carstenw wrote:
[...]
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.
They were expensive back in the days as well iirc. At 85mm I think f1.4 is plenty fast anyway. In fact an 85/2 is fast enough for me. (But of course, I indeed still miss the Summilux-R 80/1.4)
Ive had this question recently: What sensor has more POP?
Ive often come to find that my IR pics pop much more than my regular visible spectrum images
(comparing two sony a73 models)
i particularily like trees in B/W, maybe your high res screen shows this jacaranda tree attached nicely.
Full spectrum converted A73 with 850nm filter and post converted to B/W with C1
Theoretically, a sensor can see much more IR (and UV) light than the small spectrum of visible blue to red. And can someone enlighten me on the significance of magenta and why goethe found it to be more important than all of his literary work , please send me a PM :-))
I personally like the depth perception from images taken with the 55 zeiss and since recently the 35 EVO from Viltrox. The 35 Simera has pop IMO as well (no ED glass elements).
Neighbors jacaranda in 850nm on full spectrum sony sensor
ILCE-7M3Zeiss Sonnar T* FE 55 mm F1.8 ZA (SEL55F18Z) lens55mmf/7.11/125s100 ISO0.0 EV
carstenw wrote:
Oh god, don't talk about that lens, I got some of my best shots ever with it!
definitely one of my favorite lenses, the focus throw was way too long for chasing kids though. not "3d lens" either (though i still maintain that the conversation about 3d lenses needs to die).
There are a lot of great lenses to be found in past systems for sure, but I do like to have a few related lenses to walk around with. The Contax 35/1,4 + 100/2 will be it for now, on my Zf. I might add the 85/1,4 although it isn't so different from the 100 in focal length. I have the 50/1,7 but I don't usually walk around with both 35 and 50. I might pick up the 25, if I find myself loving the 35+100, but missing a wider lens.
I don't want the 3D conversation to die! I still hope that we can converge on a few clear description to break down the field into the groups of us who think similarly, and the lens characteristics which each group think make up their lenses of choice. At the very least, we should be able to group ourselves into two camps: subject separation 3D, and the "3D Look", 3D-dimensionality, or whatever we want to call it.
carstenw wrote:
it has a fat band of in-focus compared to other lenses.
Is it possible that the actual aperture was set the same but was different effectively?
With the long focus draw of a macro the effective aperture varies and it might be misleading in this distance range.
Altglas wrote:
Is it possible that the actual aperture was set the same but was different effectively?
With the long focus draw of a macro the effective aperture varies and it might be misleading in this distance range.
I am not completely sure what you mean, but the 50P was shot at f/1,4, and the 50MP at f/2,0.
The 50 Makro-Planar has a very deep depth-of-field for any given aperture. I don't know enough about optical design to know why this should be so, but I have observed it repeatedly. Lenses let in the same nominal amount of light at any given f-stop (the T-stop makes this the same amount of actual light), but there is nothing in the formula to say how this should be done. Lenses can definitely have differing amounts of light at the same f-stop, and also different amounts of depth of field. It all depends on the design.
I think that the amount of depth of field in a lens design doesn't vary that much from other lenses, so we just don't notice, but the 50MP is different.
[UPDATE:]
I just found my original post of these images, I think on page 324 of the ZF/ZE... thread, and the 50P was at f/1,4 and the 50 MP at f/2,0.
I am not sure that the sensor or spectrum is the answer here. I think it is contrast and having plenty of shadow. Removing color does not guarantee a sense of 3D, but it can allow the dimensionality cues provided by shading not to get overwhelmed by color differences.
My color IR images often look flatter than average, but my BW IR tend to look more 3D on average. In the latter case, they generally also have high contrast and dramatic, often side, lighting
Jim
Happydan wrote:
Ive had this question recently: What sensor has more POP?
Ive often come to find that my IR pics pop much more than my regular visible spectrum images
(comparing two sony a73 models)
i particularily like trees in B/W, maybe your high res screen shows this jacaranda tree attached nicely.
Full spectrum converted A73 with 850nm filter and post converted to B/W with C1
Theoretically, a sensor can see much more IR (and UV) light than the small spectrum of visible blue to red. And can someone enlighten me on the significance of magenta and why goethe found it to be more important than all of his literary work , please send me a PM :-))
I personally like the depth perception from images taken with the 55 zeiss and since recently the 35 EVO from Viltrox. The 35 Simera has pop IMO as well (no ED glass elements)....Show more →
Makten wrote:
What's the point of adding fake bokeh smoothening in a thread about lens performance?
