Hi Phillip, I'm relatively new to the forum so forgive me if you've already posted this elsewhere (if so, just a link would be fine), but I was wondering what your current kit consists of - specifically in regards to lenses that you think are the best in providing that deep depth-of-field 3D look? Thanks. Peter.
The following image has been worked on in order to enhance the 3D-ness. It's been taken with a Sigma 1.4/35.
It's supposed to show two things in particular:
- A strong vignette creates a tunnel effect, that supports this kind of 3D-look.
- increasingly strong blur (that still permits recognizing everything in the back) around one especially sharp (and shiny) clear cut subject.
other typical characteristics may be:
- low POV
- blur in the back AND in the front
- different lighting on the subject and its immediate surroundings (either shadows around the well lit subject or the other way around - as can be witnessed at the picture with the colorful tree in the fog - a while back in this thread).
hasenbein wrote:
Sorry, but this could also be taken with a cell phone.
If you see this photo as an example for 3D pop (or as an example for anything good at all), you have really a long way to go, man...
1. The topic here is - what lenses do deliver 3d pop - for example loxia 50 versus ZE 50 versus C/Y 50 versus cell phone and
not - please upload your award winning pictures -. There are other topics for that...
2. When looking for 3d pop in a 2d photo, it helps to close one eye and let the brain do the rest.
3. Uploading a typical tourist photo with blue sky, in a place like this, is always risky... hehe
but still the 2d photo reflects a 3d space big enough to test if the 2d photo produced with the lens, the A7 and its
software creates to the viewer the impression of 3d pop or not. The next question is, if there is an other lens doing the job
better and if yes which. Also a different light might help improving the 3d pop. Maybe you come to the conclusion that a
cheap 24-300mm zoom gives you the same results or no lens can give you any kind of satisfying 3d pop. Then be happy,
you saved yourself a lot of money not buying unnecessary tools. Everybody has to answer this question to himself or
herself. Only our own perception can give us the answer.
4. Do not underestimate cell phone cameras. IMHO the Chinese are leading in AI cellphone technology and a 3d pop
camera app might come sooner than we think. CaNikony are IMHO lagging here. The future will tell.
5. Last but not least please share your expertise for that we can learn...
Yeah, sorry - not seeing anything by way of 3D pop in that Distagon 28/2.8 pic either, despite being one of the lenses that delivers pretty consistently, IMO.
Also, Rob and some others point out certain trickery to enhance 3D pop such as strong vignette, DoF/selective focus, etc. If a lens has got pop, none of this stuff is necessary, again, IMO.
Here's a few that were taken with the C/Y Distagon 28/2.8 on my old Canon 5D (original). I think they're decent examples of what the lens can do but, as we've seen, opinions will vary.
Always interesting to see what others interpret as 3D POP. This is a good thread. Personally, I do see it and like to do blind tests with non photographers and watch their reactions too. What have I learned in my own blind tests is some people just can't see it. Others can. I do know that some lenses seem to be more prone to present the pop than others. Regardless, harsh lighting conditions can kill the effect too.
Personally, I now like to look for the pop in narrow apertures. F5.6 F8.
One of the first times I felt I saw 3D in am image was this one. It is a pic I took in 2010 when I shot Canon but you tell me if you agree. It is harder to me to find 3D in images where the background is not far away. This was taken with the Zeiss ZE 35/2:
One of the first times I felt I saw 3D in am image was this one. It is a pic I took in 2010 when I shot Canon but you tell me if you agree. It is harder to me to find 3D in images where the background is not far away. This was taken with the Zeiss ZE 35/2:
I see it too. I own this lens, Zeiss ZE 35/2. I sought it out even as a Sony photog because this lens in particular is known to be a lens that produces the pop consistently. Even at narrower apertures.
DaveFP wrote:
Also - IMO post-processing to augment that look is not really in line with the original topic.
1. I completely agree, we should try to stick to the original topic - which is not easy. The problem with digital images is that only raw images are not processed and in my perception none of my raw images can trick my brain to see anything like 3d pop.
2. All images here claiming to show 3d pop are jpg's that means all are processed, be it by the software inside the A7 or by additional post processing.
3. To really answer the question if it is the lens producing the 3d pop we have to test it with a film camera on diapositive. I do not shoot film so I cannot test it. But based on the discussions from 40 years ago nobody claimed that his diapositive image shows 3d pop. The discussions were more about colours, light, bokeh.....
4. The conclusion for myself for images in jpg is that for both, pictures low in contrast and pictures shot at apertures from 0.9-1.8 I do not see any 3d pop. In pictures with the lens stopped down and everything is in focus I often see some 3d pop. There are many examples of images in the different - post your image - threads here. A nice example is given by Philip_pj's landscape shot with the green trees on page 10 of this topic. Even the example shot with a Huawei Mate 9 by jeffersonjasey on page 7 shows tremendous 3d pop to me.
5. At the end if you believe to see a image has 3d pop you have to know that your brain is tricked as the picture will always be 2d and if you do not see 3d pop in any pictures do not be worried - your brain is immune for being tricked...
One of the first times I felt I saw 3D in am image was this one. It is a pic I took in 2010 when I shot Canon but you tell me if you agree. It is harder to me to find 3D in images where the background is not far away. This was taken with the Zeiss ZE 35/2:
Nice example of 3d pop to me. The glasses for example are shown to be separated in distance from the head. It is not just a separation between the persons and the blurred background. Also I have not the perception that the blurred background is flat. The picture in front of the lamp in the blurred background is clearly seperated from the lamp meaning it is in front of the lamp not only seperated by perspective but by rendering...
Tnx Bro! I love this lens it's my first Zeiss Lens... eventhough alot of FMers hated it. I learned how to properly shoot and take advantage of its weaknesses.
they are currently on sale brand new from BH
1.4/50 Classic Planar - $652.00
2/35 Milvus - $931.00
and the 2/28mm classic - $799.00 --> another 3D image maker in right hands....
most FMers who really know how to create 3Ds, nowadays you won't see them posting here... they are done with arguments. But once in a while I see them post fantastic 3Ds., well you guys know who they are.
bushwacker wrote:
Tnx Bro! I love this lens it's my first Zeiss Lens... eventhough alot of FMers hated it. I learned how to properly shoot and take advantage of its weaknesses.
they are currently on sale brand new from BH
1.4/50 Classic Planar - $652.00
2/35 Milvus - $931.00
and the 2/28mm classic - $799.00 --> another 3D image maker in right hands....
most FMers who really know how to create 3Ds, nowadays you won't see them posting here... they are done with arguments. But once in a while I see them post fantastic 3Ds., well you guys know who they are.
Preaching to the choir friend !
I've got the 50 1.4 and the 28/2.
Yep; very interesting lenses capable of very unique rendering. Classic Zeiss pop.
35/2 and the 25/2 have the same mojo. As does the 25/2.8 and the 100/2 and the....
