Although that shot was at f/5.6.....as are a few others in this thread. So maybe I should find a way to add one of these other lenses to my arsenal. (I'm always looking for excuses....)
tsdevine wrote:
Thanks, I think given that I normally do stopped down landscape shooting, I either limit myself to lenses that perform well there, and/or don't delve into that aspect enough to pick the lenses that do well at both. (A little character/magic at wider apertures and more realistic rendition stopped down.)
These threads always interest me though, and I usually end up participating a little, even if it ends up being more of a false positive.
Depth perception - the 3D effect - in our images is of profound importance to many types of photography, but not everyone sees it or agrees with this statement. It's an ongoing, if controversial, issue of concern for the design community and you can find innumerable web pages, commentary and interest.
It's deeply complex, involving (among other things) focus fade, field curvature, focal length, cross frame performance and contour shaping, the transition of a lens's MTF from high spatial frequencies to mid and high spatial frequencies - this last from Hubert Nasse. And human cognition and vision.
It is always good to see the subject arise and gauge the opinions of other members, and look over their examples. Many learn from the discussions. I'd never buy a lens without considering its 3D performance, be it a portrait lens or a landscape lens. Thanks for your input.
Philip, I'd be interested to hear what your current kit of lenses consists of? From what I've read on this forum thus far, I suspect it is dominated by manual focus primes from the likes of Zeiss and Voigtlander...
Cheers
Peter.
Well, I've asked in an earlier post to this thread "What is 3D?", but I think the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f2 has a nice 3D-like rendering even at longer distances…
Olaf G wrote:
Well, I've asked in an earlier post to this thread "What is 3D?", but I think the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f2 has a nice 3D-like rendering even at longer distances…
So I'm not saying either of these have 3D pop to any high degree, but one of the lenses is more known for 3D'ness and the other I've never heard much discussion about from a 3D pop perspective.
Does anyone find that one has more 3D like qualities than the other?
I hesitate to bring this up, but I continue to be favorably impressed by how well my modest collection of C/Y lenses and CN lenses perform when used to photograph with infrared light. In some ways, I believe they perform better than they do with visible light ... heresy, I know, but it's true!
Here are two recent samples, the first taken using a CN 24-85 and converted to B&W, and the second taken using a C/Y 18/f4, both with a Hoya R72 filter mounted on the lens:
To my eyes, both provide a convincing degree of verisimilitude; i.e., that you're viewing the scenes through an open window, with clearly defined layers of depth, and to a lesser extent, with a clear sense of tacility, where the subjects of the photos appear to be real, physical objects you could actually reach out and touch.
After years of reading this thread, listening,trying to understand, seeing what the SME's (subject matter experts) are explaining, I thought I'd chime in before they did. Mainly to see if I'm actually sarting to get it?? Caveat-I am on a 9 inch samsung tablet.
@tsdevine, I find neither to be particularly 3d except for the area on pic b where the main roof ridge leads down to the sculpture. It appears to have less moire, more sharp (on b), giving that part more geometric leading lines? Possibly why I only see 3d there. I also see it sharper around the edges of the sculpture were the black shadows meet the green.
The colour palette for the most part is very similar (possibly pp) if they are different manufactures, the only difference I see is with the light/dark areas and the colour of the plants around the sculpture, the tree on the left and in the top of main one in the background, so don't see anything majorly different.
There maybe something to the narrower FOV in pic b? Both look to be similar aperture maybe a stop different? Overall rendering I'm struggling to decide from just the one sample from each.
As its still Friday in the US, I'll make a 'Big Call Friday', well 2 actually.
Top is cy 35-70 bottom is leica 35-70, or top is older '3d' lens bottom is new gen lens?
Thanks, no worries about any feedback. The bottom is a more modern "old lens", and of all the lenses I own would probably be the one that might have 3D pop. I to have the C/Y 35-70 though too. The top is a SMC Pentax 85mm f/1.8 K circa 1975 or so, but the same design I believe as the older Takumar. The bottom one is the Zeiss Sonnar 90mm f/2.8 G. I think I see a little more in the bottom one too (not that there is a lot.) I am starting to think lighting and postprocessing come into play with some of this as well.
In this case I kept the post processing pretty much the same though, even the color balance is close.
I tend to do more landscape shooting, so I like the seemingly extra depth of field of the Pentax. But I think the narrower depth of field f the Zeiss gives it a little more pop.
Paul.S wrote:
After years of reading this thread, listening,trying to understand, seeing what the SME's (subject matter experts) are explaining, I thought I'd chime in before they did. Mainly to see if I'm actually sarting to get it?? Caveat-I am on a 9 inch samsung tablet.
@tsdevine@, I find neither to be particularly 3d except for the area on pic b where the main roof ridge leads down to the sculpture. It appears to have less moire, more sharp (on b), giving that part more geometric leading lines? Possibly why I only see 3d there. I also see it sharper around the edges of the sculpture were the black shadows meet the green.
The colour palette for the most part is very similar (possibly pp) if they are different manufactures, the only difference I see is with the light/dark areas and the colour of the plants around the sculpture, the tree on the left and in the top of main one in the background, so don't see anything majorly different.
There maybe something to the narrower FOV in pic b? Both look to be similar aperture maybe a stop different? Overall rendering I'm struggling to decide from just the one sample from each.
As its still Friday in the US, I'll make a 'Big Call Friday', well 2 actually.
Top is cy 35-70 bottom is leica 35-70, or top is older '3d' lens bottom is new gen lens?