In my opinion, there's much more to it than that. To me, these images look extremely unnatural, very flat, and have the charm of an obvious photomontage. But as they say, there's no accounting for taste.
Nevertheless, I've written it before, and I'll say it again: even a smartphone today can simulate better three-dimensionality, meaning a more natural representation than what's shown here.
I know that sounds harsh, but it's my honest opinion and reflects what I see. No one has to share my opinion.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
In my opinion, there's much more to it than that. To me, these images look extremely unnatural, very flat, and have the charm of an obvious photomontage. But as they say, there's no accounting for taste.
Nevertheless, I've written it before, and I'll say it again: even a smartphone today can simulate better three-dimensionality, meaning a more natural representation than what's shown here.
I know that sounds harsh, but it's my honest opinion and reflects what I see. No one has to share my opinion.
Your examples are showing very obvious fake bokeh, to my eyes. No 3D.
But at least it's pretty clear since that is what we are discussing. However, the two top images with the 50 L above are posted with no comment, as if they represent how the lens draws. I don't understand why anyone would do that in a thread about what LENSES have the most 3D pop.
If the thread was about how to get 3D pop out of any image, that would be a different story, and nothing wrong with adding whatever effects to an image to make it pop.
Makten wrote:
Your examples are showing very obvious fake bokeh, to my eyes. No 3D.
But at least it's pretty clear since that is what we are discussing. However, the two top images with the 50 L above are posted with no comment, as if they represent how the lens draws. I don't understand why anyone would do that in a thread about what LENSES have the most 3D pop.
If the thread was about how to get 3D pop out of any image, that would be a different story, and nothing wrong with adding whatever effects to an image to make it pop. ...Show more →
Do you think that the images in post #13 on page 134 show anything that could be described as spatial depth? I'm asking this question quite seriously, as they appear extremely flat to me. As I said, there's no accounting for taste, and it's not about whether one person likes something and another dislikes it. My point is simply that I can't see any depth effect whatsoever. And how can something be called 3D if it doesn't suggest any depth? That's the real problem I have with these images in this thread. The fact that image processing has been used certainly doesn't help; quite the opposite, in fact, as it distorts the lens's rendering. But of course, this is just my assumption that some things have been manipulated in the image processing, because I can't imagine any lens producing such peculiar results.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Do you think that the images in post #13 on page 134 show anything that could be described as spatial depth? I'm asking this question quite seriously, as they appear extremely flat to me. As I said, there's no accounting for taste, and it's not about whether one person likes something and another dislikes it. My point is simply that I can't see any depth effect whatsoever. And how can something be called 3D if it doesn't suggest any depth? That's the real problem I have with these images in this thread. The fact that image processing has been used certainly doesn't help; quite the opposite, in fact, as it distorts the lens's rendering. But of course, this is just my assumption that some things have been manipulated in the image processing, because I can't imagine any lens producing such peculiar results....Show more →
I have no idea of what the definition of "spatial depth" is, but they don't look 3D to me. And yes, it is probably worse because of added fake bokeh.
My only point was that it's very strange to add fake bokeh to images in this thread. Especially if you don't tell anyone it's added.
Now, my personal opinion on "3D" is that it can happen both with shallow DOF and with everything in focus. Depends on the scene and so on. Unfortunately, since getting a 5k resolution screen, every photo on this forum looks very unsharp and doesn't really reveal how lenses draw.
carstenw wrote:
Hey Martin, nice to see you here again!
I think there are at least two ideas of what 3D pop means:
1) the foreground is clearly separated from the background, thus there is 3D in the image. I would call this subject separation.
2) The image fools the eye/brain into thinking that it is looking at a 3D scene, not an image. I might call this 3D rendering.
I belong to the latter camp, the 50L user probably the former.
Do you still have your leather seat image, so you can show us? IIRC this was one of the images with the most 3d pop I have ever seen....Show more →
Hi Carsten! :-)
I would say that 1) and 2) can be combined to great effect, especially with only a tiny bit of background blur that lower local contrast and makes the subject stand out better, without obliterating the background.
I have a vague memory of the image you mean, and I think it was shot with the Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar ZF. But I will unfortunately not be able to find it. Too long ago, and I've never had any good way of labeling my albums and images since I seldom bother with looking at old images.
I still hope that we can converge on a few clear description to break down the field into the groups of us who think similarly, and the lens characteristics which each group think make up their lenses of choice. At the very least, we should be able to group ourselves into two camps: subject separation 3D, and the "3D Look", 3D-dimensionality, or whatever we want to call it.
