yes, just as in your selective focus layer (where the bike resides). And in the parade pic, that layer of slective focus that commences behind the little girl in the red coat and ends behind the kilted girl. if that's "3D" then when i talk about it in the company of large format shooters, i probably sound like a 12-year old talking about sex ...
I've been a fan and user of Zeiss lenses since 1976 when I bought a Rolliflex and then later a Contax RTS II 35mm with a few Zeiss lenses. The lenses are quality for sure but I am curious if anyone has compared Zeiss with a good quality lens from Canon or Nikon to see the difference if any. Of course all things should be the same in the setup, lighting and post for it to be a fair comparison. Any examples?
Peter
Architectural Photography by Peter Montanti, www.mountainphotographics.com
Peter Montanti wrote:
I am curious if anyone has compared Zeiss with a good quality lens from Canon or Nikon to see the difference if any. Of course all things should be the same in the setup, lighting and post for it to be a fair comparison. Any examples?
That's all we do here is compare lenses. Very little actual photography going on. Over the years there have tons of comparisons among Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Olympus, you name it (search the archives for a lens you like), and it used to be that members would put up crops from "controlled" tests side by side. No so much these days though. We now talk about questions that have no answers, like what makes 3D.
I think side by side comparisons would actually give some answers. If it's all intangibles, it quickly degenerates into audiophile land. If I offended any audiophiles, good. :P
Not saying there photos can't evoke intangible reactions, but there are quantitative things that are the root.
Ah..if only I still had my nikkor 35/1.4, but I can certainly tell that at f/2 the distagon is definately sharper albeit with slightly more vignetting.
So what about my suggestion in the old thread that it is really to do with polarisation of light? Look at the edge of this fellow's lower right cheek, where there is a brighter patch behind him, surrounded by darker. See the dark fringe along the surface of his cheek where his cheek is actually reflecting and refracting darkness from the darker areas almost immediately behind. http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/CZ351.4/0805lowrez.jpg
In my experience these edge effects are not confined to Zeiss lenses, and I have often noticed them on my 200 f1.8 which is also a superbly 3D lens. Viewed along the plane, most surfaces reflect/refract, and the light is often polarized by the surface. I have looked for this effect in my own vision, and surprisingly, I found lots of it. You can see it if you focus on the edge of a pencil which transit's a high contrast edge in the background, like the edge of a window. Light and shadow seem to bleed along the edge of the pencil, creating contrast against the background. The effect is a class of information which intensifies edges and gives you information about the 3D field. You can see this by holding up a finger horizontally and looking past it to the vertical edge of the window. Focus your eyes on the window edge and your attention on the 'bokeh' of your finger's edge. For me, there are two main things to notice: first, the bokeh of my eyes has hard edges, like Zeiss bokeh. The darkening of the sky through the window due to my unfocussed finger can have a very abrupt and sharply delineated edge, not a soft continuous tonal blend, and if you look carefully you can even see a lighter band above the darker. Yes - your finger actually lighten's the sky. This is positive interference - light is after all a set of waves. The smooth soft bokeh of Leica lenses seems to me to be an engineered fiction. Secondly, the corner of the bright sky appears to bite a little serif into my finger. If you turn your finger so that it is only 20 degrees or so from the vertical so that the bright sky is just a dagger, you see that the bright serif spreads further along the finger's edge. This is the same effect as the darkening on the edge of this fellow's cheek. The way light behaves around edges which are flush with the axis of propagation is quite complex, and I question the veracity of a lens which is designed to hide these effects.
Now look at philber's scultpure shot. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/09/374309.jpg
How is it that the sculpture looks strongly 3D against a very sharply focussed background? I think a lens that handles edge superposition correctly provides 3D clues all over the surfaces and edges of subjects. I think these 3D-inclined lenses show natural edge contrast that other lenses mess up. It doesn't require bokeh to show up, it is subtly and subliminally discernible in all edges of things in a 3D field, even when both foreground and background are hyperfocussed. Get edge contrast slightly wrong, and exit 3D look with a whimper.
brainiac wrote:
Now look at philber's scultpure shot.
How is it that the sculpture looks strongly 3D against a very sharply focussed background? I think a lens that handles edge superposition correctly provides 3D clues all over the surfaces and edges of subjects. I think these 3D-inclined lenses show natural edge contrast that other lenses mess up. It doesn't require bokeh to show up, it is subtly and subliminally discernible in all edges of things in a 3D field, even when both foreground and background are hyperfocussed. Get edge contrast slightly wrong, and exit 3D look with a whimper.
I would like to add a few comments to Richard's brilliant exposé. One should not conclude that lenses offering more "3D effect" are "better" than others. For exmaple, the Planar 50 which I used for this statue shot is not a sharpness king, nor is it as perfect as some others regarding CA, etc... So 3D ability should be viewed as one virtue among others, rather than the sum of all virtues. The rest is up to user preference. It is fair to say, though, that Zeiss' ability to imbue all its lenses with a strong 3D capability inspires confidence in their technical ability and proficiency.
BTW, I was today at the French Salon de la Photo, and got my hands on the ZE18, ZE21 and ZE 28. Choosing is like dying... and magnificent shot IMHO, Andrew.
