To my eye, I get a lot of that magic 3D view from the ZEISS Batis 85mm f1.8. Even so up to f2.8. The other for portraits is the Batis 135mm. Zeiss is king in 3D appearance and dimension.
edseiz wrote:
Zeiss is king in 3D appearance and dimension.
Plenty of folks feel that way. I tend to suggest that Zeiss does do things that lean that way a bit more aggressively than other mfrs, typically do (faster transition rates between zones). That's not to suggest that all Zeiss lenses are that way, nor that other mfr's lenses can't be. But, if I had to pick ONE mfr that leans that way the most, I'd agree that Zeiss does so more aggressively, or more frequently in their design approach.
That said, as a kissing cousin to Zeiss approach in some regard, the CV 40/1.2 thread might be worth a look for some folks, too. More than a few examples along the way. Whether or not this is the "most" (or always) or not, it strikes me as a one that holds its own with regularity (i.e. across a multitude of subject / lighting scenarios). Would be interesting to see comps of the CV 40/1.2 vs. 40/1.4 vs. Rollie 40/2.8 vs. Leica 40/2 Cron-C and see how they differ in transition rates between zones. Which does bring up a point, regarding how much has been learned in optics and transition rates over the decades of optics designs.
Robin Smith wrote:
If only everyone agreed with this analysis it could have saved us 74 pages of guff…
Billions of humans believe in god. Not because they are all morons, but because it makes them feel good. This phenomenon is everywhere: from religion to food supplements and beauty products. I wouldn't be surprised that a third of world's GDP is driven by humanity's craving for magic. If anything, it makes life more entertaining. I am surrounded by skeptical engineers at work who demand proofs, data, and logic. It's tiring! So it's nice to come here and relax reading about "3D pop", "Leica colors" and "rendering".
- what a holy cow! Thank you for sharing / excellent example of pop!
Look at the voigtlander 40mm 2.8 heliar
This 5 element design is just perfection
I just got one yesterday to verify
Also currently looking at the ttartisan 75mm 1.5 that is a remake
Of the most legendary Zeiss optical design. The original Zeiss versions of this design are several grand
RustyBug wrote:
Plenty of folks feel that way. I tend to suggest that Zeiss does do things that lean that way a bit more aggressively than other mfrs, typically do (faster transition rates between zones). That's not to suggest that all Zeiss lenses are that way, nor that other mfr's lenses can't be. But, if I had to pick ONE mfr that leans that way the most, I'd agree that Zeiss does so more aggressively, or more frequently in their design approach.
That said, as a kissing cousin to Zeiss approach in some regard, the CV 40/1.2 thread might be worth a look for some folks, too. More than a few examples along the way. Whether or not this is the "most" (or always) or not, it strikes me as a one that holds its own with regularity (i.e. across a multitude of subject / lighting scenarios). Would be interesting to see comps of the CV 40/1.2 vs. 40/1.4 vs. Rollie 40/2.8 vs. Leica 40/2 Cron-C and see how they differ in transition rates between zones. Which does bring up a point, regarding how much has been learned in optics and transition rates over the decades of optics designs.
Under contrasty lighting and at mid-distance I see lots of 3d/pop with this lens. Do you guys agree?
Notice he does not state it as fact, just an opinion, then asks if others agree.
He'd probably get shouted out of this thread for being a fence sitter.
EDIT: OK, just found the poster, username Fred Miranda. Sounds oddly familiar. Maybe others have heard of him?
Choderboy wrote:
Interesting. I noticed a comment in that thread.
Under contrasty lighting and at mid-distance I see lots of 3d/pop with this lens. Do you guys agree?
Notice he does not state it as fact, just an opinion, then asks if others agree.
He'd probably get shouted out of this thread for being a fence sitter.
EDIT: OK, just found the poster, username Fred Miranda. Sounds oddly familiar. Maybe others have heard of him?
Rainbow Chaser wrote:
Has anyone had a chance to shoot with both a C/Y-mount Distagon T* f/1.4 35mm and a Sigma f/1.2 35mm?
Just offer my opinions since I shot with the Contax only. While I do not think these are comparable, I have not seen any shots from the Sigma that gave me the same impression like the Contax. But the Sigma has a much smoother bokeh at long distance.
That's helpful to consider. I thought the Sigma might be an easy alternative if someone doesn't want to jump into full vintage. hiepphotog wrote:
Just offer my opinions since I shot with the Contax only. While I do not think these are comparable, I have not seen any shots from the Sigma that gave me the same impression like the Contax.
I've been researching this very important issue for the last little while - focusing mostly on the cinema experience, product specialists and designers - and have some things to record here.
What kind of bokeh provides the best sense of 3D? Should lens designers care? Does everyone agree bokeh is less important than subject definition?
Now, Zeiss guru Hubert Nasse wrote a white paper (Depth of Field and Bokeh) in 2010, and before contradicting him, I want to share some of the background which helps explain why Zeiss is so keen on downgrading the value of bokeh. From Nasse's paper:
‘..as a good image is usually characterised by the absence of superfluous and distracting items.’
‘A blurred background frees the main subject from distracting unimportant details and increases the three-dimensional illusion of the picture. Blurred parts of the picture can also be decorative and play a very important part in the composition of the picture. This image attribute is indeed more of an aesthetic and therefore subjective nature and cannot be described as simply with figures as it is the case with a well-focused, sharp image. Thus, its subtleties in lens tests play no important part sometimes.' 'In many pictures the main subject is the deciding moment – and all bokeh then literally retreats into the background.'
You may get the feeling bokeh is less important (decorative, superfluous, into the background) to the point of being a distraction and mainly useful for increasing the illusion of 3D. Zeiss go further these days in defence of Big Bokeh:
‘The ZEISS Otus ML series is characterized by an extraordinary shallow depth of field that directs the viewer's gaze precisely to what matters.’
And Leica chief Peter Karbe agrees about the relatively low importance of designing for bokeh characteristics:
‘..the bokeh is not an inherent aspect of the optical correction procedure, but rather a welcome by-product of our design approach.’
These quotes from two of the most respected optical firms are included here to indicate the extent to which they perceive bokeh as being purely related to in-focus image content in designer-induced shallow depth of field lenses that, in a supreme irony, maximise the portion of the image that is given over to out-of-focus content - bokeh.
But in the cine world, it is quite different:
‘We use the word ‘bokeh’ to describe the out-of-focus part of the image, and it’s just as important to design that look as it is to design the look at the point of focus, because the background sets the stage for everything that happens in front of it.’ (Art Adams, ARRI product specialist)
While bokeh begins its journey immediately with its departure from the focal plane, the most commonly used description is that of 'out-of-focus content' – meaning that the term describes that image content that lies outside the in-focus part of the image, as viewed in longitudinal space. So, depth of field is implicitly invoked.
A generally useful definition of bokeh might be:
The visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens.
We should note that the term – in countless definitions – reduces the value of bokeh as a pictorial element, but nonetheless sees it purely as a function of optics. When bokeh is regarded as a catch-all term to describe blur solely as content not in-focus, photography looks past its major characteristics:
. of longitudinal depth as a function of a lens’s configuration and aperture setting acting on the particular scene being photographed – from its departure from the focal plane; to then enter the transition zone of focus fade; then to become the beginning of full bokeh (the ‘bokeh field’); and to finally reach its limit of maximum blur as delimited by the lens’s design, its placement and the extent of the scene in the light available to it.
. the degree of presence of visual cues, those still identifiable image motifs (or objects) that populate any or all of the entire bokeh envelope.
. the quality of the appearance of these motifs in the entire bokeh experience in the image, including the transition zone.
To help make sense of the above, it's important to note that two very different models of bokeh exist.
Here are two 70-word summaries:
1.The established industry point of view is one that places overwhelming design emphasis on the in-focus content being not only very sharp and well-presented, but to also imbue it with the total carriage of the story of the image, as arranged in its composition. Bokeh quality is (at best) seen as a natural by-product of sound optical design and manufacture. It is not, in the minds of these people, what matters.
2. The alternative perception of image analysis permits the universe of compositions at all apertures (including the wide-open setting) to be in-scope for presenting rich representations of out-of-focus image content such that their location and identity in image space correspond to how they appear in the real world. All image content matters to advocates of dimensionality, and all of it should be portrayed such that most observers regard it as beautiful.
Bokeh Structure Retention - this attribute describes the ability of lenses to image background elements (contents: objects, motifs) sufficiently well that they retain their shape such that they are still recognisable, even in moderate-to-deep bokeh. This important characteristic is almost entirely absent in the images produced by some lenses – they appear to aim to do the exact opposite.
‘out-of-focus elements maintain their structure, which further adds to the sense of dimensionality in the image.’ (Leitz Thalia) https://www.leitz-cine.com/product/thalia
This quality is highly visible in images from lenses with great image depth. Engineering this quality into lenses will become more important as more image consumers come to realise that bokeh appreciation is not restricted to whether or not one likes the blur look, but that bokeh should be able to: (i) give the viewing eye a shape to fasten onto; and (ii) to provide counterpoint(s) to the main subject(s). That's another way of seeing it.
This one did pretty well in the structure retention stakes, as you see increasing abstraction levels from left to right - in the cliff top walls and in the dirt path next to the subject. Very useful and important is the still good outline definition of the hitch at the front of the equipment. To my eye, it all works together, it all adds to the image, there is a kind of naturalistic harmony. I doubt I would have got this effect from a fast blur lens, all other things being equal.
Interesting read ... good to read the reference to the transition zones, and the attention to them from different designer approaches. Inference being that (as stated elsewhere), not all lenses are designed with the same optical ethos, and the rates of transition are (but one) a piece of the puzzle (specific to the optical design discussion) for contribution to perception. Also, good to note the reference to Karbe, Nasse, Adams.
philip_pj wrote:
This one did pretty well in the structure retention stakes, as you see increasing abstraction levels from left to right - in the cliff top walls and in the dirt path next to the subject. Very useful and important is the still good outline definition of the hitch at the front of the equipment. To my eye, it all works together, it all adds to the image, there is a kind of naturalistic harmony. I doubt I would have got this effect from a fast blur lens, all other things being equal.
A key factor for how we perceive depth with our own vision is what we choose to focus on. The rest of the scene then melts away deeper in the scene. In our vision, we can rapidly hop from one focal point to another, so a misfire one second can be instantly “corrected “ to give the 3D impression. In photographs, we serve up only a single “answer” to the choice of focal plane, and that either reinforces the 3D sense or works against it.
In your image, I can’t get past the person not being in focus. That blurring in front of the focal plane makes it impossible for me to see the 3D character of the rest of the image, no matter how much depth and blurring (steep or not) the background has.
