This topic is in the 2016 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2016The mystery of the Zeiss look?
p.11 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
azenis wrote:
The problem is the endless pursuit of optical defect (CA, sagittal coma, vignetting... etc) suppression because pro-mateurs demand it. And for high-end lenses, they are really the target market. Hence, I applaud Nikon to actually have the guts to release 58mm F1.4 that went against the market trend.
Otus is an extreme example when optics are heavily corrected/suppressed. When you get rid of all defects, you end up with an image that's sterile/unreal looking because the lens basically surpasses the capability of human eyes, or what we'd consider to be normal.
As far as Zeiss goes, I think the last Zeiss lens...Show more →
I will not say no but I don;t see what you see. In technical term, under same condition, I feel 3D comes from fidelity of lens design. Hence the better corrected lens the better 3D.
3D is not my priority for lens purchase decision. I don;'t need ultimate realness in my image. I see it enough with my eyes. 55OTUS is not a boring lens but just a tool (if) needed for what is shine.
The problem is the endless pursuit of optical defect (CA, sagittal coma, vignetting... etc) suppression because pro-mateurs demand it. And for high-end lenses, they are really the target market. Hence, I applaud Nikon to actually have the guts to release 58mm F1.4 that went against the market trend.
Otus is an extreme example when optics are heavily corrected/suppressed. When you get rid of all defects, you end up with an image that's sterile/unreal looking because the lens basically surpasses the capability of human eyes, or what we'd consider to be normal.
As far as Zeiss goes, I think the last Zeiss lens...Show more →
I will not say no but I don;t see what you see. In technical term, under same condition, I feel 3D comes from fidelity of lens design. Hence the better corrected lens the better 3D.
3D is not my priority for lens purchase decision. I don;'t need ultimate realness in my image. I see it enough with my eyes. 55OTUS is not a boring lens but just a tool (if) needed for what is shine.
Mar 04, 2016 at 07:52 PM
p.11 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
arduluth wrote:
As others have pointed out a number of times, it is in Alt. It's in both. If you aren't interested, ignore the thread. That's even easier than posting the complaint.
i'll take that under advisement, maybe.
I just love metaphysics discussions with neurotics.
sjms wrote
well, really this should have never been started in the Nikon forum. it belongs in the Alt.i'll take that under advisement, maybe.
I just love metaphysics discussions with neurotics.
Mar 04, 2016 at 07:58 PM
p.11 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
It does not follow that all belief is wrong, but it also suggests that belief is not the same as fact.
Regarding your first point about confirmation bias, it is directly relevant in a case like this. The existence of confirmation bias does not prove or disprove the existence of differences between test cases (e.g. - two lenses are not identical) but it can explain some factors that may affect the evaluation of those differences (e.g. - a product thought to be "special" or one that is more expensive may be thought to be better as a starting point.)
This simply affirms the dangers (and we all are at risk, myself included) of finding the result we hope for and not the result that is.
DanWhat I find demeaning is that by introducing these ideas of bias you're stereotyping people, directly or indirectly.
Why is this even being discussed here? These ideas are applicable to all camera gear. What makes you think your choices in gear are the reference, from which to judge others' choices?
Many of us who appreciate lens rendering between different brands (Canikon, Zeiss, Leica, Sony etc) are beyond the stage of being impressionable and brand loyal, so for people in this category at least, the idea of bias is quite insulting.What's even more tiring is I've heard this same speach from Dan on numerous occasions when we discuss Zeiss lenses. You definitely get this feeling of being talked down to. I just wish people that don't have an honest interest in Zeiss lenses just stay away from the threads.
Some bright person cross posted this thread in both the Alternative Gear forum AND the Nikon forum, hence my repeated question "why is this in the Nikon forum?" You don't like listening to Dan and I find most of this conversation very uninteresting. Now that I understand the cross posting, I can let it all go. Those who wish to count angels on the head of a pin are welcome to do so. I'll go shoot with my forty year Nikkor lenses with all their imperfections and have a good time doing so. I have never for a moment believed I would produce a perfect photograph.
SKumar25 wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
I don't see how a child's story that teaches a truism about how people can be persuaded to believe things or accept things is demeaning. It is actually a very important lesson, and the story illustrates an important and real concept.It does not follow that all belief is wrong, but it also suggests that belief is not the same as fact.
Regarding your first point about confirmation bias, it is directly relevant in a case like this. The existence of confirmation bias does not prove or disprove the existence of differences between test cases (e.g. - two lenses are not identical) but it can explain some factors that may affect the evaluation of those differences (e.g. - a product thought to be "special" or one that is more expensive may be thought to be better as a starting point.)
