`3D`pop in (50mm or less) ZM lenses

[Krosya]

Is 3D a matter of perspective or a matter of the lens?

Biogon 2/35

I have to ask the same question. And my answer would be - it's both.
Having looke at all the posted in this thread photos on 3 different monitors, just to make sure, NONE of these really look 3D. Closest to 3D effect are - the photo above - feet, and two photos taken with ZK Distagon 28 posted by Luna.
While I have never had a ZM Sonnar 50mm, I did use a Planar 50. At the same time I had the Planar, I also had a latest Summicron 50, M-Hexanon 50 and Summicron 50 Rigid. I ran some tests of these lenses against each other and depending on perspective/distance o lens to a subject/distance subjust to background/ : they all did have about the same 3D pop, if you could call it that. I kept M-Hexanon at the best lens for me - as far as sharpness goes, better or same flare resistance, best handling, and best cost for the built quality. But all this is more of a personal preference than anything else.
While some lenses may have that more obvious "3D pop", I think it would be more so with Medium Format (Sonnar 180/2.8 for Pentacon is a great example) and very much depending on pespective and other things.

 

[Turtle]

My view? All the ZMs are close in character. Choose the FL and speed you want and go from there. You can split hairs all day on 25 vs 21 2.8 or which 35mm, but all are stellar. Go on focal length, size, speed or price, then make pics.

 

[Richard G]

Marek is playing when he calls the Sonnar 'slow'. Here it is at 1.5 -


Niece's wedding by Richard GM2, on Flickr

 

[semilog]

35/2.8 Biogon-C, 2TMY, XTOL 1+1.

...

...

35/2.8 Biogon-C, Ektar.

 

[hamustar]

35/2.8 Biogon-C, 2TMY, XTOL 1+1.


...

...

35/2.8 Biogon-C, Ektar.

I like the way the biogon handles this scene. Amazing.

 

[Austerby]

25/2.8
Pointe Croix

 

[richfx]

The Zeiss 35mm C Biogon T f/2.8 has great 3D effect.

 

[Peter_S]

Lovley photos eveyone, thank you! I went with Turtle`s advice in the end, also because the tread supported his argumentation. Stuck with 50mm Sonnar and 21mm Biogon (f/2.8). The 25mm is an option for later.

Cheers,
Peter

 

[Tim Gray]

Leica fanboys use the term 3D more often than others, but I've never seen anything 3D in my images with any lens, cause it doesn't exist.

Over on Fredmiranda, it's the Zeiss fans who use '3D' extensively. From what I could tell, they can't even agree on a) what '3D' is and b) what really causes it. As to a), some of them think shallow DOF, while other use it to refer to some ability to convey shape and form (plasticity that Roger mentions). As to b), that's slightly a lie. Many of them say it's due to high 'microcontrast' but I've not seen any evidence that suggests they agree on what that actually is.

The one thing many of them do agree on is that Leica lenses show absolutely no 3D.

I have no dog in this fight. I've not had any body present any coherent definition of what it is to me with examples. Maybe I'm just oblivious to it.

 

[leicashot]

Over on Fredmiranda, it's the Zeiss fans who use '3D' extensively. From what I could tell, they can't even agree on a) what '3D' is and b) what really causes it. As to a), some of them think shallow DOF, while other use it to refer to some ability to convey shape and form (plasticity that Roger mentions). As to b), that's slightly a lie. Many of them say it's due to high 'microcontrast' but I've not seen any evidence that suggests they agree on what that actually is.

The one thing many of them do agree on is that Leica lenses show absolutely no 3D.

I have no dog in this fight. I've not had any body present any coherent definition of what it is to me with examples. Maybe I'm just oblivious to it.

To me, the more clarity in an image, the more 3D it is. Simple as that, but I'm sure everyone has their own way of seeing things.

 

[bwcolor]

To me, the more clarity in an image, the more 3D it is. Simple as that, but I'm sure everyone has their own way of seeing things.

Forgive the generalization, but the larger the format, the more 3D pop. My 645 and 6x7 photos hanging on my wall have much more pop than my 12Mpix 1DMkIII photos. Certainly, this doesn't have anything to do with digital vs. film...does it?

 

[Roger Hicks]

To me, the more clarity in an image, the more 3D it is. Simple as that, but I'm sure everyone has their own way of seeing things.

Indeed, a fundamental point. I've seen much more selective focus in this thread -- including, indeed, a certain amount of 'bokeh lunacy' -- than I have seen of what I perceive as 3D. My own take on what I call 'magic windows' is in http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps magic window 1.html

Cheers,

R.

 

[bwcolor]

What you say is true, but perceived sharpness, micro-contrast is improved, all else being equal, as you go to larger formats. This is according to my eye and my definition of 3D pop.

 

[semilog]

The one thing many of them do agree on is that Leica lenses show absolutely no 3D.

In another RFF thread, someone made the brilliantly hilarious observation that "3D" and "clinical" mean the same thing — the former with good connotations, the latter with poor connotations. Both terms are, of course, equally meaningless.

What is not meaningless is that different lenses render scenes with foreground and background elements somewhat differently, and it is true that lenses with high contrast do a nice job of emphasizing the stuff in the focal plane.

 

[Tim Gray]

The fredmiranda thread (or the 30 pages or so that I read of it) had proponents who stated selective focus was NOT the same as 3D. Those are the ones who for the most part that said Leica lenses don't have it. Quite a few examples were then offered up that had more or less infinite DOF. I stopped trying to understand the psychology when people started posting pictures and saying, '3D?'. They then waited for the 2 or 3 'experts' to render their verdict.

Again, I don't know if Leica or Zeiss or Tamron 😀 lenses have it.

 

[Tim Gray]

But that's just it - there are a LOT of things that can either solely - or jointly - create the effect... And probably why everyone has such a hard time coming to a consensus.

I also think it has a lot to do with poorly defined, 'subjective' terms. It seems like a lot of photographers fancy themselves as 'scientific' when in fact they aren't.

Terms like 'round', 'pop', and 'punchy' are great when you don't really want to convey what you mean. It's a lot easier to say contrasty than it is 'punchy', if that is indeed what one means when they say 'punchy'. Throw in the fact that there ARE terms which most likely have real definitions in photographic optics like 'microcontrast' but just get abused by us with out real understanding of what they mean, and the waters get even muddier.

And when all this 'scientific' treatment and loose terminology is applied concepts that are ill defined themselves, it's no wonder we can't reach a consensus.

I recently read a thread where the ZE 21 and ZM 21 MTF charts were compared and the ZE 'killed' the ZM. The ZM was cited has have poor microcontrast.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The fredmiranda thread (or the 30 pages or so that I read of it) had proponents who stated selective focus was NOT the same as 3D. Those are the ones who for the most part that said Leica lenses don't have it. Quite a few examples were then offered up that had more or less infinite DOF. I stopped trying to understand the psychology when people started posting pictures and saying, '3D?'. They then waited for the 2 or 3 'experts' to render their verdict.

Again, I don't know if Leica or Zeiss or Tamron 😀 lenses have it.

Dear Tim,

Remember the etymlogy of 'expert'. It comes from 'ex-', meaning 'a has been' and 'spurt', meaning 'a drip under pressure'.

The question of three-dimensionality in a flat image has been discussed for well over 100 years. They used to call it 'plasticity', as in 'the plastic [or 3D] arts'.

Some images do look more 3D than others. We've all experienced that. If it were a mathematically or physically analysable property of images, there'd probably be 3D lenses on sale in droves.

EDIT: Your point about pseudoscience (in the post above) is indisputable.

FURTHER EDIT: When I was younger, 'pop' usually referred to underexposure (of slides) to saturate colours and 'punchy' meant 'contrasty'. Maybe things haven't changed that much after all...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Tim Gray]

The question of three-dimensionality in a flat image has been discussed for well over 100 years. They used to call it 'plasticity', as in 'the plastic [or 3D] arts'.

Some images do look more 3D than others. We've all experienced that. If it were a mathematically or physically analysable property of images, there'd probably be 3D lenses on sale in droves.

Agreed. But the point I'm making is that in my experience, the very meaning of the 3D effect people can't agree on. For some it's the selective focus thing; others seem to talk about the plasticity you mention.

I think the damning piece of evidence in all of this, that lenses are responsible for this, is that fact that I've yet to see a side-by-side comparison of photos of the same scene, one made with a lens that has 3D and one without.

It comes down to have the right DOF, lighting, angle, etc. for that particular scene photographed.

 

[Tim Gray]

FURTHER EDIT: When I was younger, 'pop' usually referred to underexposure (of slides) to saturate colours and 'punchy' meant 'contrasty'. Maybe things haven't changed that much after all...

I think that's their accepted meanings. I've also heard pop used to mean 3D, as well as well separated from the background/selective focus.

I still think it's easier to just say, 'I like saturated colors.' I guess that sounds boring though.

Double Negative: Many of the original posts stating such were just recently deleted. Or I'd share the link 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Agreed. But the point I'm making is that in my experience, the very meaning of the 3D effect people can't agree on. For some it's the selective focus thing; others seem to talk about the plasticity you mention.

I think the damning piece of evidence in all of this, that lenses are responsible for this, is that fact that I've yet to see a side-by-side comparison of photos of the same scene, one made with a lens that has 3D and one without.

It comes down to have the right DOF, lighting, angle, etc. for that particular scene photographed.

Dear Tim,

I might just argue that some lenses seem to do it more often than others, but a lot more (I am sure) is down to 'the right DOF, lighting, angle, etc. for that particular scene photographed'.

I don't find the 'proof' you suggest as compelling as you do, simply because, who is going to carry two lenses of the same f.l. and shoot the same '3D' pic with both? Only a few sad cases, most of whom are probably indifferent photographers, leaving a infinitesimal percentage of those who can be bothered and could demonstrate it.

I do not think we disgree significantly. Possibly not even detectably.

Cheers,

R.