Dan, okay, you are describing subject separation pop, not the thing which some of us call the "3D look", not that we, or anyone else, has a trademark on that term
Jonas B wrote:
Hi Carsten!
Great to see you here, back again, and in full swing!
I would go for the old C/Y version.
The ZE and ZF are newer designs, more "flawless" and less organic or coming with less flavour. So if it is the classic look you are after I think the C/Y is the right one. Less flare on the ZE and ZF.
All the above is what I read. My experience is limited to the C/Y version, a lens I liked a lot (weight aside) and we have all seen great samples of images taken with the C/Y. The ZE and ZF... surely better as more modern but I haven't seen the organic drawing style in the images I have stumbled upon....Show more →
Hey Jonas! It has been a while! Do you still visit Berlin sometimes?
As for the lens, I specifically want the one with more 3D I am getting all keen to go out and search for that look again I remember doing this in the old days, like with this Citroën, photographed with the 50 Planar @f/1.4 and the 50 Makro-Planar @ f/2:
Jonas B wrote:
I would go for the old C/Y version.
The ZE and ZF are newer designs, more "flawless" and less organic or coming with less flavour. So if it is the classic look you are after I think the C/Y is the right one. Less flare on the ZE and ZF.
I found a really nice copy with the hood, and bought it. Not exactly cheap, but okay. Erm, I also bought a 100/2 I might get an 85/1.4 as well, they are really not expensive. I have a 50/1.7, so my Contax lens collection is not bad now Now I need to sell something else so I don't go bankrupt.
I keep seeing images of people who look like cut-out cartoons pasted onto the background: the exact opposite of what we should be discussing—or using as an example—in a thread about the 3D effect/pop.
Photography culture—what a mystery!
Do you mean my images above? Or maybe the k-pop image? If the latter, I agree, although it is a nice shot, it does not have what I look for in 3D look. It has lots of subject separation, but that to me is not 3D.
carstenw wrote:
As for the lens, I specifically want the one with more 3D I am getting all keen to go out and search for that look again I remember doing this in the old days, like with this Citroën, photographed with the 50 Planar and the 50 Makro-Planar, I think both at f/2:
Thanks very interesting. To my eyes the MP50 has better 3D despite the slower speed.
There's one thing that may influence 3D impression that hasn't been adressed in this thread: Distortion
In some of my comparison images I've noticed that the subject I shot with different lenses seemed to be wider with one lens than with the other. It's a bit mind boggling since good lenses don't distort straight lines, not much at least, if they do that will obviously have some effect, but if they don't it's more difficult.
In my head I imagine the center widened a little, stretched if you want, while the outer parts of the image are more pushed together. This would be possible without distorting neither vertical nor horizontal lines. If different lenses do such a thing, if only in a very slight manner, the effect the image has on your brain, might be stronger than we think.
Some part of that may simply be the different physical length of the lenses (with the same focal lenght) being compared, because the angle of view is slightly different. I noticed that in your two images:
If you toggle back and forth between the two images, you will notice that the angle you took if from is slightly different. Assuming that you used a tripod and didn't move it in between the shots, this will have to do with the position in which the light enters the front lens (earlier for the MP since it's a little longer).
This effect will of course be more noticeable with close subjects.
I love the copy and paste look--for me that is 3D. I've seen 3D movies in the past at the theatres i.e. The Phantom Menace, Pirates of the Caribbean, Spiderman and etc. It's like the subject is going to leap out from my monitor and punch me :-) Hey but if your concept of 3D is different, you do you.
I wanted a zoom lens that is capable of doing 3D and looking at my old images shot with the EF 70-200/2.8 L IS. I bought this brand new I believe in 2005 and I still got it. Dpreview reviewed the version II but I believe they gave the edge to version I in having a smoother bokeh. I am now tempted to get a Sigma MC-11 so I can fit it in my Sony A7V.
Rob, I was on foot without tripod, but I stood in the same place. I probably leaned slightly differently. The 50MP is famous for having more depth of field at a given aperture than the 50P. Who knows how that works, but it is very consistent. I think this helps the 3D look that I love so much. Not the subject separation, but the gradual roll off, of focus, sharpness, texture, which somehow matches better how our eyes work.
