fredmiranda.com
Login

  

  Previous versions of DaveFP's message #15947803 « Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM »
  

DaveFP
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM


j4nu wrote:
DaveFP wrote:
fotografur wrote:
And 50

I see more "pop" than depth in those images.

"Pop" (to me) is when the subject appears to stand apart from the background.

Almost like a seperate image than has been glued to the background.

Depth is more about the subtle tones that provide a sense of shape.

Probably much ado about nothing but to my eyes the GMs just don't render the same.

Not better, not worse, different.

One of the reasons I have yet to sell my 35 ZA after acquiring the 35 GM and one of the reasons that I would probably buy the ZA 50 over the GM.

(I tend to use 50s as portrait lenses)



That's the issue with discussing this topic ... We really be should exchanging photos with limited comments, not the other way around.
Anyways, I used to think that 3D effect / pop / depth is the same thing and basically Zeiss lenses provide more of that in general. Then, I've read comments that at some point it becomes a "cardboard" effect and is not desirable any more ...

Edit: and to be true to my comment, I hop @smpetty@ won't mind when I share this link to his photos:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/19#15849199

where I think the first two (50GM) show a lot of "pop".

I think it is ok to discuss as long as we remember that it is all somewhat subjective.

To me:

3M = pop - cardboard cutout effect - 2 distinct planes; 1 superimposed on the other - graphical

ZA = depth - modeling - subtle tonal gradations - no distinct sense of planes - a sense that one could fall into the picture or reach into the scene.

Both types of rendering work; depends on what you want.

On occasion I do find the cutout look distracting.
May 20, 2022 at 04:19 PM
DaveFP
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM


j4nu wrote:
DaveFP wrote:
fotografur wrote:
And 50

I see more "pop" than depth in those images.

"Pop" (to me) is when the subject appears to stand apart from the background.

Almost like a seperate image than has been glued to the background.

Depth is more about the subtle tones that provide a sense of shape.

Probably much ado about nothing but to my eyes the GMs just don't render the same.

Not better, not worse, different.

One of the reasons I have yet to sell my 35 ZA after acquiring the 35 GM and one of the reasons that I would probably buy the ZA 50 over the GM.

(I tend to use 50s as portrait lenses)



That's the issue with discussing this topic ... We really be should exchanging photos with limited comments, not the other way around.
Anyways, I used to think that 3D effect / pop / depth is the same thing and basically Zeiss lenses provide more of that in general. Then, I've read comments that at some point it becomes a "cardboard" effect and is not desirable any more ...

Edit: and to be true to my comment, I hop @smpetty@ won't mind when I share this link to his photos:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/19#15849199

where I think the first two (50GM) show a lot of "pop".

I think it is ok to discuss as long as we remember that it is all somewhat subjective.

To me:

3M = pop - cardboard cutout effect - 2 distinct planes; 1 superimposed on the other - graphical

ZA = depth - modeling - subtle tonal gradations - no distinct sense of planes - a sense that one could fall into the picture or reach into the scene.

Both types of rendering work; depends on what you want.

On occasion I do find that the cutout look distracting.
May 20, 2022 at 10:30 AM





  Previous versions of DaveFP's message #15947803 « Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM »