Garmadon wrote:
Those are very nice ,I always like to see your work but no pop to my eyes.
I'm quite sure it is almost 100% subjective.
What flash did you used and did you diffused it somehow?
+1
While lighting is always a contributing factor along with the optic, the use of flash has a such a significantly different falloff rate, that it really (imo) takes the ability to evaluate the lens for its optical transition rates into territory that we can't tell as much about the lens optical contribution.
When key lighting is of a higher / lower contrast ratio, the total contrast ratio capability is effected. We of course incur this in the natural ambient world ranging from diffuse / specular depending on the myriad of factors we engage. This uncontrolled variance makes part of the comparative aspects challenging, as we've often noted.
For me, the ability of a lens to perform under "added light" conditions, may give a false impression of the lens optical properties. Sure, we can recognize that light falloff is part of the puzzle pieces (it is) to human physiological response, and then THAT discussion is inclusive. BUT, in the context of the OPTICS, adding in specular (note shadow edge) lighting to the equation makes the OPTICS assessment different in the ability to discern the optical influence.
Nothing wrong with using flash, per se ... just that when doing so, it introduces an additional variable. That said, it reminds me of how different lighting companies (ProFoto / Broncolor come to mind) have different rates of flash duration / cutoff, inducing a "look" that is different from flash with longer / slower rates. I understand that for many folks, they will readily jump into the "prove it" vs. "it doesn't matter" thing. However, while the differences among mfr's run the paradigm of range, flash duration / falloff (I forget the tech term, atm) does influence the "crispness" of the image. (A totally different discussion / thread ... also debated significantly).
For me, the salient point remains ... rates of transition (lighting contrast, focus, field curvature, aberration correction, tonality, et al) ... influence the human physiological response. So, when we do add in the flash to the equation ... it can afford certain abilities, but, it also adds a variable to the discussion about the optic itself. Two different topics (the image vs. the optic) ... are influenced by the introduction of the flash. Neither are bad / wrong ... just recognize that it impacts each discussion differently.
Just noticing the differences in some of Phillip's comparisons, once you scroll down to the comps with the Voigt. Easy enough to switch back / forth between the two lenses to see how the optics render diff perception.
RoamingScott wrote:
This particular lens has been giving me consistent results with a very pleasing pop, moreso than any other lens I've used in a minute.
RoamingScott wrote:
This particular lens has been giving me consistent results with a very pleasing pop, moreso than any other lens I've used in a minute.
Side by side comps throughout the video. Take note of the test shots with the clock ... and how the difference in contrast and saturation renders between the two lenses (i.e. optics only). The diff's are subtle, but in combination, the overall diff in perception becomes somewhat cumulative. Elsewhere in the video, there is discussion about the difference in field curvature. As the pieces of optical design add up in combination ... there are some comps that can provide a diff in perception, as you look through them (i.e. the side by sides). For some folks the diff's can be adjusted (i.e. contrast / saturation), but as a discussion point of optical contribution ... just some A / B comps for those who prefer an A / B ... between two excellent optics, each in their own right.
My candidate for a lens with 3D pop, and my all time favorite lens, the Nikkor 85 F 1.4 D IF. It was designed in 1994 as a portrait lens with spherical aberrations in mind to smooth the Bokeh and frame the subject. Got mine in 1998 and still have it. Taken with a D700 @ 14 MP.
Great example to my eyes,I feel like I can grab the net with my hand.
SpecFoto wrote:
My candidate for a lens with 3D pop, and my all time favorite lens, the Nikkor 85 F 1.4 D IF. It was designed in 1994 as a portrait lens with spherical aberrations in mind to smooth the Bokeh and frame the subject. Got mine in 1998 and still have it. Taken with a D700 @ 14 MP.
SpecFoto wrote:
My candidate for a lens with 3D pop, and my all time favorite lens, the Nikkor 85 F 1.4 D IF. It was designed in 1994 as a portrait lens with spherical aberrations in mind to smooth the Bokeh and frame the subject. Got mine in 1998 and still have it. Taken with a D700 @ 14 MP.
Great example!! Kind of jumps right off the screen.
gregfountain wrote:
141 pages. Besides watching people drag their grudges from forum to forum, has anyone figured it out yet?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
There's nothing to figure out in general. The problem is that everyones visual system including processing by the brain seems to work a little differently, which is the problem.
It is quite obvious that for some the brain creates the illusion of depth, for others it doesn't. Let's just say that everyone should enjoy the samples and draw their own conclusions, which may or may not be that certain subjects work well, others don't, shallow depth of field is an important component, or not, this or that ens seems to be represented more often, or not, ... etc..
I like this thread and numerous samples shown here and say: Keep them coming!
Rob70 wrote:
There's nothing to figure out in general. The problem is that everyones visual system including processing by the brain seems to work a little differently, which is the problem.
It is quite obvious that for some the brain creates the illusion of depth, for others it doesn't. Let's just say that everyone should enjoy the samples and draw their own conclusions, which may or may not be that certain subjects work well, others don't, shallow depth of field is an important component, or not, this or that ens seems to be represented more often, or not, ... etc..
I like this thread and numerous samples shown here and say: Keep them coming!...Show more →
Yup, I was joking. It's more of a photo thread now anyway Questions like this never find a consensus, but it's fun watching people try
Rob70 wrote:
There's nothing to figure out in general. The problem is that everyones visual system including processing by the brain seems to work a little differently, which is the problem.
It is quite obvious that for some the brain creates the illusion of depth, for others it doesn't. Let's just say that everyone should enjoy the samples and draw their own conclusions, which may or may not be that certain subjects work well, others don't, shallow depth of field is an important component, or not, this or that ens seems to be represented more often, or not, ... etc..
I like this thread and numerous samples shown here and say: Keep them coming!...Show more →
I agree, it's the journey, not the destination. So just do it!!!
Interesting article. Note the distinction between monocular cues and stereoscopic cues. Stereoscopic cues generally aren't used in photography, but they can be used in paintings as this study demonstrated, but were probably introduced late in the history of paintings.