This simply affirms the dangers (and we all are at risk, myself included) of finding the result we hope for and not the result that is.
Dan
Why is this even being discussed here? These ideas are applicable to all camera gear. What makes you think your choices in gear are the reference, from which to judge others' choices?
Many of us who appreciate lens rendering between different brands (Canikon, Zeiss, Leica, Sony etc) are beyond the stage of being impressionable and brand loyal, so for people in this category at least, the idea of bias is quite insulting.
Some bright person cross posted this thread in both the Alternative Gear forum AND the Nikon forum, hence my repeated question "why is this in the Nikon forum?" You don't like listening to Dan and I find most of this conversation very uninteresting. Now that I understand the cross posting, I can let it all go. Those who wish to count angels on the head of a pin are welcome to do so. I'll go shoot with my forty year Nikkor lenses with all their imperfections and have a good time doing so. I have never for a moment believed I would produce a perfect photograph.
Mar 04, 2016 at 10:11 PM
p.11 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
freaklikeme wrote:
Tools are rarely distributed according to talent or necessity, and there will always be people who will use money to try and buy status within a group when their talent can't but their pride demands it. However, I often see enthusiasm, excitement, and a desire to share and learn unfairly dismissed as pride. A side dish for your banquet...
Ah, you imagine that my message is to insult such people. It isn't. I believe that they, too, can focus that enthusiasm on photography rather than cameras. I've seen it happen. I've seen some of them transformed, they have made beautiful work.
That is a message of hope, not a dismissal of pride. :-)
As to having relationships with cellists, the only thing more complex might be finding oneself married to an oboist. Oh, wait. ;-)
But then again, violists...
Tools are rarely distributed according to talent or necessity, and there will always be people who will use money to try and buy status within a group when their talent can't but their pride demands it. However, I often see enthusiasm, excitement, and a desire to share and learn unfairly dismissed as pride. A side dish for your banquet...
Ah, you imagine that my message is to insult such people. It isn't. I believe that they, too, can focus that enthusiasm on photography rather than cameras. I've seen it happen. I've seen some of them transformed, they have made beautiful work.
That is a message of hope, not a dismissal of pride. :-)
As to having relationships with cellists, the only thing more complex might be finding oneself married to an oboist. Oh, wait. ;-)
But then again, violists...
Mar 04, 2016 at 10:35 PM
p.11 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
zhangyue wrote:
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.I said consistently meaning 100%, is that unreasonable?
Too bad for you. It is really good for your wallet though
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpgshooting starscapes at f/1.4 it's always easy to tell the otus from any oem lens. i haven't seen how the sigma art performs though, would it be as easy to tell the two apart?Haha, I know but shooting portrait is even easier to tell with back ground kick in OTUS has great coma and CA performance. Don't know ART though but I am sure i can tell them apart if shooting portrait WO.certainly easy to tell with wide open portraits the otus versus traditional double gauss designs, might be more difficult with the sigma art (it's also very different from the typical 50/1.4 look)? i'm not terribly fond of the otus look for portraits, in many situations i prefer the look of my old rokkor or the lux asph. you had the new nikkor 58/1.4 right? how did that compare portrait wise to otus vs your other fast 50s?Derek, I agree most of what you say and understand your comments about OTUS for portrait, it is very personal on this type of talk. I try to be as objective as possible myself on defining ‘mystery’ or ‘magic’ (I would not even use the term) associate certain brand or lenses and generally agree it is hard to tell lens apart at time of shooting f8 especially difficult compare real special one to already good/excellent lens at small aperture. Nevertheless, I won’t deny difference between brand and lens in rendering (even sharpness sometimes). To me, The difference are very real...Show more →
thanks michael! that's very helpful. i find opinions from people who have shot some of the same glass as me and whose opinions on that glass are known to be much more helpful than any internet review, just as looking at the pictures of shooters you know gives one a better idea how a lens will perform than looking at pictures taken by someone whose shooting is completely new to you.
it seems like a lens i would like, so i should probably rent it sometime...
sebboh wrote
zhangyue wrote
sebboh wrote
zhangyue wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
*****************************If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.
Too bad for you. It is really good for your wallet though
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpg
OTUS has great coma and CA performance. Don't know ART though but I am sure i can tell them apart if shooting portrait WO.thanks michael! that's very helpful. i find opinions from people who have shot some of the same glass as me and whose opinions on that glass are known to be much more helpful than any internet review, just as looking at the pictures of shooters you know gives one a better idea how a lens will perform than looking at pictures taken by someone whose shooting is completely new to you.
it seems like a lens i would like, so i should probably rent it sometime...
