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

Worst 3D effect lenses...suggestion?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 12:26 pm    Post subject: Worst 3D effect lenses...suggestion? Reply with quote

I find momentary most popular topic totally mystic. I could include nearly all lenses with F at least 2.8 inside so i wonder: which lenses do you consider being most 2D?


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

phone, p&s, m4:3 and most crops


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:
phone, p&s, m4:3 and most crops


I didn't know that those are lenses. Laughing


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The most 2D I have is Industar: it is very flat. However, it seems to me also Nikon 50/1.8 Series E and other pancakes are close to 2D, in particular when compared to zooms. Smile


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The most 2D I have is Industar


The Industar is well-known to be a copy of the Tessar 3.5/50mm, a lens that Orio found to have remarkable 3D qualities. Funny.


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Worst 3D effect lenses...suggestion? Reply with quote

Pancolart wrote:
I find momentary most popular topic totally mystic. I could include nearly all lenses with F at least 2.8 inside so i wonder: which lenses do you consider being most 2D?


Well I would guess it would be the crappier lenses, and being crappy wouldn't be used often, so the odds of getting a 3d effect would be less (because of non use). Anyway I have quite a few lenses that haven't produced the 3D effect yet...the latest is crap Yashica DSB lenses 28mm and 55mm.


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

themoleman342 wrote:
Quote:
The most 2D I have is Industar


The Industar is well-known to be a copy of the Tessar 3.5/50mm, a lens that Orio found to have remarkable 3D qualities. Funny.


Please read your last word, and try to re-interpret my post based on it Wink (and consider that "3D" might have more than one meaning)


Last edited by enzodm on Sat May 21, 2011 1:41 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are the Yashica DSBs that bad? I have a 1.8/50 DSB I found, not tried it yet but just ordered an adapter for it to fit my EOS.

I agree that the cheap, crappy lenses are the flat looking ones.

This Aritar 3.5/35mm is crappy and produces flat images:





PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

themoleman342 wrote:
Quote:
The most 2D I have is Industar


The Industar is well-known to be a copy of the Tessar 3.5/50mm, a lens that Orio found to have remarkable 3D qualities. Funny.


BTW, there is more than one Industar!


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Worst 3D effect lenses...suggestion? Reply with quote

Pancolart wrote:
which lenses do you consider being most 2D?


the ones that I can not afford Laughing


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:47 pm    Post subject: Re: Worst 3D effect lenses...suggestion? Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Pancolart wrote:
which lenses do you consider being most 2D?


the ones that I can not afford Laughing


+1

However, I find my Petri CC Autio 1.8/55 I paid 99p for is as 3D as a Pancolar, lucky find...


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Please read your last word, and try to re-interpret my post based on it Wink (and consider that "3D" might have more than one meaning)


Ah, I understand. Whoosh! Right over my head. Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A great lens, well-known for its '3D' quality can deliver flat, bland images. The most common way, of course, is poor photographic technique. Beyond that, as lenses age, they collect haze (lubricant condensate) on internal elements as well as dust, debris, and possibly fungus.

These contaminants will increase internal flare, causing a loss of color, contrast, and sharpness which will eventually kill IQ, including any 3D effect. I've had a few lenses so afflicted. A trip to my favorite lens doctor and they are as good as new.


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is pretty simple.

Most 3D effect: holographic images
Next best 3D effect: stereovision
Least 3D effect: everything else

Using our lenses on still cameras to produce 2D images, dimensionality is best increased by paying attention to lighting, DOF, background, etc. Not to mention PP. My lens-of-the-day yesterday was the Wollensack Enlarging Raptar 162/4.5 on tubes and bellows on my Pentax K20D for general (non-macro) shooting. EL's and long FL's flatten images, right? No, not if the subjects are side-lit with dark backgrounds. P&S's flatten images, right? No, I get similar roundness with my 5mpx Sony DSC-V1 P&S -- choose subject, distance, background, lighting, and do a bit of PP.

Lenses don't flatten images -- PEOPLE flatten images.


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

themoleman342 wrote:
Quote:
The most 2D I have is Industar


The Industar is well-known to be a copy of the Tessar 3.5/50mm, a lens that Orio found to have remarkable 3D qualities. Funny.


They copied the lens diagram not the glass recipe and Zeiss's characteristics.

