denoir wrote:
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 ...Show more →
Luka, I also think you misunderstood. Most of it was a joke.
And just like you are not unfamiliar with Canon. It's the same for me and Zeiss. The first time I used Zeiss glass was in the late 70s or 80s
And I also have looked at pics and tests here a long time before you where a member at FM I have been a member since 2003 and was a member when this forum started
Nice pics, denoir! But why on earth are you shooting flat subjects at f/2 instead of cranking ISO? For the first one, I'd personally choose 1/160 (which is my default auto-ISO speed for the 100/2), f/5.6 and ISO 800.
Makten wrote:
Nice pics, denoir! But why on earth are you shooting flat subjects at f/2 instead of cranking ISO? For the first one, I'd personally choose 1/160 (which is my default auto-ISO speed for the 100/2), f/5.6 and ISO 800.
Thanks. Well, the primary reason was that it was a fairly simple shot to align, the 100 MP has no field curvature to speak of and I preferred dynamic range over DOF. At ISO 800 I would have lost some of the nuances in the colors - most important for the last shot. Plus I like the vignetting
Makten, I like the two graffiti shots the most.
Luka, you really made those distorted angles work in the second shot. I like it.
jph1, the second one is great and good b&w conversion.
Nice photo Todd.
denoir wrote:
Thanks. Well, the primary reason was that it was a fairly simple shot to align, the 100 MP has no field curvature to speak of and I preferred dynamic range over DOF. At ISO 800 I would have lost some of the nuances in the colors - most important for the last shot. Plus I like the vignetting
In my opinion, you lose much more definition shooting wide open than crankin' ISO at these levels. ISO 800 is "nothing" compared to the optical aberrations at f/2 with the Makro-Planar.
-----------------------------------
One from today with the 35/2 on D700. This is very 3D to me...
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.
I wonder if the new Zeiss 35/1.4 will have that 3D effect at similar apertures when compared to the existing 35/2. What do you all think? Great thread btw, probably my favorite thread on the whole internet.
Makten wrote:
In my opinion, you lose much more definition shooting wide open than crankin' ISO at these levels. ISO 800 is "nothing" compared to the optical aberrations at f/2 with the Makro-Planar.
Well, as far as I know the only optical aberrations that the 100 MP suffers wide open is Longitudinal CA and that only affects high contrast edges and bokeh so it would not apply here.
The risk of shooting a flat subject at f/2 is getting parts of the images out of focus if you are not perpendicular to the surface of the subject. I seem to have managed that though as there is no falloff in sharpness towards the corners. Stopping down and raising ISO is of course the safer choice but it worked well without it in this case.
---
Joakim: love that third shot. Great use of light and blur!
joakim wrote:
Makten, I like the two graffiti shots the most.
Luka, you really made those distorted angles work in the second shot. I like it.
jph1, the second one is great and good b&w conversion.
Nice photo Todd.
Expressogeek, I happen to think that the imperfect samples shown by Lloyd Chambers display great promise, but I could be prejudiced, having already pre-ordered the lensc despite its weight.
Great shots again this page. Martynas, your shots to ME demonstrate fully an honest 3D feeling, which I agree is the most overused term ever - particularly with Zeiss glass references. However, your shots... they got it!!
I have been a member since 2003 and was a member when this forum started 
