I think it would have been around 2011 or so... an abandoned leather chair standing outside somewhere. I thought it was the 35/2, but could have been the 50. I still have a 50 ZF btw, even though I have now slowly starting buying some Contax lenses (35/1.4, 60/2.8 Macro, 100/2). That 50 is still one of my favourite lenses.
[Edit: actually maybe more like 2012-2013. I am just looking through my old images, and 2011 I was still with the Leica M8, then 2012 I switched to the D3, and I was using more Leica lenses back then. Then I moved to the D800, and that is where I was most busy with Zeiss I think, and around that time the Alt forum took off with the various Zeiss threads.
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 think you have captured the issue well. Joji, who posted with the 50L in post #13, I think has been very clear that he thinks of 3D as #1 and all his examples to my eyes only show #1 and not #2 and all or almost all his examples have quite a bit of post processing. I have had very pleasant interactions with him on FM and I don't think he cares about #2 and he obviously has a lot of interesting people shots with beautiful models. I think his shots here are consistent with a lot of what he posts. He has a style that you may or may not like and his work pretty clearly reflects that style and if you ask him I am sure he will tell you about the post processing.
I agree with Martin that in this thread commenting on what post processing has been done would probably be best, but if you are willing to describe what you have done when asked that is probably fine too. I think his work reflects one thing you can do with the lens, but personally doesn't fit my style. Having seen Martin post over the years I and enjoyed interactions with him as well, I would say that Joji and Martin have very different and close to opposite styles, but that is ok. I think this long running thread has lots of room for different styles and different takes on what 3D is.
Sure, I don't mind if people have different opinions about things
These days so many lenses do subject separation well, that it doesn't really interest me so much. Disney does subject separation very well with flat slides, and this is what lenses like the 50L and 85L do IMO. Just foreground and blur.
There are great lenses from the typical places, like Leica, Zeiss, and Voigtländer, then there are the Japanese giants, like Nikon, Sony, and Canon, and now we have lenses from newer companies like TTArtisan, Typoch, Sirui, Mandler, and so on, and there is an embarrassment of choice. I am personally more interested in unique rendering and the ability to render believable 3D.
I am a bit on the fence about re-making old lenses, like the Mandler 35 Cron IV and the LLL 35 Lux Aspherical. It feels like theft to me, a bit talentless, although to be fair, the prices on the old lenses are so insane, and the risk of getting a copy which isn't great is so high, so maybe this justifies it? I don't know.
Thanks very much Steve. That's exactly my view. I said many times that I've experienced watching 3D movies in theatres and that the '3D look' for me is as if the subject is trying to leap out of my monitor and grab me. Yes I post process my pictures--I have both Photoshop and PL 9 Elite. But now after I just upgraded my RTX 3060 TI studio to the latest firmware I'm having performance issues using Photoshop. Anyway, I shot mostly RAW + jpeg in the past and these are just jpeg (SOOC) images using the 50L. For me the 50L and the 85/1.2 L II are my best lenses that are capable of doing the 3D look. And I'm not interested in manual focusing lenses. The only concern I have for these aging lenses are if they breakdown. Last year I paid close to CAD$ 1700 to repair the 85LII. Canon Canada did a terrific job, it's good as brand new. However, if that happens to the 50L I might just let it retire. Or maybe just get the cheaper RF 45/1.2 but at least I have my two-way superstar (for A7V and A6700) Sony MVP lens in the Sonnar 55/1.8!
Talking about aging lenses. I am equally impressed by my Sigma 35/1.4 DG HSM ART e-mount lens. It's kinda old and heavy but every time I see the images from it I forget about the for the new Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB. Rather spend the money for travel.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I agree with Martin that in this thread commenting on what post processing has been done would probably be best, but if you are willing to describe what you have done when asked that is probably fine too.
To be clear, I have nothing against any sort of post processing. And there is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to 3D, because obviously it's all in the viewers imagination when every image is 2D.
However, in this particular case I think it's kind of strange and also even deceiving to add blur to an image without telling, in this thread. I mean, the whole point is to discuss lenses that do this or that, and here a lens is presented as if it does something that in fact was added afterwards. It could be done with more or less any lens, so the posting of such images are, IMO, completely moot unless you at least describe what has been done and why.
I've seen this in various facebook groups as well, and I don't understand it there either. It's as if you want a lens to be "better" than what it is, but without telling anyone. Which is fine in a discussion about art, but in these cases it's about technical properties of gear. Not art, even if it can lead to art.
I’m considering The ttartisan 40/2. Here I’m seeing both #1 subject pop and #2 3-D rendering.
Does anyone have any experience w/ examples from this lens?
Reminds me of the thypoch simera 35, this lens pops well, especially in video!
Decided to try to show some of the 3D-ness I've been describing, namely when there is shallow DOF but with the background only slightly out of focus. Of all my lenses, the Fuji GF 45/2.8 is most prone to give any sort of 3D rendering. It has a lot in common with the Zeiss 35/2 Z*, that I still think is the king of 3D though (but I haven't tried that one in ages).
