philip_pj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.66 #15 · which lens has the most 3D POP? | |
Fast lenses are up against it, due to their market-induced emphasis on big bokeh - and high levels of separation. For most of them, the makers know the aperture ring is virtually a vestigial fitting, and they know the average Joe wants rapid fade off the focal plane, and they generally mess that up too, because they aim mostly for rear-of-the-plane bokeh. They know these lenses are intended for event work. If they are well known for big bokeh, the task is even harder.
One key imaging need is depth integrity - the lens must keep faith with what we expect to see at varying distances. The definition of image motifs in image space must fade in a linear fashion with increases in distance.
If this sounds like this fundamental need should degrade with big bokeh lenses, it indeed does. They follow the well worn path of hyper definition of the subject on the very thin focal plane, with often supernatural levels of blur bringing up the rear. Irrespective of distance. It's not a fail, it is the paradigm they adhere to. They intend it.
How do you see image depth? You often don't, because too often, not much depth is left that can be seen at all. What can be seen conveys little definition,. by design. A lot of people like this look, most have bought in to it, and (egad) their shooting style reflects this loss of depth. Their images generally feature a nearby subject with a background that they permit to be engulfed in blur.
Because of this generally accepted form of photography, fast fade lenses (rapid loss of definition off the focal plane) create what we should see as an 'induced aberration' - the loss of linearity in image depth. Sometimes even those who enjoy high depth images need to use this separation method, for composition reasons. But wouldn't you want something to remain in that sea of blur when you have the choice?
It can help see things better if you deconstruct images. In John's image above (from Sigma, a long term major offender in 3D crimes), see the join in the concrete left of the sign? See how its definition (or lack of it) appears much the same with increasing distance? In fact, even something as large as the right side wall, bricks and roof line, are poorly differentiated with distance.
That's the dominant form of wide aperture lenses these days. And it is leading photographers into producing masses of images that have no sense of depth in near wide open apertures.
Back from the dead, Zeiss are now imbued with this forced perception of '3D', with their ML series. They tell you this right up front (asters are mine):
'The ZEISS Otus ML series is characterized by an *extraordinary shallow depth of field* that directs the viewer's gaze *precisely to what matters*... The wonderfully harmonious bokeh...creates *smooth transitions*, elegantly showcasing the stories' subjects.'
So, transitions are short, but smooth. And they have reduced the image to just the subject that resides on the focal plane. The rest of the image, maybe 75% of it, is not 'what matters'.
They then trade off what their own designers did so well last century and the early part of this one:
'Experience the unmistakable visual language of the ZEISS Otus ML lenses. Thanks to impressive *true color rendition, outstanding sharpness, and incomparable micro contrast*, a picture look is created that appears almost three-dimensional - the characteristic ZEISS 3D Pop.'
https://www.zeiss.com/consumer-products/int/photography/otus-ml/otus-ml-1450.html
Except that these features apply only to 'what matters' - the focal plane material. To Zeiss, the rest is just filler, not important to the main message and just there to make up the frame content. Friends, that is not how our vision works. Close one eye, look at your hand held 50cm away and tell me if the background looks like any image on the Zeiss page linked above.
|
