Speaking of the 35/2, I took a short walk with just it yesterday. I did not get any particularly interesting shots and the 35/2 is the least used of all my Zeiss glass. However the 3D it produces effortlessly is just ridiculous.
So, here is a bit of Zeiss 3D rendering pornography:
@Luka: Indeed good 3D but in that shot with the tubes, but I find it so oversharpened that it gives me a headache to look at it. There are some moiré patterns in it too.
JR: The 50 MP is objectively a better lens, but you'll indeed probably miss the 3D. As easy as it is to get with the 35/2 it is hard to get it with the 50 MP.
Benjamin & Carsten: The aliasing (moiré) is because of the down sampling. The stripes on those tubes hit the nyquist frequency (< two pixels per stripe) and hence the aliasing. The only way to get rid of it would be to blur the image. The sharpening applied in the first image is the same as in the second but it is far more visible because of the aliasing.
I'm testing out a new copy of the 100 MP today, and here's a shot that I thought exhibited a bit of 3D. Also, I see a bit of weird swirly boke? Partially inspired by an image Martin posted a while back, in this thread, I believe.
That second shot is phenomenal! I've shot several leaf close-ups this afternoon....here's another, with very different camera-to-subject-to background distances, yet I still see a hint of that same swirliness.
Do you all think the Distagon 35/2 has more of a 3D effect than say a Canon 35/1.4 when the Canon is stopped down to the same aperture? Just curious....
Do you all think the Distagon 35/2 has more of a 3D effect than say a Canon 35/1.4 when the Canon is stopped down to the same aperture? Just curious....
Yes, it definitely has, even stopped down to f5.6 for example the difference is visible (at least on the pixel-level). Some direct comparisons are in this thread:
espressogeek: Yes, definitely. Not just in the case of Canon vs Zeiss but also between different 35mm Zeiss lenses. The 35/2 Distagon and the 35/1.4 Distagon differing rendering styles and the 35/2 Bigon differs from them both. In my experience for medium distance shots, the 35/2 Distagon is unbeatable as far as '3D' goes. I'm typically using it at wide apertures but there are plenty of examples in this thread with stopped down examples.
Having said that, and going a bit offtopic, Zeiss lenses are far from the only one that can produce that '3D' look. Here is a Leica 24/2.8 Elmarit shot @ f/5.6. It's on a crop camera so the effective focal length is 35mm:
It's less in-your-face 3D than the Zeiss but the effect is still quite strong.
Also not all Zeiss 35/2 Distagon shots show a '3D' quality. Distance to focal plane, background and subject geometry all matter. Here is for instance a shot that doesn't have it in the sense as the shots posted before:
Do you all think the Distagon 35/2 has more of a 3D effect than say a Canon 35/1.4 when the Canon is stopped down to the same aperture? Just curious....
No we don't. But this is the Alternative Lens forum. And then every image from a Zeiss lens has 3D
Lars, that statement of yours shows that you are clearly a Canonite barbarian who does not understand the subtleties of the civilized alt lens discourse.
Oct 16, 2010 at 03:54 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
denoir wrote:
Lars, that statement of yours shows that you are clearly a Canonite barbarian who does not understand the subtleties of the civilized alt lens discourse.
I even bought the Zeiss ZE Distagon T* 21mm f/2.8 last week And I will probably buy the Zeiss ZE Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2.0 & Zeiss ZE Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 rather soon also.
Very nice lenses. But I don't see any more 3D in those or in other Zeiss lenses that I have used than I do in my Canon lenses If using the best Canon lenses like I do. Lenses like 17TS-E, 24TS-E, 85/1,2, 200/2, 800/5,6 and similar quality stuff.
So yes I'm probably a " Canonite barbarian who does not understand the subtleties of the civilized alt lens discourse then"
But it gives me many laugh to read those threads
Remember that lenses are just a tool when shooting. It's not a religion
No, you misunderstood me. The "subtlety of the discourse" I was talking about is that anybody with even just a slight experience of Zeiss glass or of the various discussions in this forum would know that "Zeiss = Auto 3D" is a ridiculous claim. It's a straw man used by Zeiss/alt haters and it's only vaguely related to the claims that people here make about 3D.
Don't you think there have been several dozen blind tests here? A very large portion of the Zeiss users in this thread - it used to be a majority and still perhaps is - are engineers who like it precise, like proper testing and have little tolerance of pseudo scientific claims. So it has been discussed a lot in detail and analyzed.
First of all, there is no universal agreement or exact definition of what '3D' is. It's a shorthand for a variety of rendering qualities and it does not apply to a single brand of lenses. There are a number of types of '3D' and there are Canon & Nikon & Whatever lenses that can display them and there are Zeiss lenses that are free of most of them. Stopped down a 50/1.4 Planar can produce a very strong type of '3D' effect while a 50/2 Makro-Planar at the same aperture can't. The '3D' of the 21/2.8 is of a different nature than the one of a 35/2 or a 100 MP. There are even significant differences between the 35/2 Distagon and the 35/1.4 Distagon (Rollei & Contax).
The 3D of the 21/2.8 that you've just bought is one you'll soon notice in comparison to the Canon glass you are used to. It's not the in-your-face pop of the 35/2 as shown on the previous page but rather that (when used correctly of course) you'll see a depth in the image that you would not get from your 24 TS-E. In essence it looks more like you are looking at the real thing rather than a picture of the real thing. I could post a bunch of examples here but you can as easy get them from anywhere in this thread plus it doesn't hurt if you find out for yourself. My first lens was the 21/2.8 Distagon as well and it took me a while to learn how to properly use it. And yes, I was a great 3D-skeptic just like you. My first posts in this thread were attacking people for their sloppy use of the term '3D'. I lacked two things back then though - one was enough experience with certain lenses and the other was an understanding that the regulars of this forum were world class experts at different optical characteristics of various lenses and that they have had many discussions on the subjects that were quite a few levels above my own.
So, if you are really interested in the 3D part there are a lot of threads on the subject and a load of tests have been done. If not, then relax, use your Zeiss glass and you'll soon see things for yourself.
As for Canon glass, well, I'm a Canon user and I still have a bunch of it. I've had the 'Five Horsemen' (24L, 35L, 50L, 85L & 135L) a TS-E (24). I still have a couple of Canon primes and a couple of good zooms (70-200/II, 16-35 II) so let's just say that I'm not entirely unfamiliar with Canon glass and its rendering
