Lens with 3D look

[Alberti]

The childrens toys don't look 3D to me.

The ladybug shot while techincally should look 3D doesnt either because of the distracting background behind it. If you had shot just earlier when her head had leading lines down the street I bet the 3D effect would be more prominent.

I think its been concluded that its not always the lens that makes the 3D look but the shot as well has to be composed and shot in a certain way also.

Ok, looking at it again, the shot in Paris does have some distracting swirl (@F/2) and the toys' background is really complex (also F/2). I think most common Leica lenses quickly produce such results. Definitely I will also look at smaller apertures (F/5.6-8) because there I have experienced some nice pop.
Canon lenses are far smoother. I will revisit this, for instance with the 25mm Skopar (that has ultra low CA).

This thread definitely takes me out of my bubble.

 

[nobbylon]

That is exactly it.

What/which lens/lenses?

For me, getting the 3d effect involves having something in foreground and background just out of focus with a subject between nailed in focus as in these. I do think that Zeiss lenses on my M9 achieve it more than my Leica lenses.

 

[Archlich]

Judging from examples shown in the thread I assume the Nikon AF-S 200/2 VR must be the most 3D lens in the world. Anything you shot with it pops!

 

[Scapevision]

I might have found another one with 3D look to it. Leica Summicron-R 50. I have the second version with built-in hood.

3D test by Scapevision, on Flickr

 

[bayernfan]

pre-asph Summilux 50/1.4 has a distinct "pop out of the page" look in certain light. personally, i hate the look.

 

[Rob-F]

ZM biogon 35mm F2.

Does it matter what aperture is used? It is seldom mentioned when examples are posted.

Seems to me the 3D effect is strongest for subjects that are closest to the lens.

 

[Doug]

I'll weigh in with an opinion that it's not really so much the particular lens as how it's used... The lens only needs to produce a sharply focused subject - the whole subject, nearby - and a somewhat out of focus background, well separated. Ideally with lighting from the side to produce better modeling. Ta-da, 3D! 🙂

Agreeing with a member who deleted his post... and I suggest it's supported by the successful examples in this thread.

 

[Penzes]

Is this 3D?


Sunday noon elegance by István Pénzes, on Flickr

Noctilux 1.0

 

[Scapevision]

I'll weigh in with an opinion that it's not really so much the particular lens as how it's used... The lens only needs to produce a sharply focused subject - the whole subject, nearby - and a somewhat out of focus background, well separated. Ideally with lighting from the side to produce better modeling. Ta-da, 3D! 🙂

Agreeing with a member who deleted his post... and I suggest it's supported by the successful examples in this thread.

It's true to a certain degree, however, some lenses produce a much more pronounced effect. Not everyone who posted examples here got the look the op wanted, which is exactly what I treasure in my lenses as well. Most people seem to misunderstand simply blurring background from the 3d look that we mention. It's clear just by looking at what people posted here. This is why this 3d or microcontrast myth is going around the Internet. Anyways, I let pictures tell the truth.
Also, mind you, even the very 3d lenses don't produce it all the time. One of the major factors is the distance and also the prevalence of foreground and background out of focus element.

 

[Penzes]

3d here?

reading in the morning by István Pénzes, on Flickr

I think lightning, distance, contrast are very relevant. 3D is a very subjective thing, in the eye of the viewer....

 

[ellisson]

Agree that a 3D look is more about compositional elements mentioned such as close up view of the subject relative to the background elements with or without differential focus and/or lighting. Also, a perspective of converging lines as when drawing a simple square versus a cube on a sheet of paper. Add to this shadows implying distance between the subject and surroundings and our brains interpret the spacial relation as "3D". Principles of drawing and painting are similar.

 

[TRIago]

One can reach the 3D look with: right light and low-element count lens. More than 9 elements it's enough to **** it up - not a rule, tho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jazzwave]

The Voigtlander 75mm f1.8 has always served me well in the 3D department.

This is a good sample of 3D looks....
What camera?


~ron~

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

This is a good sample of 3D looks....
What camera?


~ron~

Hi Ron,

The camera is a Sony A7II with a Voigtlander VM-E Close Focus Adapter.

 

[edwliang]

imo, use a lens longer than 50mm with larger aperture, and find background that is far away from subject (very important! and not messy background too). better that the subject is lightened up a bit, against a darker background, and some fall-offs may help too. it is all have to do with composition and lighting.

generally, European-made lens has more effect than Japanese-made one does.

sorry i dont have lenses longer than 50, they were taken with summicron 35 iv and elmar 50 3.5

 

[edwliang]

first & second one with summicron 35 iv, and 3rd one with summaron 35 2.8. if i have a longer lens say 75, it would be easier to produce 'pop' image.
regards

 

[Alberti]

=3D art

There is a nice separation and the background helps.
F6.8, 35mm Summicron I

By André Volten, Kröller-Müller Museum, Holland

 

[Rob-F]

The 3D element seems always to be very close to the camera, and either fully or partially side-lighted. The most prominent ones seem to have strong highlights. I'm not sure yet about the "micro-contrast" claims.

 

[Contarama]

Please allow me to play but I do not have a Leica lens. I think there is something to the light angle, composition, focal length, smooth bokeh, etc.

Nikkor 105/2.5

 

[m0n0]

Although this is relating to digital cinematography and Cooke vs new asph Leica lenses I feel it a relevant discussion about different optics under very controlled conditions. I've seen similar results from the asph Leica lens kit I bought for the M9 that I had. I actually wound up selling my new asph Leica glass because I felt it was lifeless and sterile. I went back to Zeiss and vintage Leica lenses. You may feel different but the video is quite interesting and reveals a noticeable difference in optics. Take a look.

https://vimeo.com/90168989

Thank you for this link . That video was well worth the time. Yes 3-D 'pop' has to do with the light , layering , perspective etc . That much is true but perhaps not the point of the OP's question. Rather, holding all those things constant, does glass does make a difference? Of course it does. No vague claims of Leica magic dust could overcome the comparisons in this video . The Cookes came out unmistakably more "3-D", and more flattering to the human subject in the foreground _for the (cinematographic) purposes specified there_.

Sent from my EVA-L29 using Tapatalk