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....
Well; you get the picture !
Yep man.... I am still working with my consistency with 2/28 hollywood. Whenever I nailed its 3D output oh man, oooohhh man!.....you’ll be smiling all day. I need more practice.
The notorious 3D guys here... for them its easy as drinking beers with this lens.
This is what i’ve noticed if you’re tragetting 3D on people’s portraits they look ugly (imo).... overall. Maybe faces doesnt go well with 3D...
chris9 wrote:
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.....
...Show more →
If a lens supposedly has it, then we should be able to go to Flickr and view images from that lens and see this effect somewhat consistently. If not, then we admit that the lens might have it under certain conditions like lighting and contrast in scene, etc. If we narrow it down to certain scenes then I would like to see other lenses in that focal length shooting the exact same scene with the same processing effects applied. Then, and only then, would I start to believe that some lenses have the effect and some do not. Currently, I feel more like people get certain lenses that and do their darndest to have the effect emerge from their shooting session and post processing. I don't discount that some lenses can enable the effect more than others, but I am skeptical just seeing a sample here or there.
seanj wrote:
I don't discount that some lenses can enable the effect more than others, but I am skeptical just seeing a sample here or there.
Bro... do yourself a favor. Buynew , buy used, rent it, or borrow this 2/35 classic or milvus., shoot it for 6 months. Do not use other lenses... just stay with this.
Then look for these names here:
Denoir
Sebboh
Samuli
Makten
Phil Reeves
Helena
Luca, Luka, lucas... all the old Lucas
Fred Miranda
The one with German Sheperd... i forgot his name.
And others that I dont remember.... they are still here watching.
All of their 3D shots are close to each other... with different renderings... because each has its own favorite 3D lens... they use either zeiss, leicas... they have their own signature post processing too.
seanj wrote:
If a lens supposedly has it, then we should be able to go to Flickr and view images from that lens and see this effect somewhat consistently. If not, then we admit that the lens might have it under certain conditions like lighting and contrast in scene, etc. If we narrow it down to certain scenes then I would like to see other lenses in that focal length shooting the exact same scene with the same processing effects applied. Then, and only then, would I start to believe that some lenses have the effect and some do not. Currently, I feel more like people get certain lenses that and do their darndest to have the effect emerge from their shooting session and post processing. I don't discount that some lenses can enable the effect more than others, but I am skeptical just seeing a sample here or there. ...Show more →
As someone with a nice collection of glass I can tell you that, without question, some lenses will produce this outcome at a much higher rate than others.
Perspective, lighting, distance to subject, subject to background, aperture all have an effect of course.
Processing can certainly be used to augment that outcome.
The suggestion to shoot one of these lenses over a period of time is a good one.
Okay. I have a Voigtlander 35/1.2 II, so I'll try and get the 2/35 classic or milvus and see if I see that kind of difference on similar shots.
Zeiss ZM 35 Biogon f2 -- Correct? I am not well versed on Zeiss lenses that are not Emount. But I have a very nice Voigtlander M to Emount close focusing adapter that is just waiting for the right lens (since the Voigtlander 35/1.2 is using the TechArt AF adapter).
EDIT: Isn't this lens simply the Loxia for Emount? I am confused.
seanj wrote:
Okay. I have a Voigtlander 35/1.2 II, so I'll try and get the 2/35 classic or milvus and see if I see that kind of difference on similar shots.
Zeiss ZM 35 Biogon f2 -- Correct? I am not well versed on Zeiss lenses that are not Emount. But I have a very nice Voigtlander M to Emount close focusing adapter that is just waiting for the right lens (since the Voigtlander 35/1.2 is using the TechArt AF adapter).
EDIT: Isn't this lens simply the Loxia for Emount? I am confused.
They're referencing the 35/2 Zeiss Classic in EF / ZF / ZF.2 mount.
The people I named and also the ones I already forgot....they are the ones with notorious 3D.
They rarely post anymore regarding this 3d crap.... because people get emotional sometimes here. But when they do post, just watch their images and study them.
Just like for example this guy Samuli whenever he post something from his mountain treks... for some reason when I view his images they look like it’s vibrating or moving... i dont know what he did. This guy is into green stuff, mountains and trees, leaves...
Others here are into Macro shots with 3D... while the others are mid distance shots. Some shoot wide with zeiss 2.8/21 but close distance... check the one with iceland shots.
These guys they know their shit..... they know which lens to use for the desired effects. Sometimes you see them discussing stuff., read their posts and learn something from it.... if its not believable? Do your own tests first then come back discuss with them.
Thanks. I trust my Voigtlander close focusing adapter, but I generally think most adapters are misaligned and prefer not to venture into new adapter land. I'll just trust that the lens produces more 3D effect and wait for some other lens to go on my close focusing adapter. 86 on my comments about being skeptical. I believe.
There is a man that used to frequent FM some years ago called "denoir" from Stockholm. IMO well worth the effort to read his contributions and images, particularly with regards to Zeiss Pop. I wasn't around back then, but ran across some of his comments/image samples a few years ago when I myself was endeavoring to know more about Zeiss Pop. His is a photography style I admire; even his test photos. Ha!
LBJ2 wrote:
There is a man that used to frequent FM some years ago called "denoir" from Stockholm. IMO well worth the effort to read his contributions and images, particularly with regards to Zeiss Pop. I wasn't around back then, but ran across some of his comments/image samples a few years ago when I myself was endeavoring to know more about Zeiss Pop. His is a photography style I admire; even his test photos. Ha!
philip_pj wrote:
The last part of this thread is supposed to be about modern lenses but allow me to place just a few from how this challenge was met 30-40 years ago. The identity of the lens is not important (many from that era do as well), but these images are all at near normal focal lengths and not at the golden hour or high latitudes many employ to give their images shape. Most lack leading lines, or near-far compositions. They have to stand and deliver or fail in the attempt, with no tricks!
What is important is the lens's ability to separate color tones to a fine level, enabling mountains, trees and water to show a wide range of hues and tones that assist in producing the depiction of 3D despite sharpness being merely in the medium/high range. (can we stop calling it 'POP' please, the term is gross, trivial and uninformative). ...Show more →
Not only do your pictures show the separation of depth but also your words and explanations are full of passion and extremely helpful detail. Your photos always show your signature - amazing.
That's nice of you to say, thank you. It's fitting for longterm members to 'give back' to this great resource we have, thanks to Fred and so many others.
I want to repost this image. Maybe got lost among too many urls in my last post. As suggested click on it for full view dim harsh/too bright room and monitor lighting:
I'm also a Leica photog, been waiting for someone to talk about Leica pop--sometimes called the hotely debated Leica Look on the other side ( maybe I missed Leica examples on previous comment in the thread).