Mar 04, 2016 at 11:39 PM
p.11 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
CGrindahl wrote:
Those who wish to count angels on the head of a pin are welcome to do so. I'll go shoot with my forty year Nikkor lenses with all their imperfections and have a good time doing so.
one can't do both?
your lenses are still spring chickens, enjoy them.
Those who wish to count angels on the head of a pin are welcome to do so. I'll go shoot with my forty year Nikkor lenses with all their imperfections and have a good time doing so.
one can't do both?
your lenses are still spring chickens, enjoy them.
Mar 04, 2016 at 11:43 PM
p.11 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Time for another picture or two. Otus 55mm wide open. No artistic claim whatsoever, but it does show a fair bit of how the lens performs: bokeh, transition from in-focus to out-of-focus, sharpness wide open, plus difficult lighting.
The second pic is a crop of the same shot.
I choose this shot because it avoids the classic "it is a beautiful shot thus it needs to have been shot with a great lens" fallacy. Great lenses can only contribute to beautiful shots to a greater degree and more often than not-so-great lenses.
The second pic is a crop of the same shot.
I choose this shot because it avoids the classic "it is a beautiful shot thus it needs to have been shot with a great lens" fallacy. Great lenses can only contribute to beautiful shots to a greater degree and more often than not-so-great lenses.
Mar 05, 2016 at 01:13 AM
p.11 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
CGrindahl wrote:
It does not follow that all belief is wrong, but it also suggests that belief is not the same as fact.
Regarding your first point about confirmation bias, it is directly relevant in a case like this. The existence of confirmation bias does not prove or disprove the existence of differences between test cases (e.g. - two lenses are not identical) but it can explain some factors that may affect the evaluation of those differences (e.g. - a product thought to be "special" or one that is more expensive may be thought to be better as a starting point.)
This simply affirms the dangers (and we all are at risk, myself included) of finding the result we hope for and not the result that is.
DanWhat I find demeaning is that by introducing these ideas of bias you're stereotyping people, directly or indirectly.
Why is this even being discussed here? These ideas are applicable to all camera gear. What makes you think your choices in gear are the reference, from which to judge others' choices?
Many of us who appreciate lens rendering between different brands (Canikon, Zeiss, Leica, Sony etc) are beyond the stage of being impressionable and brand loyal, so for people in this category at least, the idea of bias is quite insulting.What's even more tiring is I've heard this same speach from Dan on numerous occasions when we discuss Zeiss lenses. You definitely get this feeling of being talked down to. I just wish people that don't have an honest interest in Zeiss lenses just stay away from the threads.Some bright person cross posted this thread in both the Alternative Gear forum AND the Nikon forum, hence my repeated question "why is this in the Nikon forum?" You don't like listening to Dan and I find most of this conversation very uninteresting. Now that I understand the cross posting, I can let it all go. Those who wish to count angels on the head of a pin are welcome to do so. I'll go shoot with my forty year Nikkor lenses with all their imperfections and have a good time doing so. I have never for a moment believed...Show more →
Curtis.
I have a feeling your comment might have ignited Fred to make this a cross post ? Just guessing. I may be totally wrong. There is no such thing as 'perfect', it is a bad luck. Japanese carpenters will put an upside-down column to avoid perfections. I keep putting upside-down columns without intentions.
Luka
chez wrote
SKumar25 wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
I don't see how a child's story that teaches a truism about how people can be persuaded to believe things or accept things is demeaning. It is actually a very important lesson, and the story illustrates an important and real concept.It does not follow that all belief is wrong, but it also suggests that belief is not the same as fact.
Regarding your first point about confirmation bias, it is directly relevant in a case like this. The existence of confirmation bias does not prove or disprove the existence of differences between test cases (e.g. - two lenses are not identical) but it can explain some factors that may affect the evaluation of those differences (e.g. - a product thought to be "special" or one that is more expensive may be thought to be better as a starting point.)
This simply affirms the dangers (and we all are at risk, myself included) of finding the result we hope for and not the result that is.
Dan
Why is this even being discussed here? These ideas are applicable to all camera gear. What makes you think your choices in gear are the reference, from which to judge others' choices?
Many of us who appreciate lens rendering between different brands (Canikon, Zeiss, Leica, Sony etc) are beyond the stage of being impressionable and brand loyal, so for people in this category at least, the idea of bias is quite insulting.
Curtis.
I have a feeling your comment might have ignited Fred to make this a cross post ? Just guessing. I may be totally wrong. There is no such thing as 'perfect', it is a bad luck. Japanese carpenters will put an upside-down column to avoid perfections. I keep putting upside-down columns without intentions.
Luka
Mar 05, 2016 at 09:36 AM
p.11 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
How many cross posts can there be? To further ignite this thread I think it also should be cross-posted to the Canon forum. We're missing out without that pile on...
Mar 05, 2016 at 09:56 AM
p.11 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I don't see 3D from that lens or any Leica R lens. I agree his comment about its bokeh, very strong signature of that lens. I am glad to see Lens designer have this kind of talk than pure goal of designing perfect stuff. As least it shows that there is still human part left even in professional Lens designers from big firm like Nikon. I am a firm believer on this concept level choice in design, take a look of whole line of Rokkor lens and Mandler's designed lens. I love the trade off they make.
As for focus transition,...Show more →
Michael,
Thank you. I can also see in Philippe's shot how focus transition is like on Otus. On that shot, I like how it blurs out, but the area of focus is razor sharp.
Regarding the term '3D', Sato's use of 3D is completely different from forum's term. In case anyone is interested. ( http://www.nikkor.com/technology/02.html )
I am not familiar with Mandler's work ( or any Leica or Minolta ). Got to do some research. Some interesting read awaits me.
Luka
Mar 05, 2016 at 10:10 AM
p.11 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
ckcarr wrote:
How many cross posts can there be? To further ignite this thread I think it also should be cross-posted to the Canon forum. We're missing out without that pile on...
Oh we do have some Canon boys piling on here...I think they search the threads for the word Zeiss.
How many cross posts can there be? To further ignite this thread I think it also should be cross-posted to the Canon forum. We're missing out without that pile on...
Oh we do have some Canon boys piling on here...I think they search the threads for the word Zeiss.
Mar 05, 2016 at 10:30 AM
p.11 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Perhaps it's time for a permanent thread, titled "Official: Zeiss Lenses on Nikon Cameras".
Personally, I like multi-forum threads most of the time. It encourages dialog and exposes people to technical issues outside their usual bailiwick.
With regard to Zeiss and Leica, Nikon's flange distance makes mounting Alt lenses nearly impossible except for these two high quality brands. I'm not a huge fan of many Nikon lenses, especially their older retro-focus wide angles with strong field curvature, and find it constricting coming from a Canon background where a huge amount of other manufacturers' lenses will fit. So, for me, I look to Zeiss, as well as independent makers like Tokina and Sigma, to fill gaps in the offerings of the fine Nikon line and pricing.
I think we can partly thank Sony for the latest proliferation of cross-forum posting. Sony has made the most versatile platform for a huge range of existing lenses, while at the same time being quite lean in their own high quality optics offerings. It's reasonable that people will start to explore more and more into Alt and Canikon forums as their exposure becomes more universal.
(BTW -- I'm not anti-Nikon lenses, actually quite in love with many of the newer designs, and some of the older manual lenses. The f/1.8 series, for example.)
Thanks Philip -- we definitely need more photos on the thread demonstrating the principles being discussed.
Personally, I like multi-forum threads most of the time. It encourages dialog and exposes people to technical issues outside their usual bailiwick.
With regard to Zeiss and Leica, Nikon's flange distance makes mounting Alt lenses nearly impossible except for these two high quality brands. I'm not a huge fan of many Nikon lenses, especially their older retro-focus wide angles with strong field curvature, and find it constricting coming from a Canon background where a huge amount of other manufacturers' lenses will fit. So, for me, I look to Zeiss, as well as independent makers like Tokina and Sigma, to fill gaps in the offerings of the fine Nikon line and pricing.
I think we can partly thank Sony for the latest proliferation of cross-forum posting. Sony has made the most versatile platform for a huge range of existing lenses, while at the same time being quite lean in their own high quality optics offerings. It's reasonable that people will start to explore more and more into Alt and Canikon forums as their exposure becomes more universal.
(BTW -- I'm not anti-Nikon lenses, actually quite in love with many of the newer designs, and some of the older manual lenses. The f/1.8 series, for example.)
Thanks Philip -- we definitely need more photos on the thread demonstrating the principles being discussed.