I also think general post processing has a great impact. Too much contrast doesn't look natural enough, so lifting the deepest shadows a tad will help (your eyes would not see them as anything near black IRL). Same with saturation; too much and it doesn't look like IRL.
This was half an hour ago just outside my house, so no waiting for the perfect light or anything.
GFX50S IIFujifilm Fujinon GF45mm F2.8 R WR lens45mmf/2.81/150s100 ISO+0.3 EV
carstenw wrote:
Medium format definitely has an advantage when it comes to 3D rendering.
The advantage of medium format over 35mm was enormous in the analog era, especially for home darkroom printers. This was because the "resolution" of photographic paper far exceeded that of the resolution of any enlarged, projected negative, meaning the resolution gain of the negative was directly reflected in the print. The same was true for slide projection, where the resolution gain was transferred directly to the screen. Digitally, things are completely different, as the resolution of the display is significantly lower than that of a 60MP image file for example. Not to mention the poor display quality on Flickr or even here in the forum. Therefore, you can't perceive any difference on a screen beyond potential advantages in dynamic range or color reproduction. Unless, of course, the depth of field were shallower due to the format's advantage, which is rarely the case given today's extremely fast 35mm lenses that perform superbly even wide open. The advantage of digital medium format becomes apparent when zooming in, which, personally, doesn't interest me in the slightest. In any case, I don't see any more depth in the medium format photograph shown than in the following 35mm image examples, which were also taken in diffuse light. Of course, a larger sensor produces a higher quality image file, but the difference is negligible in practice, unless you're making large prints. Just my 2 cents.
Please view on Flickr; here in the forum view, the images appear rather blurry.
Makten wrote:
Decided to try to show some of the 3D-ness I've been describing, namely when there is shallow DOF but with the background only slightly out of focus.
You can achieve that quite well with FF nowadays, too.
Makten wrote:
I love when people tell me what I can perceive or not.
Apart from dynamic range and color reproduction, what other differences do you perceive? This applies here as well—specifically regarding the image examples. In those, at least, I definitely don't see any medium-format advantage.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Apart from dynamic range and color reproduction, what other differences do you perceive? This applies here as well—specifically regarding the image examples. In those, at least, I definitely don't see any medium-format advantage.
The general rendering of lenses, with correction for aberrations. Note that there is the same amount of background blur to the very corners. That's seldom the case with FF lenses, especially if they are silly fast (which seem to be priority #1 for the manufacturers, not best possible performance).
Edit: This has of course nothing with the format to do. It's because of different priorities, and that the lenses are often slower (which allows better correction of aberrations).
In the example images shown, this is irrelevant in my opinion, but everyone is free to judge as they wish. I doubt that it makes any real difference in the perception of depth. Interestingly, in medium format, I'd personally be interested in the Mitakon 1.4 65, a lens that probably doesn't offer what you described, I suspect. I've never been concerned with image edges and corners unless they become significantly sharper in the bokeh, as with the 1.0 50 Nokton, for example. I don't like that.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
In the example images shown, this is irrelevant in my opinion, but everyone is free to judge as they wish. I doubt that it makes any real difference in the perception of depth. Interestingly, in medium format, I'd personally be interested in the Mitakon 1.4 65, a lens that probably doesn't offer what you described, I suspect. I've never been concerned with image edges and corners unless they become significantly sharper in the bokeh, as with the 1.0 50 Nokton, for example. I don't like that.
Then we can only agree to disagree, because to me it's a key component to "3D".
I had the Mitakon for a while, but I hated it's rendering and performance. It was completely impossible to get anything outside of the dead center to be sharp, and it was huge and heavy. I much prefer the GF 63/2.8 or any of the other GF lenses.
I'm quite fascinated by silly shallow DOF too, but unfortunatly I've found that it too often means the lenses are compromized in other areas. Even the GF 55/1.7 that should be THE lens, is not rendering as pleasing as the slower GF lenses. IMO. Same goes for fast FF lenses of course.
Edit: Here's one for shallow DOF's sake. Not very 3D, but a corresponding ~40/1.2 would most likely give more curvature of field and less uniform rendering (even if the 55 is pretty harsh at times)...
GFX50S IIGF55mmF1.7 R WR lens55mmf/1.71/1700s100 ISO0.0 EV
I had the Mitakon for a while, but I hated it's rendering and performance. It was completely impossible to get anything outside of the dead center to be sharp, and it was huge and heavy. I much prefer the GF 63/2.8 or any of the other GF lenses.
I'm quite fascinated by silly shallow DOF too, but unfortunatly I've found that it too often means the lenses are compromized in other areas. Even the GF 55/1.7 that should be THE lens, is not rendering as pleasing as the slower GF lenses. IMO. Same goes for fast FF lenses of course. ...Show more →
Yes, there's always something. And because the lens is large and heavy and not really suitable as a general-purpose lens, I immediately dismissed the idea. I also considered a 907x with a CFV 50 II for use with a small, fast full-frame manual focus lens. That would probably be the best option for me, but I expect a really bright OLED display from a camera without a viewfinder, which it unfortunately doesn't have. So I'll stick with the Sony. It's not exactly a camera I adore, but otherwise it has more than I need.
