More about the body than lenses. Jordan made a comment and posted the only 3D photo in the thread (Sonnar 85/2.8...).
The rest of the photos are not 3D at all. A few with the 135L have good pop.
Anyone who can explain it to them? Brainiac? :-)
More about the body than lenses. Jordan made a comment and posted the only 3D photo in the thread (Sonnar 85/2.8...).
The rest of the photos are not 3D at all. A few with the 135L have good pop.
Anyone who can explain it to them? Brainiac? :-)
The problem with your claim, as with all "3D" claims, is that you had the benefit of knowing the image was taken with a Zeiss lens.
If I presented to you a series of images taken with a variety of lenses, with all metadata removed, and asked you to pick out which of those images have that "3D" look, I believe the results would be far more credible.
I often see photographers claim to know that a particular image was taken with a particular lens, or has a particular "look." Yet not a single one of them has defined it, nor have they passed a blind test designed to verify their ability to do so. Now I should point out that there are very real optical differences between lenses of different manufacturers--but that is not the issue at hand. Rather, what I call into question is the existence of some kind of nebulous quality that, if it truly exists, should be able to be expressed in precise terms.
wickerprints wrote:
Rather, what I call into question is the existence of some kind of nebulous quality that, if it truly exists, should be able to be expressed in precise terms.
Despite some measure of disagreement, it has been expressed in fairly precise terms. Just not in that thread. Those shots in that thread only illustrate a misunderstanding of what the 3D effect looks like, or should look like. Most of them are decidedly flat and "un-3D".
We may not completely agree on what causes 3D-effect over here in the weird side of the forum, but most of us at least agree on what it looks like.
I agree that by doing a blind or double blind test you get far more accurate results. You are absolutely right.
Therefore it can be greatly unsatisfying that most of us are not interested in performing such tests since we all know which lenses will show those characteristics most.
Please look in our 3d lenses threads and just see for yourself. Or perform such blind tests yourself. Much has been said on this issue here and mostly Zeiss lenses show 3d characteristics. Other than that for instance the Canon 135L is also known to produce 3d qualities in some cases
I think there are a few samples on the canon thread that have some form of
3D'id ness but yea its a big ask to expect a 3D image from many of the canon lenses
The very first pic in that thread (water guy) has nice 3D. Then on page 2 the guitarist and sax player in the park are almost there. The others not so much.
Jordan made a comment and posted the only 3D photo in the thread (Sonnar 85/2.8...).
The rest of the photos are not 3D at all. A few with the 135L have good pop.
+1
As I rapidly scrolled through them ... Jordan's pics made me stop & look, while a couple of the 135L shots only made me slow down. The rest, well you know the story.
Without the full agreement on how / why it is acheived, it does seem pretty obvious how NOT to achieve it ... and for the most part I think Canon's (current, i.e. not FD's) lenses designs have characteristics that help pull off the 'Canon look' ... but are counter to the 3D-look (135L mildly excepted).
I don't know if the Zeiss 85 is the best choice for this. Rather, try a planar 100mm or a 21/2.8.
Apart from this, you seem to think that the 3d effect might be imagined, well it is! As the 3d effect is interpretative (which means you have to experience it since its not actually there) it is uninteresting to test people with it. You have to experience it yourself. In other words, just browse the photo's for it.
The 3d effect is not qualitative, since it is the result of many factors in which composition is not to be underestimated. If Zeiss are better at this (which I'm convinced they are but look for yourself) these lenses merely help. It is mainly up to the spectator to be convinced by the realness of the picture.
