View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 3704 Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 12:26 pm Post subject: Worst 3D effect lenses...suggestion? |
|
|
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? _________________ ---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
phone, p&s, m4:3 and most crops _________________ T* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
poilu wrote: |
phone, p&s, m4:3 and most crops |
I didn't know that those are lenses. _________________ Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
enzodm
Joined: 11 Sep 2010 Posts: 350 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
enzodm wrote:
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. _________________
Canon 60D, Tamron 17-50VC, Canon 55-250IS, Sigma 50-150/2.8 plus:
Wide: Mir 20/3.5, Kenlock 24/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Yashikor 35/2.8, Mir 37/2.8
Fifties: Voigtländer Color Ultron 50/1.8, Pentacon 50/1.8, Zenitar 50/1.9, Leica Summicron 50/2, CZJ Pancolar 50/2, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Industar 50/3.5 , Rikenon 55/1.4, Petri 55/1.8, Helios 58/2
In the middle: Cyclop 85/1.5, Nikon 100/2.8
135s: Tamron 135/2.5, CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, Jupiter 135/3.5, CZJ Triotar 135/4, Tamron Twin Tele 135-225
Tele: Soligor 200/2.8, Pentax Super Takumar 200/4, Hanimex 400/6.3, Makinon 500/8
Various: Schneider-Kreuznach Componar 135/4.5, Tominon 105/4.5, Vest Pocket Kodak meniscus, Wray Supar 2"/4.5
Sony Nex 6 plus:
Industar 69 28/2.8, Fujian 35/1.7, Rokkor 50/1.4, Jupiter 50/2, Cosmicar 50/2.8, Industar-22 50/3.5, Leitz Elmar 90/4, Canon Serenar 100/4
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
themoleman342
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 Posts: 2190 Location: East Coast (CT), U.S.A.
Expire: 2013-01-24
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:22 pm Post subject: Re: Worst 3D effect lenses...suggestion? |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
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. _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
enzodm
Joined: 11 Sep 2010 Posts: 350 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
enzodm wrote:
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 (and consider that "3D" might have more than one meaning) _________________
Canon 60D, Tamron 17-50VC, Canon 55-250IS, Sigma 50-150/2.8 plus:
Wide: Mir 20/3.5, Kenlock 24/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Yashikor 35/2.8, Mir 37/2.8
Fifties: Voigtländer Color Ultron 50/1.8, Pentacon 50/1.8, Zenitar 50/1.9, Leica Summicron 50/2, CZJ Pancolar 50/2, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Industar 50/3.5 , Rikenon 55/1.4, Petri 55/1.8, Helios 58/2
In the middle: Cyclop 85/1.5, Nikon 100/2.8
135s: Tamron 135/2.5, CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, Jupiter 135/3.5, CZJ Triotar 135/4, Tamron Twin Tele 135-225
Tele: Soligor 200/2.8, Pentax Super Takumar 200/4, Hanimex 400/6.3, Makinon 500/8
Various: Schneider-Kreuznach Componar 135/4.5, Tominon 105/4.5, Vest Pocket Kodak meniscus, Wray Supar 2"/4.5
Sony Nex 6 plus:
Industar 69 28/2.8, Fujian 35/1.7, Rokkor 50/1.4, Jupiter 50/2, Cosmicar 50/2.8, Industar-22 50/3.5, Leitz Elmar 90/4, Canon Serenar 100/4
Last edited by enzodm on Sat May 21, 2011 1:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
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:
_________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
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! _________________ Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:43 pm Post subject: Re: Worst 3D effect lenses...suggestion? |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Pancolart wrote: |
which lenses do you consider being most 2D? |
the ones that I can not afford _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:47 pm Post subject: Re: Worst 3D effect lenses...suggestion? |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Orio wrote: |
Pancolart wrote: |
which lenses do you consider being most 2D? |
the ones that I can not afford |
+1
However, I find my Petri CC Autio 1.8/55 I paid 99p for is as 3D as a Pancolar, lucky find... _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
themoleman342
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 Posts: 2190 Location: East Coast (CT), U.S.A.
Expire: 2013-01-24
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
themoleman342 wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arninetyes
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 312 Location: SoCal
Expire: 2013-03-26
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arninetyes wrote:
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. _________________ The longer I use autofocus lenses,
The greater my preference for manual focus grows. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RioRico
Joined: 12 Mar 2010 Posts: 1120 Location: California or Guatemala or somewhere
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RioRico wrote:
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. _________________ Too many film+digi cams+lenses, oh my -- Pentax K20D, K-1000, M42s, more
The simple truth is this: There are no neutral photographs. --F-Stop Fitzgerald |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Keysersoze27
Joined: 19 Feb 2009 Posts: 466 Location: Greece
Expire: 2012-12-24
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Keysersoze27 wrote:
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 . 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
...always IMHO !!! _________________ Canon EOS 5D MkII , EOS 50E, Contax RTS, Olympus OM2n, Nikon Z6ii
28mm: Zeiss Distagon 2.8/28 MMJ
35mm: CZ Distagon 2/35 ZE , S-M-C Takumar 3.5/35
40mm: CZJ Tessar T 4.5/40 1Q
50mm: CZ Planar 1.4/50 MMJ,CZ Planar 1.7/50 AEJ+MMJ,Leica Summicron 2/50 v3,S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50,Pentax SMC 1.4/50 K,Pentax SMC 1.8/55 K,Nikkor 1.8/50 ,CZJ Tessar T 3.5/50 1Q , CZ Planar 1.8/50 (QBM),Zuiko 1.4/50, Zuiko 1.8/50, Icarex Tessar 2.8/50, Nikkor 2/50 Ai,Schneider Kreuznach Xenar 2.8/50 Preset, Pentacon Prakticar 2.4/50 MC v1, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50 Zebra , Rikenon 1.4/50 P
55mm: Fujinon 1.8/55 EBC
58mm: Helios MC 44-3 2/58
85mm: Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 AEJ
90mm: Voigtl�nder APO-Lanthar 3.5/90 SLII , Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/90 v2
100~105mm:Zeiss Sonnar 3.5/100 MM, Nikkor 2.5/105 AiS, S-M-C Takumar 2.8/105
135mm: Leica Elmarit R 2.8/135 v2, S-M-C Takumar 3.5/135, CZJ 4/135 Sonnar Exakta leatherette (1963),CZJ 4/135 Triotar
Macro:Leica Macro-Elmarit R 2.8/60, Micro-Nikkor Auto 3.5/55 Compensating type (1964) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
AhamB
Joined: 22 Jun 2008 Posts: 733 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 5:18 pm Post subject: Re: Worst 3D effect lenses...suggestion? |
|
|
AhamB wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Keysersoze27
Joined: 19 Feb 2009 Posts: 466 Location: Greece
Expire: 2012-12-24
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Keysersoze27 wrote:
My CZJ Sonnar 4/135 is an example of very very strong 3D and slow aperture _________________ Canon EOS 5D MkII , EOS 50E, Contax RTS, Olympus OM2n, Nikon Z6ii
28mm: Zeiss Distagon 2.8/28 MMJ
35mm: CZ Distagon 2/35 ZE , S-M-C Takumar 3.5/35
40mm: CZJ Tessar T 4.5/40 1Q
50mm: CZ Planar 1.4/50 MMJ,CZ Planar 1.7/50 AEJ+MMJ,Leica Summicron 2/50 v3,S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50,Pentax SMC 1.4/50 K,Pentax SMC 1.8/55 K,Nikkor 1.8/50 ,CZJ Tessar T 3.5/50 1Q , CZ Planar 1.8/50 (QBM),Zuiko 1.4/50, Zuiko 1.8/50, Icarex Tessar 2.8/50, Nikkor 2/50 Ai,Schneider Kreuznach Xenar 2.8/50 Preset, Pentacon Prakticar 2.4/50 MC v1, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50 Zebra , Rikenon 1.4/50 P
55mm: Fujinon 1.8/55 EBC
58mm: Helios MC 44-3 2/58
85mm: Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 AEJ
90mm: Voigtl�nder APO-Lanthar 3.5/90 SLII , Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/90 v2
100~105mm:Zeiss Sonnar 3.5/100 MM, Nikkor 2.5/105 AiS, S-M-C Takumar 2.8/105
135mm: Leica Elmarit R 2.8/135 v2, S-M-C Takumar 3.5/135, CZJ 4/135 Sonnar Exakta leatherette (1963),CZJ 4/135 Triotar
Macro:Leica Macro-Elmarit R 2.8/60, Micro-Nikkor Auto 3.5/55 Compensating type (1964) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 12:30 am Post subject: Re: Worst 3D effect lenses...suggestion? |
|
|
Orio wrote:
AhamB wrote: |
It's not all about shallow DOF. |
+10
I would actually say, it's not about it at all. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arninetyes
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 312 Location: SoCal
Expire: 2013-03-26
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Arninetyes wrote:
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? _________________ The longer I use autofocus lenses,
The greater my preference for manual focus grows. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aleksanderpolo
Joined: 24 Jan 2010 Posts: 684
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
aleksanderpolo wrote:
Minolta 58/1.2
2D and just lovely. I don't think 3D is necessarily good and 2D necessarily bad. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
AhamB
Joined: 22 Jun 2008 Posts: 733 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AhamB wrote:
I believe that lenses that are often described as having a "painterly" rendering are usually the least likely to produce the 3D effect. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 3704 Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
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:
_________________ ---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
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... _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RioRico
Joined: 12 Mar 2010 Posts: 1120 Location: California or Guatemala or somewhere
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RioRico wrote:
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? _________________ Too many film+digi cams+lenses, oh my -- Pentax K20D, K-1000, M42s, more
The simple truth is this: There are no neutral photographs. --F-Stop Fitzgerald |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
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"
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. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|