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?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is our eyes and brain that makes the impression of 3D, based on the perspective (i.e. the reduction in size of the background). If the background is so blurred it becomes indistinct, then the impression of 3D is lost.

I think the most important aspect, more than the depth of field, is the ratio of the distances from camera to subject and subject to background. The focal length has to be factored in as well.

Minolta Tele-Rokkor MC 3.5/135


Last edited by peterqd on Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:25 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

while lens formula probably a big factor in this. it determines how micro-contrast sharpness bokeh ect. ect. is handled.

It cant be just lens formula or els we would have had an answer to the OP question already. because in that case certain formulas would always generate 3d/pop pictures. And it would be easy to point out the different lenses.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50


PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChromaticAberration wrote:


On the other hand, if it's not something you can write into a couple of instructions than it is a bit of a stretch even to consider it a technique because so far I get the idea it is almost a lens-formula-specific effect.


I would say it's both. I think it's really only possible with a limited number of lenses but I do think there's a recipy for the artistic part:

I only came up with this recipy recently, and with my limited experience it seems a little early to share, but it works well for me...

.The subject in the foreground needs to be decently sharp (no glow, etc).
.The trasition zone needs elements blending the subject with background.
.The background needs to be only slighty blurred. (This is the hardest part, which is most up to the photographer)..
.The light is not so important (but diffuse light works better, IMHO)
.The effect only really shows with less-than perfect bokeh (not "cream"). I find totally smooth bokeh does not work as good as "character" bokeh. But this is totally lens dependent. I realized my CZJ 180/2.8 produces visible outlining on OOF highlight, but renders with more depth than smoother Orestor 135.

Two examples with CZJ 180/2.8:





To finally make things complicated: Another experience that I made (but is totally unresearched) is that slight motion blur (to long exposure, eg. 1/40sec on 85mm lens) can make some very good 3D feeling, even with lenses not otherwise suitable for this. But I'll have to investigate this better..


PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Centaur wrote:
But I'll have to investigate this better..

That's the best advice I think. Don't rush into buying a lens just for 3D pictures until you understand the principles. Keep experimenting until you know how to create good 3D pictures, what are the best focal lengths, distances, aperture settings, light direction, etc etc. Only when you understand it can you decide what lens is best, and I'm betting we could all produce pretty good 3D pictures with some of the lenses we already have.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


nikkor 55/2.8

you don't have to try hard with that one


impressive since there is so little contrast--- pen 42/1.2 @ f/8 +


1956 canon LTM 85/1.5

one last:

leica 50/2 M v4

when shaded subjects pop.....

the newer CV RF lenses really pop---the 50/1.1 is a real 3D machine stopped down some.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is my thought:




Leitz Summicron-R 2/50 wide open. Shot was captured with K10D stitched from 2 images.

Timo


PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Omar wrote:
How about this for 3d?

Distagon 35 1.4 Wide open. This is not only separation of the main subject...I can feel the space between everything in this picture.



Now that is what I call 3D! Damn! Very, very nice.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



3D?


PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plasticity is the ability of a lens to convey the images exposed on the film the precise sense of photographed volume (a ball looks like a sphere or a circle?).

Difficult to explain in words (but only a few minutes and two lenses, one plastic and the other not-plastic, to make it clear to anyone what I'm talking about)

So plasticity is an objective parameter ... impossible to measure.

i think you mean plasticity not 3d


PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great thread and some wonderful shots !

One of my first shots with my new C.Zeiss 85/1.4. Sat at a cafe waiting for a client. Shot at f2.8.




PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Orestor 2.8/100
the bokeh!!!!

O.O


Last edited by metallaro1980 on Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:07 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:40 pm    Post subject: Re: pentacon 29mm test Reply with quote

rwg wrote:


...

second pic at f4.0


....

i dont know what you guys see but to me it seems f4 pops the most
even the slight difference in DoF affects the pop effect a lot in my opinion.
and it might have something to do with the sharpness too.

[/img]


Yes, for my eyes, the f/4 shot looks more popped-out than at wide-open. I think the blur quality of out of focus area can make a different. Maybe a more natural blur level that mimic our sight could add a more pop-out look (the blur not to creamy or too soft). Maybe. Smile


PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OM 28/2 A nice landscape lens.



PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



Orestor 2.8/100


Last edited by metallaro1980 on Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:07 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very interesting topic!
Well, it isn't a MF lens, but i really love the 3D rendering of my Pentax 31mm Limited. The best lens I've ever used:



Closer:



Even closer:



Samyang 85mm f1.4 is very good for subject isolaction, but not so good for 3d, because of the longer focal length and the telephoto compression -I think- compared with the 31mm, but a I can get what I consider a "3d effect" image from time to time, especially with far subjects:



PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Awesome!

Omar wrote:
How about this for 3d?

Distagon 35 1.4 Wide open. This is not only separation of the main subject...I can feel the space between everything in this picture.



PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



Planar 1.4/50


Last edited by metallaro1980 on Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:06 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

metallaro1980, you need to tell us what lenses you are using Wink


PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Last picture in this post is a great example of the 3D that the Contax 35/1.4 can produce: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/839374/60#9903386


PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi, do you think Planar 50mm 1.7 T*, has a good 3d effect? Any example of this lens? Better Distagon 35mm T*? Thanks.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zeiss ZA 85mm F1.4?


_DSC2096.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr


_DSC1593.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr


_DSC2608.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr


_DSC2489.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr


_DSC2069.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr

Zeiss 21mm F2.8 ZF.2 on A850


untitled-38.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr


untitled-28.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr


PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Despite strong purple (green) fringing it works great.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sinner79 wrote:
Hi, do you think Planar 50mm 1.7 T*, has a good 3d effect? Any example of this lens? Better Distagon 35mm T*? Thanks.


Many people say the 50/1.7 does have good 3D capabilities. The 35/1.4 is even better at it. Don't know about the 35/2.8.

@Jae: The shots with the 21 have implied perspective, but the 3D impression is a lot less because the HDR treatment has destroyed the midtone contrast. At least, the walls look very flat and blurred because of it.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



The Meritar gives good 3D effect. Laughing

Getting the "3D" look has more to do with the composition than the lens. If you go around shooting fast lenses at their largest apertures, you end up frequently with a lot of images that look like objects were pasted into a blurred background.

Kind of like in this photo (just for example, if I may):


If you compose for a more gradual focus fall off, I think the effect is better.

I would say this image provides more of a 3D effect:


You can see the fence come into focus, then go out again. It's when things travel through the depth of field that the effect is most striking. The blur indicates distance better here.

Although I feel like the effect works best actually if you avoid using really wide apertures. For a 50mm lens, probably between f2.8 and f5.6 depending on the point of focus (if the point of focus is farther away a larger aperture may work better though). If you shoot wide open at close distances you start getting that "pasted on" look again.