The distortion you mention: I can't recall ever having noticed that. Do you have two lenses in mind which you could contrast here? It sounds like you are describing, for example, a 50mm lens which is more like 52mm in the middle, and 48mm at the edges. I don't know if this really happen with lenses with spherical elements.
Jojib, in these shots (very nice btw) I see lots of subject separation via depth of field and boke, but not much 3D look in the sense that I, and some others, mean it. When I speak of 3D, I mean that the photo looks almost exactly as it would if it was right in front of me, a kind of mind trick, and I get the feel that I am not looking at a photograph, but a real 3-dimensional object right in front of me, as if the photo was a glass-less window.
carstenw wrote:
Jojib, in these shots (very nice btw) I see lots of subject separation via depth of field and boke, but not much 3D look in the sense that I, and some others, mean it. When I speak of 3D, I mean that the photo looks almost exactly as it would if it was right in front of me, a kind of mind trick, and I get the feel that I am not looking at a photograph, but a real 3-dimensional object right in front of me, as if the photo was a glass-less window.
That’s right; some people—including quite a few professional photographers—confuse the three-dimensionality of an image (or the 3D pop of a camera lens) with the separation of the subject from a background that remains fairly distinct.
As I wrote a few hundred posts ago, there are lenses that produce a 3D pop/rendering even at f/11... while others, which should be thrown away, have abrupt transitions between the in-focus plane and the progressively out-of-focus planes.
This does not mean that photographing a model with a fast lens, using a wide aperture, is not worthwhile or does not produce pleasing images that show us the scene in a way different from how we are accustomed to observing reality.
3D pop and subject isolation from the background are different aspects of photography.
It also happens that images in which the subject is clearly separated from the background tend to look flat.
carstenw wrote:
... I remember doing this in the old days, like with this Citroën, photographed with the 50 Planar and the 50 Makro-Planar, I think both at f/2:
They don't appear to have been taken with the same aperture. The depth of field is quite different (it's much greater in the second image).
carstenw wrote:
Jojib, in these shots (very nice btw) I see lots of subject separation via depth of field and boke, but not much 3D look in the sense that I, and some others, mean it. When I speak of 3D, I mean that the photo looks almost exactly as it would if it was right in front of me, a kind of mind trick, and I get the feel that I am not looking at a photograph, but a real 3-dimensional object right in front of me, as if the photo was a glass-less window.
Thanks for the kind words as well as your comments about 3D. I have a different view when it comes to 3D which I already shared a few times here. For me background separation is essential. That's why I favour fast lenses like my Canon EF lenses 50/1.2 L and 85/1.2 L II. I love the rendering of those lenses and of course the bokeh. Going back to the zoom lens, I am impressed about the bokeh of this lens given that I shot those @ 73mm. I changed my mind about buying an adapter (i.e. Sigma MC-11 or Metabones), I'll just use my R6MKII with it.
Ripolini wrote:
They don't appear to have been taken with the same aperture. The depth of field is quite different (it's much greater in the second image).
I don't recall if it was actually the same aperture, but the 50 Makro-Planar has significantly more depth of field at the same aperture, compared to the 50 Planar. I remember how I struggled with the 50MP because I was trying to get the same narrow depth of field as with the Planar, but I just couldn't. I have no idea what optical properties make this so, but ask anyone who has owned the 50MP, it has a fat band of in-focus compared to other lenses.
[EDIT: The 50P was at f/1,4 and the 50MP at f/2,0]
The concept of three-dimensionality in two-dimensional images was studied and discussed in Italy at the beginning of the Renaissance (Giotto had already begun exploring it earlier... and even some Roman paintings exhibited a certain three-dimensionality).
The subject was therefore analyzed at length and subsequently transferred from painting to photography, which is, after all, the organization of space on a flat surface.
carstenw wrote:
I don't recall if it was actually the same aperture, but the 50 Makro-Planar has significantly more depth of field at the same aperture, compared to the 50 Planar. I remember how I struggled with the 50MP because I was trying to get the same narrow depth of field as with the Planar, but I just couldn't. I have no idea what optical properties make this so, but ask anyone who has owned the 50MP, it has a fat band of in-focus compared to other lenses.
