Makten wrote:
Now, how about this for 3D? I bought a Distagon 35/2 ZF yesterday, and I think it is outstanding!
Hey, make up your mind! Is it a ZF or a ZE?
I see that the ZE does exist, so maybe DXO will make an Optics Pro module for it. That would take care of the distortion, and turn it into a little monster.
I'd love to see more pics with this lens. - maybe some portrait work?
Cableaddict wrote:
Hey, make up your mind! Is it a ZF or a ZE?
It's a ZF, but the ZE is the same optical design of course.
I see that the ZE does exist, so maybe DXO will make an Optics Pro module for it. That would take care of the distortion, and turn it into a little monster.
The distortion is there, but it's only visible when you've got straight lines following the long side of the image. In my opinion, the rest of the performance is more important in that case. The distortion is also very easy to correct, which is not the case with the CV 40/2 for example, even if it in fact is lower with that lens.
I'd love to see more pics with this lens. - maybe some portrait work?
Edit: Portrait work it was... I sold my Nikkor 200/4 AI to a very nice fellow yesterday, and he took this picture of me (@ f/2.8). I don't think he will mind me posting it.
I use DxO.....and have the Zeiss 21 and 35 ZE. I'd love for them to profile these lenses, but I have a 5D....my guess is they wouldn't provide the profile for the 5D now that the 5D has been replaced by the 5D II. I'd love to be wrong...but that's my guess.
Makten wrote:
I actually bought it to "be able" to get rid of some other lenses. I have way too many, and I'm aiming at only having four. 20 - 35 - 85 & 75-150. The three other are very cheap too.
I was thinking of going with a four prime setup as well. I have the Zeiss 21 & 35, and a Voigtlander 125, but I'm struggling to decide what to put in between. I do mainly landscape and macro. I guess the 50 P or MP, 85, and 100 ZEs are in the mix.....but the 85 seems to make the most sense from a "filling the gap" perspective, and I've seen some nice shots from Philber. But the 50 MP and and 100 MP both look amazing.
If anything I should be thankful, indecision will help my bank account.
Cableaddict wrote:
What is 3D? -Something that does not exist in any picture.
IMO, we really should be using the term "plasticity," the definition of which is: The illusion of 3D in a 2 dimensional photograph.
This is essentially the definition I gave many, many pages ago in this thread. But more specifically, the illusion that objects in the photograph have form and volume in 3 dimensions (as opposed to the perception of depth between objects, which is more easily and simply achieved), and are not flat in appearance but seem to extend beyond the plane of the photograph.
I'm not saying it's better or worse but I don't find that specific definition:
Dictionary:
plasticity
noun
the quality of being easily shaped or molded.
• Biology the adaptability of an organism to changes in its environment or differences between its various
Wikipedia:
Plasticity generally means ability to be shaped or formed. (It differs from "elasticity", which refers to ability to change temporarily and revert back to original form.) More specific meanings include:
In science
Plasticity (physics), in physics and engineering, plasticity is the propensity of a material to undergo permanent deformation under load. In civil engineering, plasticity of a soil is quantitatively determined by Atterberg Limits testing.
Plasticity (sociology), is the capacity for positive change in response to environmental demands.
Neuroplasticity, entire brain structures can change to better cope with the environment. Specifically, when an area of the brain is damaged and non-functional, another area may take over some of the function.
Synaptic plasticity, in neuroscience, plasticity is a property of a neuron or synapse to change its internal parameters in response to its history.
Metaplasticity, the plasticity of synaptic plasticity.
Phenotypic plasticity, in biology, describes the ability of an organism to change its phenotype in response to changes in the environment
Plasticity (psychology), an intelligence factor that determines the ease of changing ones perception of a situation for finding a new solution to a problem. Lack of plasticity is termed rigidity.
Plasticity (tissues), in body tissues, plasticity refers to the ability of differentiated cells to undergo transdifferentiation.
In art
The plastic arts are those, such as clay sculpture, in which material is formed or deformed into a new, permanent shape.
Plasticity is an album by the band Cabaret Voltaire.
Plasticity is a single by the band Front Line Assembly.
Plasticities is a song by Andrew Bird, from the album Armchair Apocrypha
Not again ... (earlier in this thread in much greater detail)
The term 3D (already established & used in other 2D mediums and taught for centuries) is the ILLUSION of 3 dimensionality in a 2 dimensional medium.
Of course, we could always use:
Trompe-l'œil . . .
. . . which can also be spelled without the hyphen in English as trompe l'oeil,[1] (French for 'trick the eye', pronounced [tʁɔÞp lœj]) is an art technique involving extremely realistic imagery in order to create the optical ILLUSION that the depicted objects appear in three dimensions, instead of actually being a two-dimensional painting. (Or other two dimensional medium).
For me, I find using the established (multiple industry & academically accepted) 3D (or 3D-ish) term much preferable to writing out the more correct term of 'trompe l'oeil'. Continually debating a term that has existed longer than we have seems to be of great folly. Discussing what characteristics & attributes contribute to the creation of the ILLUSION has much greater value IMO. Great imagery examples have excellent value as well.
I just don't understand why people want to argue against using a term that already is established ... to which I suggest using '3D-ish' if one is not comfortable with 3D. Yes, we already know that there is no such thing as real 3D in a 2D medium, thereby it has already been accepted to be understood that the use of the term 3D, relative to a 2D medium, is the ILLUSION of 3D, i.e. 3D movies, 3D gaming, 3D graphics, etc.
I'm with RustyBug here. Obviously there's no 3D in 2D pictures, so the 3D term is for discribing the illusion of 3D.
Distagon 35/2 on D700 @ f/5.6, and I think this is the most "3D" I've got out of it so far. The subject is almost flat, but the picture ain't flat! The original file is so sharp that I couldn't even sharpen the websized downscaled one.
Cableaddict wrote:
BTW- "plasticity" isn't a term I made up. It's used quite a bit by some European photographers. (I think predominantly German.)
I can confirm that you have not made it up. I found from my old webpages (page: http://vahonen.com/photo/equipment/reviews/) following text (no recollection of writing it, I must be coming old...):
"From Wikipedia (before they changed the page):The representation in the two-dimensional that gives the impression of solidity/three-dimensionality."
Based on this it was in the wikipedia page but somebody removed it.
I searched google and found http://www.google.fi/search?hl=fi&hs=Thl&defl=en&q=definelasticity&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title . From where we can see description:
"Quality of a painting, sometimes referred to as plastic values, when the figures depicted appear to be exceptionally three dimensional."
From here.
Also here:
"(in pictorial art) the quality of depicting space and form so that they appear three-dimensional "
Also here:
"three-dimensional quality: the three-dimensional quality of an image"
The three other are very cheap too.
lasticity&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title . From where we can see description: