...The Zeiss ZF 35/2 is the one. Second best is Nikkor 24-70/2.8.
Take a look in the "3D" thread. Lots of good examples from different lenses there.
And no, I don't own all those lenses anymore.
Edit: This is a nice example with the ZF @ f/2.8. It just "pops" because every detail in focus has a high local contrast with no haze or blur around the edges. There's very little spherical aberration, which is a good part of the recipe.
The best I've used is essentially a tie between the Zeiss 50/1.7 and the Zeiss 85/2.8. My Canon 100 f/2.8L IS follows after that, and then close behind are the Zeiss 85/1.4 and Zeiss 28-85. See a pattern?
This is out of a total of ~50 lenses that I've owned.
David Baldwin wrote:
Sorry to be ignorant, but I've often wondered what micro contrast actually means, but have always been ashamed to ask.
What is this quality, exactly please?
It's high MTF at low frequencies. Which means that a bright area doesn't "infect" a dark adjacent area with its brightness. This isn't necessarily connected to high resolution (which is high MTF at higher frequencies). Think of it like "good sharpness" but at a larger scale than the finest details.
David--make up your own definition and stick to it. Seems to be the most accurate one we each have. Other threads have clearly shown the issue to be of near-religious importance. I don't like the term for this reason.
In short, it should be something that demonstrates the lens' ability to maintain high contrast across even relatively small regions. Ergo--nice sharp transitions between light and dark regions.
I am sure we would all have slightly different opinions on this
- so this can only be my subjective pennyworth.
The Zeiss 50 1.4 warrants inclusion among the best and as a great fan of the new Voigtlanders I would suggest that the 125/2.5 is probably their strongest contender for this list and of course there are quite a few Leicas that might be considered.
Can someone suggest a good test subject for determining which lens (of the ones I own) is best? Something pratical that I might have, please. Is micro contrast a big element in the 3D look?
OM 90mm f/2 macro the best out of the following lenses,
15 C/Y
16-35 EOS
18mm C/Y
20mm OM f/2 macro
21 C/y
Nikon 14-24
EOS 24-70
28mm Leica R
C/y 28 f/2.8
35mm ZF
C/Y 35mm PC
35mm OM shift
50mm EOS
50mm K
60 C/Y Macro
65mm EOS
70-200 f/2.8 EOS
90mm ts-e
100mm macro EOS
125mm Voightlander
135mm f/2 EOS
180mm macro EOS
200mm Pentax smca macro
300mm f/2.8 EOS
The OM 35 shift and 90 tse are close.
Dan
www.danbrownphotography.com
I can't tell what about those above images makes something look more micro-contrasty than other pictures. Though, I guess bicycles are the preferred micro-contrast demonstration subject.
I like this example from the Zeiss 85/2.8 Sonnar...look at the level of contrast in the texture of the tulip petals..it's remarkable to me... This was wide open too.
I would love a 35 1.4 with that look! my nikon 35 1.4 is more.. dreamy :P