Yes, the 50 MP is a sharper lens and then the circle of confusion is smaller (less broad) in the out-of-focus planes. However, the difference seems rather large. I wonder if you took both at the maximum aperture (f/1.4 & f/2).
Nevertheless, the second image doesn't look flatter (i.e., with less 3D rendering) than the first image. It looks "different".
Yes, I owned both lenses for a long time, because they were so shockingly different in their characteristics. I still own a 50 Planar, but not the Makro-Planar. I am considering getting it again
The two photos were both wide open. Shooting both at f/2.0, the Makro-Planar always had more depth of field, much more.
I still own the old Nikkor AI 50/1.4 along with the 50/2 Apo-Lanthar
Love both. The Voigt for its outstanding optical performance; the Nikkor for its performance-to-price ratio.
I have way more photo equipment than I will probably ever use, but I love it all. I am stupidly even thinking of getting one more lens, but not a common one...
carstenw wrote:
Rob, I was on foot without tripod, but I stood in the same place. I probably leaned slightly differently. The 50MP is famous for having more depth of field at a given aperture than the 50P. Who knows how that works, but it is very consistent. I think this helps the 3D look that I love so much. Not the subject separation, but the gradual roll off, of focus, sharpness, texture, which somehow matches better how our eyes work.
The distortion you mention: I can't recall ever having noticed that. Do you have two lenses in mind which you could contrast here? It sounds like you are describing, for example, a 50mm lens which is more like 52mm in the middle, and 48mm at the edges. I don't know if this really happen with lenses with spherical elements....Show more →
I already looked in my archive, but it seems that I also didn't use a tripod - at least in the samples I found already, so they are not very convincing. I do remember having compared the G28 (Zeiss 2.8/28 Biogon) and the HFT Distagon 2/28, where I noticed such a behaviour. It was however pretty close to MFD, where this does play a larger role.
Due to my past endeavors, I still tend to think that some lenses (i.E. Zeiss lenses) may have a little different "inside the frame" geometry, because of many samples I had taken a few years back. It may be a figment of my imagination, but I will try to find some proof, when I have a little time. It could also be explained with a slight movement of the tripod used, changing the perspective slíghtly.
EDIT: I found some of the pictures I had in mind. I compared the Zeiss Biogon 2.8/28, the Distagon 2.8/28, the Distagon 2/28 and the Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/28 (v1). The following images were shot from the same tripod. They're still hard to compare due to the different distance to the apple due to the different length of the lenses (near MFD this does play a role. I don't think it's the differences in focal length (which might factor in as well, though).
You can only notice the differences if you switch between the images quickly and without them moving in from the side. It's best you download them and watch them in IrfanView.
carstenw wrote:
Hey Jonas! It has been a while! Do you still visit Berlin sometimes?
As for the lens, I specifically want the one with more 3D I am getting all keen to go out and search for that look again I remember doing this in the old days, like with this Citroën, photographed with the 50 Planar and the 50 Makro-Planar, I think both at f/2:
[2 images of a fantastic car with a not so fantastic motor]
and
carstenw wrote:
I found a really nice copy with the hood, and bought it. Not exactly cheap, but okay. Erm, I also bought a 100/2 I might get an 85/1.4 as well, they are really not expensive. I have a 50/1.7, so my Contax lens collection is not bad now Now I need to sell something else so I don't go bankrupt.
Your shelf with C/Y lenses lacks nothing... or perhaps the old 18mm? I hope the 35 turns out to be what you are looking for!
And yes, I visit Berlin, of course, from time to time. Now it's two years since last time so perhaps again later this year....
Rob:
I will compare the shots separately and answer you after.
Jonas:
I was looking at some Contax 85mm f/1.2 lenses, but they ended up either having scratches, or being nonsensically expensive, so I will probably not get it after all. I might get a 85mm f/1.4 though, they are very cheap.
I remember doing this in the old days, like with this Citroën, photographed with the 50 Planar @f/1.4 and the 50 Makro-Planar @ f/2:
