The 'Holy Grail' of Lens Design

[RFFan]

I reckon that the ‘Holy Grail’ of lens design is to achieve that rare and much sought after 3-D effect where pictures almost seem to leap of the paper. I understand that some Leica, some Contax G2 and some Canon lenses succeed in achieving this effect but does anyone have experience of a fixed lens RF that achieves this effect?

Back in the early ‘90s I was working overseas and shooting a Yashica T4 P&S. I was very happy with this UNTIL I saw prints taken by my then boss on his Konica P&S. There was simply no comparison......his prints very both extremely sharp and had that wonderful 3-D look (call it ‘tonality’, ‘plasticity’, ‘micro-contrast’ whatever). Since that day I’ve been looking for a camera that can achieve the same effect.

On this forum and elsewhere on the ‘net I read many comments about how great certain lenses are (Yashica GSN/GTN, Konica S3, Rollei 35, Canon QL GIII, Olympus 35SP etc) but I rarely see references to the ‘3-D’ effect. Anyone out there got a camera/lens that achieves what for me is the ‘Holy Grail’?

 

[rover]

I am sure we all have candidates. My 50 Summicrons, Canon 50/1.5 and the 35 Ultron I sold all have been it for me. Perhaps though it is more than the just the lens...

http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-04-28.shtml

 

[Pherdinand]

RFFan (by the way one F is missing!! LOL) i am afraid that's p[art of a legend. Just like the Holy Grail. Meaning not that it does not exist, the 3D effect, but that it's not really a matter of lens design (only). You need lots of circumstances to achieve it, in my oppinion, where light on the subjkect is Number One, Two and Three, and only later comes the Lens, and others.

I have found once the Holy Grail. But only once! Everything clicked into its place and the 3D thing was there. Lens: a "sloppy" little Novar Anastigmat 75/3.5 on a Super Ikonta. Aperture was I think f/5.6 +- half a stop. The light was magic for a moment. Here's the result.

PS: in this folder you can see some more shots with the same camera same lens same film even, similar settings - except the light. NONE of these have the same 3D quality...

 

[rover]

By the way, what model Konica did he have?

 

[RFFan]

By the way, what model Konica did he have?

It was the Konica Big Mini Zoom that was around in early '90's. There was a black version and a lovely silver version. I actually saw one of the silver ones for sale second-hand in a camera shop in London but as I was busy building up my (Canon) SLR system at the time I passed on buying that camera - BIG mistake! I don't think I've ever seen another one for sale second-hand since. May be they're just SO good that no one wants to part with them. Or may be, like many P&S cameras, they've died during use.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The local Ritz closed those out for $20 and $30 (w date imprint), new-old-stock. I gave one to my sister, and another one to a friend. They were both happy with them.

You can get anything you want at Alice's restaurant, except used Cameras. For those go to Ebay.

 

[Skinny McGee]

Summar bokeh

Summar bokeh

1935 summar 50mm f2 I cant remember but I think this was at like 5.6

 

[peter_n]

Pherdinand is right that its not just a matter of lens design, although a few aberations in the lens will help - today's highly corrected lenses don't help. Other (much more important) factors are the light on the main subject, the contrast of the main subject in relation to all the other visuals in the frame, the main subject being in a plane on it's own (i.e. no competing in-focus or near in-focus objects in the same plane), the relative distance between the main subject and all the other visuals in the frame (some of which can be in a plane behind the main subject and some in a plane in front), a reasonably wide aperture, and of course, luck - perhaps the most important factor. 😉 Pherdi's example is excellent and includes another variable, the color-saturated main subject in relation to the background, in B&W we rely on tonality/contrast for that.

I've attached a picture from a Canonet QL-17 with apologies for the blown highlight on the statue's leg - that's my lousy scanning technique. This is by no means a perfect example of a 3-D effect but some of the elements are there - the lighting, contrast, and plane differentials, and the wide aperture.

 

[Seele]

OK; let me give it a shot:

If lens design has to be a factor it would probably be the bokeh characteristics, which needs to be neutral across the field. And of course selective focussing to allow for a natural-looking, and convincing depth-of-field is also necessary.