Mar 05, 2016 at 10:58 AM
p.11 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
I owned this lens for several years; sold it a year or so ago; and now I got it again because I actually missed it quite a bit. I didn't miss the "look" as I still have no idea what the Zeiss look is. I missed the feeling I got shooting landscapes with it. Even though this lens is large, heavy, and manual focus only, it ended up being attached to my camera more often than not whenever I went out on a walk or a hike. I looked forward to using it.
Despite that, I sold it and my 35mm Nikon prime in favor of a zoom that would cover roughly the same range, but what was gained in convenience was lost in the emotional attachment I had to the photographing process (if that makes sense). Were my images somehow worse with the zoom? Not in any meaningful way (pixel peeping excluded). I just enjoyed myself less while shooting. I now went back to my 35mm & 100mm set up and am really looking forward to shooting again.
I guess my point is that there is an emotional undercurrent to photography that quietly influences our decisions and tendencies but that perhaps gets overshadowed by more pragmatic and rational concerns. In attributing a particular technical advantage to Zeiss lenses, some photographers may simply be trying to rationalize something that really cannot be rationalized.What you just described is totally logical in my book. The experience of shooting with the lens because it "fits" you and your style of shooting during use is a personal experience but a very real one. Your claim is something personal and not at all anything like the fallacious claims make about the "Zeiss Look".Andre, After own many different brand lens, I have to say I agree there is Zeiss Look or Leica look even Canon Look. Even it has to be treat individually often for different lens within brand but still I believe what I see. I won't claim whoever can't see it wrong but I must say without using certain lens over long period is very hard to generalize the idea as variable getting infinity magnified for different users, lighting and PP. Even for the same user, this is complicate matter as condition change widely. but the impression is clear to me when I browse my photo collection. 90% I am right which lens I used without look the EXIF.(I shoot 90% WO)
I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.*****************************
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.I can pass any test. But the test has to be on my terms.
The issue with these blind tests are that for the most part, lenses are more similar then they are different. The differences only become apparent in a varying degree of situations. Lighting, distance to subject - to background. Etc etc. BUT it's the differences that make a lens worth it for me. No matter how high or low the cost is (as in, I don't care if the lens is cheap as long as it's good). Also lenses change a slight bit based on the body you use them on.
My terms: I would want to see a bunch of images shot with lens A and a bunch of images shot with lens B, and then I'll guess. Since it's not likely that with one image taken with each lens, you'll happen to shoot it showing off the "better" lens' defining characteristics. This would have to be assuming I've used lens A or B enough to understand what I like/am looking for in said test.
Certain lenses do have pleasing to me characteristics that I don't find in other lenses. I've gone through almost EVERYTHING available and interesting to me. And have come up with a small combination of gear that suits my work needs as well as satisfies my joy of shooting. Sometimes the two overlap sometimes they don't.
Anyway, I've found my gear choices to be a terrible waste of money (in some cases I have a camera body just to use one lens), but it makes me happy.***********************
It would actually be a load of fun to do just what you suggest. Too bad I don't have the $$ to buy all the lenses. 
I do agree that there may certainly be situations where two lenses are impossible to tell apart and other situations where they are easier to tell apart. I suspect wide open is where the character of one lens over another really shows itself. That individual lens offerings have character is without a doubt to me. I just disagree with the generalizations made with regards to Zeiss. It's a case by case situation.
I just wrote this huge essay on 3D. I'm not going to post it.
I will say this. I think there is a lot of confusion as to what the 3D look is. I think a lot of people aspire to achieve this look (for some reason), so they find it where it isn't. I see this all the time in samples posted.
What would help with these types of discussions on the forums is if we had a sticky topic which had definitions of several different characteristics that were similar to the 3D look, but had their own names.
Though I don't think people would use the sticky before fighting or defending their gear. So maybe not worth anyones effort.
adamdewilde wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
zhangyue wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
GoranPhoto wrote
I posted earlier in this thread, but I felt compelled to do so again because I actually just bought the Zeiss 100mm f2 makro planar lens.I owned this lens for several years; sold it a year or so ago; and now I got it again because I actually missed it quite a bit. I didn't miss the "look" as I still have no idea what the Zeiss look is. I missed the feeling I got shooting landscapes with it. Even though this lens is large, heavy, and manual focus only, it ended up being attached to my camera more often than not whenever I went out on a walk or a hike. I looked forward to using it.
Despite that, I sold it and my 35mm Nikon prime in favor of a zoom that would cover roughly the same range, but what was gained in convenience was lost in the emotional attachment I had to the photographing process (if that makes sense). Were my images somehow worse with the zoom? Not in any meaningful way (pixel peeping excluded). I just enjoyed myself less while shooting. I now went back to my 35mm & 100mm set up and am really looking forward to shooting again.