IMHO my Asahi/Pentax ones are the least 3D of all my lenses . Also most of the old Leica lenses(dare to say nearly all pre-80s designs...except the lux and crons ) are flat that later ones (specificaly M ones).Try to compare the first Elmar 50/3.5 with the Zeiss they copied and you will see what I mean Wink. Leica prioritized their lens characteristic elsewhere ... not to 3D rendering...

All my Nikkor lenses are relatively flat too, with small exceptions(105/2.5,the 50 a little).I can recognize very easily my 1.7/50 C/Y to the 50/1.8 Nikkor even if both are Planar designs... Both of my Zuikos also have less 3D than my Zeiss even if, for example, the zuiko 50/1.8 is a Contarex Planar 50/2/Xenon clone like the Nikkor 50/2 Wink

...always IMHO !!!


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 5:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Worst 3D effect lenses...suggestion? Reply with quote

Pancolart wrote:
I could include nearly all lenses with F at least 2.8


My Contax Distagon 28/2.8 is is the lens in my current line-up that produces most "3D". Lens speed has not much to do with "dimensionality" of the image rendering. It's not all about shallow DOF.


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My CZJ Sonnar 4/135 is an example of very very strong 3D and slow aperture Wink


PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 12:30 am    Post subject: Re: Worst 3D effect lenses...suggestion? Reply with quote

AhamB wrote:
It's not all about shallow DOF.


+10
I would actually say, it's not about it at all.


PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know what causes the '3D' effect, but I'm fairly certain it's not about shallow depth of field, or every f/1.4 lens would have a strong 3D effect.

Has anyone ever done a comparison of the CA attributes of lenses known for 3D imaging?


PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 3:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolta 58/1.2

2D and just lovely. I don't think 3D is necessarily good and 2D necessarily bad.


PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe that lenses that are often described as having a "painterly" rendering are usually the least likely to produce the 3D effect.


PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aleksanderpolo wrote:
Minolta 58/1.2

2D and just lovely. I don't think 3D is necessarily good and 2D necessarily bad.


Now we are getting somewhere i think. Here a sample of Jupiter 4/200mm 2D:



PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that's an awesome shot with the J-21, but to me, it isn't flat and '2d' at all, the guy in glasses really pops out of the background, for me this shot has a lot of depth.

Side lighting can often give a 3d effect, I shot this with my Pentacon 4/200, I think there is a bit of 'pop' on the boy in the blue shirt...


PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2011 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IMHO dimensionality is more a product of lighting and background, than of optics and DOF. Shooting a flash-lit subject with my Pentax FA50/1.4, the results are definitely 'flatter' with a ringflash than with an offside strobe. And a busy or bright background can affect the perception of dimensionality, eh? Optics don't flatten images; PHOTOGRAPHERS do!

As for the effect of DOF, I'll try this test when I return home and whip out my M42 Sears-Tokina 55-135/3.5, my favorite portrait zoom. TEST: Shoot the same side-lit subject wide-open (f/3.5) at 55mm (2m), 85mm (3m), and 135mm (5m). Those focal lengths and distances should give about the same FOV but diminishing DOF's. (I may need to fudge the distances slightly to keep the same FOV.) Would anyone like to predict which shot will look most 3D?


PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2011 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's useless to prove what we already know.
Everybody knows that the appearance of dimensionality on a flat surface is strongly influenced by the lighting, the perspective, the composition, the colours.
This is no news, architects know this since Brunelleschi, painters know it since Masaccio, et c.

It is also evident that there are lenses which, when the other conditions are equal, are able to bring out more dimensionality than other lenses
This appears especially when the other conditions are unfavoureable, because obviously, when all conditions are favoureable, all lenses can do a good work (like: all lenses take nice pictures in sunny days, all females look beautiful when they're young, et c.). When conditions are unfavoureable, the better lenses stand out more clearly (like, at the age of 50, only the special women still look beautiful).

I also agree with the one who wrote that a photo that shows "3D" is not necessarily better (or worse) than another which looks flat. It all depends on your purposes, on what you want to do. There are photographers who try to make photos that look like the paintings of Monet, for them, flat is good, it's their friend - if instead they want to resemble De Chirico or Dalì paintings, they have to go for "3D" Laughing

The important thing, is that the type of optical impression that you want to obtain is coherent with your subject and your style. It must go together with it. If it clashes, or if it does not make sense with them, then the photo fails.