KrankyKraut wrote:
Here's another one that flies under the radar. Samsung 16-50mm 3.5-5.6 Power Zoom. The effect is stronger if you click on the Flickr link.
This just came in the mail, so I'm obviously just snapping random things with texture, lol. Original pops more than the downsample, but I think it's still got something
Exactly! I've long been of the opinion that "3D pop" has little to do with a lens but is instead mostly about great contrast in a photo generated by the ideal subject, composition and lighting (perhaps helped by PP). Yes, some lenses (Zeiss springs to mind) have been shown to have better micro contrast than others, but even a Zeiss lens can deliver flat images if the lighting and subject are poor.
Zeiss's own explanation for their 3D pop is that it results from "exceptional definition," and "a sharp transition out of the focused areas" against "a harmonious bokeh."
chiron wrote:
Zeiss's own explanation for their 3D pop is that it results from "exceptional definition," and "a sharp transition out of the focused areas" against "a harmonious bokeh."
That does seem to fit the images in which I see pop.
The downside being that "a sharp transition out of the focused areas" does not equal "creamy" bokeh. That's always been a weakness of the Batis and Zony lenses I own/owned -- slightly harsh, contrasty bokeh. Sometimes that works to an image's advantage, but other times less so.
My new/used Sony Zeiss 35 1.4 has lots of pop. No examples to put up yet, got yesterday, but the sharp center and curvature plus the CA really drives a 3D look. Nobody will ever mistake it for a cell phone camera snapshot.
wordfool wrote:
The downside being that "a sharp transition out of the focused areas" does not equal "creamy" bokeh. That's always been a weakness of the Batis and Zony lenses I own/owned -- slightly harsh, contrasty bokeh. Sometimes that works to an image's advantage, but other times less so.
I see the Batis and Loxia bokeh as smooth and balanced. "Harmonious" actually strikes me as the right word. Balanced. I think it would be hard to get pop against a harsh bokeh.
The 25 and the 85 Loxia are smooth bokeh modern lenses with really punchy colors. I am not sure if we are talking 'pop' images. They fall towards perfect like GM lenses with zero natural distortion as an added bonus. Zeiss colors though with spades. So much though depends on the light, I have a few Loxia lenses that pop nicely.
MARKFER wrote:
The 25 and the 85 Loxia are smooth bokeh modern lenses with really punchy colors. I am not sure if we are talking 'pop' images. They fall towards perfect like GM lenses with zero natural distortion as an added bonus. Zeiss colors though with spades. So much though depends on the light, I have a few Loxia lenses that pop nicely.
Hmmm, I was never impressed with the bokeh of my B25. Actually, I shouldn't say that; it reminds of the Zony 35 or 55 in that, in uncomplicated scenes, it renders very nicely. When the background gets busy, it struggles with outlining and harsh CA and is quite distracting. My Loxia 25 does better, as does the 24GM, of course.
Still, a great lens, one that does indeed 'pop' in the right circumstances and, of all the Batii, is becoming a nice deal on the used market.
He was discussing Loxia 25 and 85... Not sure if you interpreted his comments as referring to the Batis 25.
Dave Sanders wrote:
Hmmm, I was never impressed with the bokeh of my B25. Actually, I shouldn't say that; it reminds of the Zony 35 or 55 in that, in uncomplicated scenes, it renders very nicely. When the background gets busy, it struggles with outlining and harsh CA and is quite distracting. My Loxia 25 does better, as does the 24GM, of course.
Still, a great lens, one that does indeed 'pop' in the right circumstances and, of all the Batii, is becoming a nice deal on the used market.
tsdevine wrote:
He was discussing Loxia 25 and 85... Not sure if you interpreted his comments as referring to the Batis 25.
Ahhhh, nice catch. I meant to reply to Chiron's post.
I've said it before...the fact that we can argue such minutiae about a set of lenses within a given focal length is pretty amazing...it really is a privilege to argue about small aspects of rendering and bokeh because the B25, L25 and 24GM are such outstanding lenses...not to mention the Sigma options at 24 are great too
Yeah I was speaking of the L25 not the Batis. Have no experience with that. One thing I want to touch on is the Sony Zeiss 35 1.4 you mentioned. I got a used copy of it. Has some wear on it so it was used but not to harshly. I am really pleasantly how sharp it is at 1.4, and the bokeh in some situations is super creamy and it really pops. I have not tested decentering on it but it sharpens up wickedly at f8 corner to corner. I am very pleased.
MARKFER wrote:
Yeah I was speaking of the L25 not the Batis. Have no experience with that. One thing I want to touch on is the Sony Zeiss 35 1.4 you mentioned. I got a used copy of it. Has some wear on it so it was used but not to harshly. I am really pleasantly how sharp it is at 1.4, and the bokeh in some situations is super creamy and it really pops. I have not tested decentering on it but it sharpens up wickedly at f8 corner to corner. I am very pleased.
The Zony 35 and 55 are interesting lenses. They render very nicely, and in the right situation look fantastic. That said, bokeh isn't necessarily fantastic, and gets unsettled the more the background has foliage or points of light. Lots of CA, onion rings, some line doubling, etc. But absent that, very nice. Both lenses are sort of dual personality. An interesting intellectual exercise in 'rendering' vs. 'bokeh', if that's something that can be differentiated.
A planar image featuring good microcontrast and microcolour with a flat field - Fuji GA645 60mm f4 (eq 35mm) hopefully conveying good depth and texture. (medium format film)