I guess my point is that there is an emotional undercurrent to photography that quietly influences our decisions and tendencies but that perhaps gets overshadowed by more pragmatic and rational concerns. In attributing a particular technical advantage to Zeiss lenses, some photographers may simply be trying to rationalize something that really cannot be rationalized.
I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.
The issue with these blind tests are that for the most part, lenses are more similar then they are different. The differences only become apparent in a varying degree of situations. Lighting, distance to subject - to background. Etc etc. BUT it's the differences that make a lens worth it for me. No matter how high or low the cost is (as in, I don't care if the lens is cheap as long as it's good). Also lenses change a slight bit based on the body you use them on.
My terms: I would want to see a bunch of images shot with lens A and a bunch of images shot with lens B, and then I'll guess. Since it's not likely that with one image taken with each lens, you'll happen to shoot it showing off the "better" lens' defining characteristics. This would have to be assuming I've used lens A or B enough to understand what I like/am looking for in said test.
Certain lenses do have pleasing to me characteristics that I don't find in other lenses. I've gone through almost EVERYTHING available and interesting to me. And have come up with a small combination of gear that suits my work needs as well as satisfies my joy of shooting. Sometimes the two overlap sometimes they don't.
Anyway, I've found my gear choices to be a terrible waste of money (in some cases I have a camera body just to use one lens), but it makes me happy.
It would actually be a load of fun to do just what you suggest.
Too bad I don't have the $$ to buy all the lenses. I do agree that there may certainly be situations where two lenses are impossible to tell apart and other situations where they are easier to tell apart. I suspect wide open is where the character of one lens over another really shows itself. That individual lens offerings have character is without a doubt to me. I just disagree with the generalizations made with regards to Zeiss. It's a case by case situation.
I just wrote this huge essay on 3D. I'm not going to post it.
I will say this. I think there is a lot of confusion as to what the 3D look is. I think a lot of people aspire to achieve this look (for some reason), so they find it where it isn't. I see this all the time in samples posted.
What would help with these types of discussions on the forums is if we had a sticky topic which had definitions of several different characteristics that were similar to the 3D look, but had their own names.
Though I don't think people would use the sticky before fighting or defending their gear. So maybe not worth anyones effort.
Mar 05, 2016 at 11:25 AM
p.11 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
adamdewilde wrote:
Andre, After own many different brand lens, I have to say I agree there is Zeiss Look or Leica look even Canon Look. Even it has to be treat individually often for different lens within brand but still I believe what I see. I won't claim whoever can't see it wrong but I must say without using certain lens over long period is very hard to generalize the idea as variable getting infinity magnified for different users, lighting and PP. Even for the same user, this is complicate matter as condition change widely. but the impression is clear to me when I browse my photo collection. 90% I am right which lens I used without look the EXIF.(I shoot 90% WO)
I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.*****************************
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.I can pass any test. But the test has to be on my terms.
The issue with these blind tests are that for the most part, lenses are more similar then they are different. The differences only become apparent in a varying degree of situations. Lighting, distance to subject - to background. Etc etc. BUT it's the differences that make a lens worth it for me. No matter how high or low the cost is (as in, I don't care if the lens is cheap as long as it's good). Also lenses change a slight bit based on the body you use them on.
My terms: I would want to see a bunch of images shot with lens A and a bunch of images shot with lens B, and then I'll guess. Since it's not likely that with one image taken with each lens, you'll happen to shoot it showing off the "better" lens' defining characteristics. This would have to be assuming I've used lens A or B enough to understand what I like/am looking for in said test.
Certain lenses do have pleasing to me characteristics that I don't find in other lenses. I've gone through almost EVERYTHING available and interesting to me. And have come up with a small combination of gear that suits my work needs as well as satisfies my joy of shooting. Sometimes the two overlap sometimes they don't.
Anyway, I've found my gear choices to be a terrible waste of money (in some cases I have a camera body just to use one lens), but it makes me happy.***********************
It would actually be a load of fun to do just what you suggest. Too bad I don't have the $$ to buy all the lenses.
I do agree that there may certainly be situations where two lenses are impossible to tell apart and other situations where they are easier to tell apart. I suspect wide open is where the character of one lens over another really shows itself. That individual lens offerings have character is without a doubt to me. I just disagree with the generalizations made with regards to Zeiss. It's a case by case situation.I just wrote this huge essay on 3D. I'm not going to post it.
