, but this shot was with the Zeiss 21mm. I took a similar shot with the Canon 24L II, and the image from the Canon was much flatter. Wish I still had the image to compare, but I deleted it as I was unhappy with the end result. Overall, the Zeiss has that "something special" in how it renders an image.

Zeiss is definitely the one to go for 3D look. However, I took these shots recently, and people told me how they really pop.

Voigtlander 125mm + A900 (WO 4 stitched pictures):