With colour materials, make the object you want to stand out in bright colours, such as red, orange and yellow, and the background more muted or colder in tone. I feel sure that many of us have experienced looking at a transparency through a loupe, or a simple magnifying viewer, and notice reds appear to be "lifted up" from the background.

Any more ideas?

 

[aizan]

shallow dof = 3d effect?

 

[Seele]

Aizen, not quite, even though it can give it a head start.

As mentioned before, neutral bokeh helps, but I have seen pictures with that effect which were done with great depth of field.

A factor would be print size and viewing distance; a combination which matches the human eye perspective also benefits as well.

And something that a lot of people would not want to hear, and I feel sure I will get tarred and feathered for it...

... the entire image workflow stays non-digital; worst case scenario would be to start with a first-generation digital image.

I'll let my learned and better-equipped fellow correspondents to test that one out! 😀

 

[ErnestoJL]

I found this 3D effect in several pictures taken by my father and myself during almost 40 years, but in no way I can trace that magic back to the lens, or camera/lens combination, rather I would think about a lot of different factors which together can bring it sometimes.
I would think in first place about lighting of the subject, then contrast between subject and background, DOF, composition / framing in that order. Another factor can be (as Seele posted) the print size and viewing distance, perhaps being it the most important after the shutter closure.

 

[Oldprof]

... 3D effect ... I would think about a lot of different factors which together can bring it sometimes ... lighting ... contrast ... DOF ... composition / framing ...

Very good post Ernesto! Talking about a presumed "3D effect" is less precise than talking about the more objective factors that may endow a photograph with certain qualities. Real 3D pictures are made with 3D cameras (two lenses).

 

[jdos2]

You can get anything you want at Alice's restaurant, except used Cameras. For those go to Ebay.

(Plays with the Noctilux on the Group 'W' bench, along with the pencils)

I've seen that 3D look out of my mother's Canon 50mm.

I believe it to be a good eye to detail while framing photographs. Certain lenses can enhance the effect a bit.

I've a few shots I'm proud of for the 3D effect. Some are from the Mamiya Universal and the wonderful 100mm f/2.8 lens, some from the Leica, because I've taken so many rolls with it, some from the Mamiya 7...

I think it's another way to describe a picture that "looks nice," without saying that. "Why do you like your Leicas?" "Because the pictures from them look nice." That doesn't as easily rationalize $5,000 worth of camera and lens (ahem: pre price-increase). There's a shot in the Dodd Photo Store (Pro-Shop) in Cleveland taken with a Holga- a landscape in black and white. The image seemingly has Real Depth.

 

[ErnestoJL]

The combination of camera/lens adds a lot to a picture, but AFAIK there is not such a definite combination that will allways bring the expected results. After several attempts to get this "3D" effect in the past, I found that (I think) the most important factor is lighting of the subject, together with a particular condition for DOF which brings the background sharp but not excessively so as to add some separation from the subject without isolating it so much. Of course the lighting and some extra contrast brought by the lens and/or printing, would help to get that magic. Dominant colour of the main subject will also help, specially if this is one of the colours where the human eye has its peak response.
I didn´t found this effect so easily in B&W as there is no colour to help the eye.

 

[RFFan]

I have been fascinated by the replies on this subject. I was half expecting Leicaphiles and Contax G fans to respond saying how great their lenses are in producing '3-D' images (I have no experience of either system myself).

Some of you point out the importance of lighting and selective focusing and no doubt these are factors. But there's also no doubt in my mind that some camera/lens combinations consistently achieve this effect almost irrespective of the conditions the picture was taken in. To quote someone else off the 'net (can't remember who it was so I can't credit them) 'sometimes the lens designers just get it right'.

Thanks to those who posted photos as examples of the '3-D' effect. I enjoyed vieiwing them. I've just put a colour print film in for processing from a camera that is supposed to achieve the '3-D' look (it shall remain nameless for the moment!). It'll probably disappoint but as it only cost 25 UK Pounds off the 'net I won't complain!