Cableaddict wrote:
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 >
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.
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.
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.)
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? http://boncratious.com/images/_MG_9435.jpg http://boncratious.com/images/_MG_9436.jpg
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.
AhamB wrote:
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.
Agreed.....the main thing that looks better is the black vase and the separation with the other objects
These are closer than I'd expect. (I wonder if plasticity is subject to sample variation? - he says trying to literally hedge his bets )
-but I'd bet good money that the second one is the Planar. It has better "wrap" on the edges of the front bowl, and expecially the bottom-left of the kitty thing.
Also, the bokeh on the rt side (in the yard) is a little bit edgier in pic #1. Yup, that's the makro.
----------------
Note also that none of my earlier tests were with subjects this close, as I rarely shoot so close with a 50mm. Not hedging my bets here, just wondering if a close-subject minimizes the differences?
Well, the gauntlet has been thrown! I must respond soon. Just got off a 17 hr work day, dealing with crazed rock musicians, so not tonight. My brain is jello. (he says truthfully, but once again looking for an excuse in case he guessed wrong. )
I'll try tomorrow. I have a REALLY good test subject planned.
The first thing that strikes me is that the 2 shots look different. N°1 looks generally darker IMHO. Then I feel that N°2 has more saturated colours (see cloth on the table).
And yes, N°2 seems to have greater plasticity.
My guess is that N°2 is the f:1.4
[Goes off and calls friend who will second the inevitable seppuku when the truth is revealed]
When I first scrolled down, it seemed obvious that #2 had more. Then when I scrolled back up, #1 seemed to be the same or s smidgen more. Scroll down, #2 had more, up #1 equal ... but in the end I think #2 shows more and based on my study of the mtf's (iirc) ... the macro should show more (disclaimer ... mtf's don't show for all apertures), so I'm going with #2=more=macro.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it ... till I change my mind or someone changes it for me.
No, it will be hard. I truly loved my 135L for it´s sharpness that fully met my high expectations. But I also learned what LoCA is with this lens. The LoCA of the 135L isn´t that bad. But I found it when I peeped enjoying the sharpness. Now I burn my retinas on LoCA and look forward to explore other lenses than the (not so) magnificent L´s. I don´t expect the same sharpness, but perhaps more plasticity or 3D or just someting that makes me prefer the Sonnar. I will include a 35mm Contax 1.4 vs 35L vs 40IF, and a 85L vs 85 Sonnar too at some point. That´s why I would like to have some sort of standardized test scenario. At test setup is not the same as agreement. It´s a method.
But we are still buried under 2-10 feet of snow for an other eternity which really is getting to my nerves. Reellly.
I don't see any difference at all, that I could recognize if you flipped them around. It could have been the same shot, just that one of them are more cropped.
OK. First some general statements. There were only minor crops to each, they were the same to each and only on the long side. The difference that you might attribute to cropping, is in fact due a small difference in effective focal length. #2 appears to have a longer focal length at this focus distance. Yes, this is a reasonably close focus composition, but certainly not in the "macro" range. But perhaps not too atypical for interior images. Can re-do outside with larger object and more mid-range focus distances. Can also try images at infinity but I not sure that would be particularly useful in showing what were talking about here. yes there could be differences in exposure, and I did my best to assure that they were very close. And they are very close. Of course, f5.6 on one lens might not have exactly the same light gathering ability as f5.6 on another lens. I think as presented here, anyone commenting on a difference in exposure is really splitting hairs. Lens contrast could play here as well. One lens could possibly reproduce scene contrast better than the other. Outside of overall exposure, this is a potential source for differences in contrast between the two, and one we should be interested in for this comparison. Finally, this was done on a 5D without live view. Accordingly, there might be small differences in the intended focus point (cat's nose) which may or may not contribute to a slight difference in appearance. Further and similarly, differences in field curvature could result in apparent focus and appearance around the outer portions of the frame. DOF at this distance and f5.6 isn't great enough to disguise these issues.
Now. 2 points to those who correctly guessed that #2 was the 50/2 Makro-Planar. I would think the consensus here would be that #2 provides at least as much "plasticity" or "3D-ness" as #1, the 50/1.4 Planar.
Clearly there could be further refinements to technique used in this quick comparison. But I don;t think that any of the potential refinement would reverse the consensus produced. I am happy to entertain suggestions on what could be done better.
)
