Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Best 3d effect lenses...suggestion?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fresh from oven ... just tested Biometar 80/2.8 Alu this afternoon.
Some shots look quite "pop-out" to me. Smile

I'll post the rest of the Biometar photos on separate post.



Last edited by nixland on Thu May 19, 2011 2:22 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
in 90% of all pictures posted here, the dimensionaity comes to high degree from the color contrast in the frame.

In 60% of all the color red pops up.

Isn't that funny ?!


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Counter example...



PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here is another

Distagon 1.4/35 C/Y
@1.4

Nothing great but I think it shows that "3D" pop



one more

Distagon @1.4

Shows great presence I think.



PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Every now and then, this subject comes out, a thread is opened, images are posted, only to find out, that people indicate completely different photographs as being "3D". Rolling Eyes

Since a a good number of people seems to think that to be "3D" the subject of a photo must "pop out" from the background, I can tell you straight away,
that you can obtain that effect with any lens (even a $20 lens) that is either fast enough, or long enough, for the purpose. Wink

If instead, you are one of those who think that 3D in a photo is when the viewer is able to perceive the space (the "air") between the objects,
and not to single out an object from the context, then a different discussion can open Wink

And in that discussion, I would answer you that a big part is played by factors that are not lens-related: the lighting, the composition, the colours, in order of importance.
A directional lighting, perspective based composition, and colour-separated image, has great chances to look "3D" regardless of the lens.

There are, however, some lenses, which, partly due to their micro-contrast quality, but mostly due to a particular curvature of field
(which, speaking of optical science, must be regarded as a technical defect),
are able to produce images that can make you feel the air between the objects even in the flattest lighting conditions.
And since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's an example from one of such lenses:

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20115/big_3_5D__MG_5218_1.jpg

As you can see, the lighting is completely flat and undirectional.
And yet...


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excellent post Orio.

One thing you forgot to tell us - which lens you used for that shot!


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Every now and then, this subject comes out, a thread is opened, images are posted, only to find out, that people indicate completely different photographs as being "3D". Rolling Eyes

Since a a good number of people seems to think that to be "3D" the subject of a photo must "pop out" from the background, I can tell you straight away,
that you can obtain that effect with any lens (even a $20 lens) that is either fast enough, or long enough, for the purpose. Wink

If instead, you are one of those who think that 3D in a photo is when the viewer is able to perceive the space (the "air") between the objects,
and not to single out an object from the context, then a different discussion can open Wink

And in that discussion, I would answer you that a big part is played by factors that are not lens-related: the lighting, the composition, the colours, in order of importance.
A directional lighting, perspective based composition, and colour-separated image, has great chances to look "3D" regardless of the lens.

There are, however, some lenses, which, partly due to their micro-contrast quality, but mostly due to a particular curvature of field
(which, speaking of optical science, must be regarded as a technical defect),
are able to produce images that can make you feel the air between the objects even in the flattest lighting conditions.
And since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's an example from one of such lenses:

As you can see, the lighting is completely flat and undirectional.
And yet...


I agree with you Orio but on my two pictures I can feel the space around the main subject and that is what I think is "3D" or dimensionality, not just a blurry background with a separated main subject. It's not only about the "pop" Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Excellent post Orio.

One thing you forgot to tell us - which lens you used for that shot!


It's the Distagon 2/28 "hollywood"


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 2:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
agent_cooper wrote:
in 90% of all pictures posted here, the dimensionaity comes to high degree from the color contrast in the frame.

In 60% of all the color red pops up.

Isn't that funny ?!


Very! Especially considering that any artist will tell you that warm colors (especially red) 'move' forward and cool colors recede.

Perhaps what you want is a lens that has rich color with little to no CA. That might help with 3D effect when one hasn't mastered proper technique (see Klaus' example above).


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
here are a few different lenses that I own that I think are 3D -ish

1958 leitz elmar 90/4



1993 helios 44m6 58/2



1964 Leitz Summicron 50/2





1954 Carl Zeiss Jena 50/2.8



PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nixland wrote:
Fresh from oven ... just tested Biometar 80/2.8 Alu this afternoon.
Some shots look quite "pop-out" to me. Smile

I'll post the rest of the Biometar photos on separate post.



I am curious to know how if I desaturate the color, so the red color wont be a "pop-out" factor Smile ... and here it is .. (just using desaturate menu in PS) ... still "popped-out" I think Smile



PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Most 3D of all my lenses is the Distagon 2/35 ZE....


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's an similarity in CGI when using anti-aliasing and different anti-aliasing filters in the render module. Filters with edge-enhancement makes a similar pop effect Wink

Edge-enhancement makes micro contrast better.


PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
As you can see, many people who post pictures where the subject "pops out" present pictures that are taken wide open.
I have nothing against them and they can really look great. The "pop out" effect shooting the lens wide open can really look great if it's done properly. But it's not what I mean with 3D. For me 3D is when you photograph an object that is dimensional, and your camera renders the dimensionality of that object. Say, for instance, you photograph a statue, that statue should feel like if you could walk around it. Ideally, the subject is in an environment where the other objects look dimensional also (like in the photo I presented above). But this rarely happens, and you need not only a proper lens but also a good dose of good luck. But at least, the main subject should look dimensional. With wide open photos, instead, you have, example, the face in perfect focus, and the rest out of focus, so you can say that the face pops out, but that way the face can not look dimensional, it looks flat. Pretty much everything (with only a few exceptions) looks flat when photographed at f/1.4. Nothing that you photograph at f/1.4 can really look dimensional, unless you have a perfect coincidence of all the other factors (lighting, composition, colours).
None of the (few) photos that I took and that feel 3D to me, has ever been taken wide open with a fast lens. I always need at least one stop down. More often, a couple of stops (how much stop down depends on the composition and the distances, of course)


PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My stance started to melt when reading your post Orio! What is your opinion on AF lenses regarding this matter?


PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
erm Well what ever the arguments are for the 3d effect.......I prefer my shots to have a "pop" in them.


PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Also my idea of 3d it's "air space" around the subject, that make it "tridimensional": bokeh and wide open shots are different things.


PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio, come to think about it, I remember some of you post with the Zeiss 2/28 "Hollywood" that really pops out, could you post some here?


PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lauge wrote:
Orio, come to think about it, I remember some of you post with the Zeiss 2/28 "Hollywood" that really pops out, could you post some here?

Here are some samples from the Pentax version: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/60011-super-multi-coated-pentax-1-2-28-poor-mans-distagon.html

Be sure to scroll down and also check the images on the second page. This Pentax definitely has the typical Zeiss bokeh and pop.


PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
erm Well what ever the arguments are for the 3d effect.......I prefer my shots to have a "pop" in them.



I agree but I also do understand what Orio means. My shot of the car taken with the planar is at 2.8 and I think it shows a lot of dimensionality and "pop"


PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Especially for Orio Wink

Voigtlander Colour Ultron 50/1.8 : f8 - ISO 800 - 1/80

Just so happened I was trying the lense out at all apertures, on the same flower, from f1.8 / 2.8 / 5.6 to f8.

[/img]


PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 11:25 pm    Post subject: Pentacon / Meyer Orestegor 4/200mm M42 Reply with quote
A bit of dimensionality there from Pentacon 4/200mm. 5DmkII, wide-open.

Hit the road Jack!
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/143/9/1/hit_the_road_jack_by_juredolzan-d3h28ys.jpg


PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
My stance started to melt when reading your post Orio! What is your opinion on AF lenses regarding this matter?


AF lenses of the digital era are built to provide a "sleepy image" that has a limited dynamic range, in order not to challenge the limits of current sensors, and relying on post-processing to optimize the histogram. They therefore create images that have lower contrast, duller colours, high resolvance but modest micro-contrast.
In addition to the above, they are also, for most part now, zoom lenses, and most of them use aspherical elements which usually improve the curvature of field problem that in some old lenses like the Hollywood Distagon is the main factor that produces "3D" looking images.
For all these reasons, AF lenses of today are usually poor contenders in the "3D look" arena.
The AF lenses of the film era might be better "3D" performers, but my knowledge of them is really limited.


PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lauge wrote:
Orio, come to think about it, I remember some of you post with the Zeiss 2/28 "Hollywood" that really pops out, could you post some here?


The "Best of lenses" Hollywood thread contains several of my Hollywood photos, see if you can find there what you remember:

http://forum.mflenses.com/carl-zeiss-distagon-t-2-28-hollywood-contax-cy-t37746,highlight,%2Bdistagon.html

I have to say, that I rarely use the Hollywood wide open. As you can see on the above page, most of my photos with it are taken stopped down. The strong curvature of field of the Hollywood lens allows to create photos that keep some dimensionality even at very narrow aperture such as in photo #5, where to keep both the trunk and the background in focus, I stopped down to f/11 (if I remember correctly). If you focus your mind on the trunk, you can obviously see the "roundness" of it, in spite of an aperture that if used with another lens would kill the roundness of about everything!

There is a couple photos wide open in my selection, the ivy photo and the candles photo. Those are definitely of the "pop out" kind and not of the "3D" kind.
Like I said, I like the "pop" effect too - it's just a different thing.
_


PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2011 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
AF lenses of the digital era are built to provide a "sleepy image" that has a limited dynamic range, in order not to challenge the limits of current sensors, and relying on post-processing to optimize the histogram. They therefore create images that have lower contrast, duller colours, high resolvance but modest micro-contrast.


I believe some of the newest AF lenses, such as the Nikon G 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 have moved somewhat closer to a Zeiss kind of rendering, with more "pop" and increased microcontrast. Still not quite the same thing, but quite different from the Canon equivalents (which are like you describe above).

Last edited by AhamB on Tue May 24, 2011 11:34 am; edited 1 time in total
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 3 of 11