carstenw
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Zeiss look? | |
cogitech wrote:
The key is for most of the subject to be in focus... to \"wrap the focus around the subject\" and then for the DoF to fall off quickly enough to lift the subject out of the frame. Any proper combination of focal length, distance, aperture, lighting and background distance will do it. Having a \"sharp\" lens certainly helps, and presenting the photo properly (whether on screen or in print) can dramatically affect the impact of this effect.
That is an interesting observation. I guess the traditional comparison is Leica vs. Zeiss lenses, and the Zeiss lenses tend to show more 3D, whereas the Leica lenses tend to show more subject isolation at any given aperture. Something to do with how the boke increases with distance from the plane of focus, and how much \"life\" is left over in the boke.
Zeiss lenses have really nice boke, but there is a lot more life left in it than in a Leica lens. The Leica boke looks smoother, in other words, but the Zeiss boke shows more of what is in the blurred region. This is exactly why Richard prefers Zeiss lenses and I prefer Leica lenses  A question of taste.
By the way, one problem in the 3D thread was that a lot of people said that they saw 3D in various images when all they saw was depth. These kinds of images usually have a very narrow depth of field, thus breaking down into layers, but there isn\'t necessarily any 3D feel in them, i.e. objects whose true shape you can almost feel due to the rendering.
Interestingly, the S2 lenses that I have seen so far have a far stronger 3D character than is traditional for Leica. I wonder if that is a design goal, just a result of them being stopped down a bit, or something to do with the large format? It is definitely true that MF generates the 3D look with greater ease than 35mm-FF. The Hasselblad 110/2 generates it with great ease on MF, for example, whereas it (according to John Black, whose opinion I respect) looks more or less like the 100/2 Contax on 35mm with an adapter.
I own several great Zeiss lenses, but all are MF, so I cannot make any direct comparisons myself. I almost bought a mint RTS II w/ 50/1,7 yesterday, but the price went a little higher than I was willing to spend on a whim (€277, FTR), although it was certainly a good price for that combo. I will keep my eyes open for another.
By the way, Richard, the 100/2.8 Macro shots you posted have a lot more of the Leica look, to me, i.e. less detail in the boke and more subject isolation. FWIW, I don\'t see any 3D in them. The 100/2 can really generate the 3D shots (as evidenced on John Black\'s site, pebbleplace), as can the 35/1.4. I am not sure if there are other Zeiss lenses which yield it so readily, although many do on occasion. IIRC, you claim that the 200/2 also does this with ease?
|