I will say this. I think there is a lot of confusion as to what the 3D look is. I think a lot of people aspire to achieve this look (for some reason), so they find it where it isn't. I see this all the time in samples posted.
What would help with these types of discussions on the forums is if we had a sticky topic which had definitions of several different characteristics that were similar to the 3D look, but had their own names.
Though...Show more →
if there is one thing that repeated threads about 3D in the alt forum have proven, it's that the term 3D doesn't have any particular meaning.
Andre Labonte wrote
adamdewilde wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
zhangyue wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
What you just described is totally logical in my book. The experience of shooting with the lens because it "fits" you and your style of shooting during use is a personal experience but a very real one. Your claim is something personal and not at all anything like the fallacious claims make about the "Zeiss Look".I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.
The issue with these blind tests are that for the most part, lenses are more similar then they are different. The differences only become apparent in a varying degree of situations. Lighting, distance to subject - to background. Etc etc. BUT it's the differences that make a lens worth it for me. No matter how high or low the cost is (as in, I don't care if the lens is cheap as long as it's good). Also lenses change a slight bit based on the body you use them on.
My terms: I would want to see a bunch of images shot with lens A and a bunch of images shot with lens B, and then I'll guess. Since it's not likely that with one image taken with each lens, you'll happen to shoot it showing off the "better" lens' defining characteristics. This would have to be assuming I've used lens A or B enough to understand what I like/am looking for in said test.
Certain lenses do have pleasing to me characteristics that I don't find in other lenses. I've gone through almost EVERYTHING available and interesting to me. And have come up with a small combination of gear that suits my work needs as well as satisfies my joy of shooting. Sometimes the two overlap sometimes they don't.
Anyway, I've found my gear choices to be a terrible waste of money (in some cases I have a camera body just to use one lens), but it makes me happy.
It would actually be a load of fun to do just what you suggest.
Too bad I don't have the $$ to buy all the lenses. I do agree that there may certainly be situations where two lenses are impossible to tell apart and other situations where they are easier to tell apart. I suspect wide open is where the character of one lens over another really shows itself. That individual lens offerings have character is without a doubt to me. I just disagree with the generalizations made with regards to Zeiss. It's a case by case situation.
I will say this. I think there is a lot of confusion as to what the 3D look is. I think a lot of people aspire to achieve this look (for some reason), so they find it where it isn't. I see this all the time in samples posted.
What would help with these types of discussions on the forums is if we had a sticky topic which had definitions of several different characteristics that were similar to the 3D look, but had their own names.
Though...Show more →
if there is one thing that repeated threads about 3D in the alt forum have proven, it's that the term 3D doesn't have any particular meaning.
Mar 05, 2016 at 11:33 AM
p.11 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
if there is one thing that repeated threads about 3D in the alt forum have proven, it's that the term 3D doesn't have any particular meaning.
Is there a difference between 3D and what is called 3D "Pop"?
Later,
Johnny
if there is one thing that repeated threads about 3D in the alt forum have proven, it's that the term 3D doesn't have any particular meaning.
Is there a difference between 3D and what is called 3D "Pop"?
Later,
Johnny
Mar 05, 2016 at 11:43 AM
p.11 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
if there is one thing that repeated threads about 3D in the alt forum have proven, it's that the term 3D doesn't have any particular meaning.
That's for sure!
If you take photographs that various people regard as having the so-called "3D" effect and then ask what it is about the images that produces this response, you'll find that a whole bunch of factors tend to be connected to their reaction. They might include any of the following:
1. A wide angle lens that produces a strong foreground/background contrast. (See the classic "near/far" landscape composition.)
2. Use of narrow DOF and background (and sometimes foreground) blur to set off the primary subject. (I refer to this as subjective sharpness — the subject may not be objectively particularly sharp, but it appears to be by comparison to other elements in the composition.)
3. Skillful use of lighting to highlight (typically) primary subjects and de-emphasize secondary subjects. (For example, beautiful light may fall on the primary subject, while lower light levels may appear on background elements.)
4. Partially related to the above, use of contrast in a variety of ways. These include (as mentioned above) illumination contrasts between lighter primary subjects and darker (sometimes much darker) background elements. Another technique may be to have a greater range of values (more contrast) in the primary subject with less in the background subjects. (The classic "atmospheric recession" effect in some landscape work can be an example.)
5. Intelligent use of color can enhance the effect, and in several ways. A primary subject of one predominant color may stand out against a background the features a different color, and perhaps a complementary one. Or the foreground subject may have more saturated color while the background colors may be more muted.
6. Composition is also significant. A composition that incorporates clearly separate elements at different distances invites us to pay more attention to the actual depth of the scene, especially if the elements do not interfere with one another.
7. Post-Processing work that selectively emphasizes and deemphasizes elements of the scene can focus attention on those that are primary and make them "pop" out of the background detail.
8. When photographing human subjects, a variety of factors can affect the result — the direction of the gaze, the angle of the subject's body, the quality of the light, and much more.
I'm convinced that when we consider all of the things in photographs that may produce the effects that some call "3D," we find that very, very little of it is due to the specific brand and model of lens.
YMMV,
Dan
if there is one thing that repeated threads about 3D in the alt forum have proven, it's that the term 3D doesn't have any particular meaning.
That's for sure!
If you take photographs that various people regard as having the so-called "3D" effect and then ask what it is about the images that produces this response, you'll find that a whole bunch of factors tend to be connected to their reaction. They might include any of the following:
1. A wide angle lens that produces a strong foreground/background contrast. (See the classic "near/far" landscape composition.)
2. Use of narrow DOF and background (and sometimes foreground) blur to set off the primary subject. (I refer to this as subjective sharpness — the subject may not be objectively particularly sharp, but it appears to be by comparison to other elements in the composition.)
3. Skillful use of lighting to highlight (typically) primary subjects and de-emphasize secondary subjects. (For example, beautiful light may fall on the primary subject, while lower light levels may appear on background elements.)
4. Partially related to the above, use of contrast in a variety of ways. These include (as mentioned above) illumination contrasts between lighter primary subjects and darker (sometimes much darker) background elements. Another technique may be to have a greater range of values (more contrast) in the primary subject with less in the background subjects. (The classic "atmospheric recession" effect in some landscape work can be an example.)
5. Intelligent use of color can enhance the effect, and in several ways. A primary subject of one predominant color may stand out against a background the features a different color, and perhaps a complementary one. Or the foreground subject may have more saturated color while the background colors may be more muted.
6. Composition is also significant. A composition that incorporates clearly separate elements at different distances invites us to pay more attention to the actual depth of the scene, especially if the elements do not interfere with one another.
7. Post-Processing work that selectively emphasizes and deemphasizes elements of the scene can focus attention on those that are primary and make them "pop" out of the background detail.
8. When photographing human subjects, a variety of factors can affect the result — the direction of the gaze, the angle of the subject's body, the quality of the light, and much more.
I'm convinced that when we consider all of the things in photographs that may produce the effects that some call "3D," we find that very, very little of it is due to the specific brand and model of lens.
YMMV,
Dan
Mar 05, 2016 at 11:51 AM
p.11 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jjohnson wrote:
Is there a difference between 3D and what is called 3D "Pop"?
Later,
Johnny
many people distinguish "3D" from "pop", some people believe only one exists, some people think they're the same thing, and some people like to add the term "plasticity" or replace either "3D" or "pop" with it. everybody seems to use the terms differently and many people see "3D" in images that others don't. if you replace the word 3D with the word "magic" in most discussions of 3D it doesn't change the discussion much.
sebboh wrote
if there is one thing that repeated threads about 3D in the alt forum have proven, it's that the term 3D doesn't have any particular meaning.Later,
Johnny
many people distinguish "3D" from "pop", some people believe only one exists, some people think they're the same thing, and some people like to add the term "plasticity" or replace either "3D" or "pop" with it. everybody seems to use the terms differently and many people see "3D" in images that others don't. if you replace the word 3D with the word "magic" in most discussions of 3D it doesn't change the discussion much.
Mar 05, 2016 at 11:52 AM
p.11 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jjohnson wrote:
Is there a difference between 3D and what is called 3D "Pop"?
Later,
Johnny
Yes.
sebboh wrote
if there is one thing that repeated threads about 3D in the alt forum have proven, it's that the term 3D doesn't have any particular meaning.Later,
Johnny
Yes.
Mar 05, 2016 at 12:03 PM
p.11 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jjohnson wrote:
Is there a difference between 3D and what is called 3D "Pop"?
Later,
Johnny
Once you "pop" you cant stop.
sebboh wrote
if there is one thing that repeated threads about 3D in the alt forum have proven, it's that the term 3D doesn't have any particular meaning.Later,
Johnny
Once you "pop" you cant stop.
Mar 05, 2016 at 12:44 PM