cmogi10
Bodhisattva
Here's a biogon shot
S
StuartR
Guest
Trius said:
It helps to know how to achieve the effect, that way you can make the viewer perceive it!
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
cmogi10 said:
Hey.. I'm only asking the question based on Rich's comment
I got rid of the Nokton because I just couldn't get my head around it on anything other than a CL or R3A/M - and I've owned the lens twice .. I'm not stating it's "bad" but it's just not for me..
Dave
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
The comment wasn't arguing with you don't worry, just the easier one to quote.
I'd rather get a 50 lux the a Nokton, so no nokton for me.
I'd rather get a 50 lux the a Nokton, so no nokton for me.
Conner999
Member
3d
3d
Millanos - Hi! Didn't know you were a member here. You're welcome. Liked it so much am thinking of getting it in ZM mount.
As for the effect - it is real. Naturally it's in our heads, otherwise it wouldn't be labeled an 'effect' and Zeiss units would come shipped with funny cardboard glasses.
I was just curious if the ZM units still exhibited it. How it happens is irrelevant, but an interesting debate. The Zeiss '3D Effect' is a much (and long) discussed issue on many forums, especialy the alt forum on FM. Some like it, some don't.
The effect itself is simply the very realistic (as in binocular vision) manner in which some Zeiss lenses separate the main subject from the background of the image. My first experience with it was a quick shot with my 1Ds2 and a CZ 50/1.7MM
Most attribute to the effect on contrast of the T* coatings. Maybe it's German Pixie dust. Who knows. As for Zeiss glass being low-contrast, that would be a first in my experience.
Nice shots folks.
3d
Millanos - Hi! Didn't know you were a member here. You're welcome. Liked it so much am thinking of getting it in ZM mount.
As for the effect - it is real. Naturally it's in our heads, otherwise it wouldn't be labeled an 'effect' and Zeiss units would come shipped with funny cardboard glasses.
I was just curious if the ZM units still exhibited it. How it happens is irrelevant, but an interesting debate. The Zeiss '3D Effect' is a much (and long) discussed issue on many forums, especialy the alt forum on FM. Some like it, some don't.
The effect itself is simply the very realistic (as in binocular vision) manner in which some Zeiss lenses separate the main subject from the background of the image. My first experience with it was a quick shot with my 1Ds2 and a CZ 50/1.7MM
Most attribute to the effect on contrast of the T* coatings. Maybe it's German Pixie dust. Who knows. As for Zeiss glass being low-contrast, that would be a first in my experience.
Nice shots folks.
R
rich815
Guest
Pherdinand said:
True enough. But some from some lenses it just seems to come more often or easier than others. I'd put the 35/2 Biogon in that category----and from only shooting about 6-7 rolls thru it so far...
Conner999
Member
Read MY posts again. I am not talking about "mothra vs. godzilla" 3D, but the ability for most Zeiss glass, with how it treats contrast, to seperate the primary subject from the background - creating a well-known and long-attributed to Zeiss so-called 3D effect with the primary subject. Can it be accomlished with other glass? Yup.
You ask a simple question and the next thing you know you're into page two of a debate. A question, btw, that had zippo to do with whether the well-known effect existed, what caused it, or if Zeiss/Leica/Nikon/CV/Canon etc made the best glass in the known universe.
Personally, my question was answered many posts ago (thanks) .
For those who want carry on the academic debate and endless cycle of post misinterpretations and frustrated clarifications - feel free.
You ask a simple question and the next thing you know you're into page two of a debate. A question, btw, that had zippo to do with whether the well-known effect existed, what caused it, or if Zeiss/Leica/Nikon/CV/Canon etc made the best glass in the known universe.
Personally, my question was answered many posts ago (thanks) .
For those who want carry on the academic debate and endless cycle of post misinterpretations and frustrated clarifications - feel free.
Last edited:
gdi
Veteran
Ok,Ok
I moved my previous post to the 3rd Dimension!
I moved my previous post to the 3rd Dimension!
PrisonersDilema
Established
Zeiss vs Canon glass
Zeiss vs Canon glass
Comparisons between Zeiss and Canon lenses...disregarding focal length. I thin the 3D pop is really a focal length thing.
Epson RD1s with Zeiss C Sonnar 50 f1.5 at f2. 3D??
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1149/996780829_fc00a89fdf_b.jpg
EOS 5D with 24-70 f2.8 L lens. No "pop"? Not 3D enough??
EOs 1Dmk2 with 85 f1.2L
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/46/128027290_fc216c9833_b.jpg
Zeiss vs Canon glass
Comparisons between Zeiss and Canon lenses...disregarding focal length. I thin the 3D pop is really a focal length thing.
Epson RD1s with Zeiss C Sonnar 50 f1.5 at f2. 3D??
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1149/996780829_fc00a89fdf_b.jpg
EOS 5D with 24-70 f2.8 L lens. No "pop"? Not 3D enough??
EOs 1Dmk2 with 85 f1.2L
Last edited:
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
wassup, Conner? you can't bear with a discussion that does not go your way??
Sounds like you are just out of the army, or such.
Take it easy, sir!
Sounds like you are just out of the army, or such.
Take it easy, sir!
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
You dramatically seem to have changed your mind after one single day and a few more posts.Conner999 said:
Dektol Dan
Well-known
A Little Clarification
A Little Clarification
There are low contrast lenses with excellent micro contrast. A good Summitar or a Biogon (I own both) have this characteristic. As the image decays through depth of field, a broader tonality of the image is drawn in greater detail than with a high contrast lens. This is the '3D effect'. I guess you could call this 'mid range bokeh'.
As always a 'compared to what' is in order. A 35mm ASPH Summicron is a modern high contrast lens, a Zeiss Biogon is a modern low contrast lens.
I am constantly preaching the praises of Kodak Porta film. NC is very low contrast film in density although its depth is as goods any other major brand color negative film.
No color negative film can approach the density of slide film, hence the battle with noise generated in areas of darker tones when scanning and with the use of high contrast lenses and films. However, if one pairs a lens with excellent micro contrast characteristics (usually a low contrast lens) with a low contrast film there is almost no noise at all. As scanned, the image is very washed out, but corrected in the computer a very dense, noiseless, reasonably saturated image can be made by using compression techniques.
This is a tad bit involved for discussion here. The most important thing to remember is that low contrast lenses with superior micro contrast and lower contrast film gives the greatest amount of information to play with.
The goal is not to give a 3d effect, but with right image that is just a bonus.
Disadvatages? I know of no algorithm for batch recreation of this technique. One has to slug out the process one image at a time.
A Little Clarification
There are low contrast lenses with excellent micro contrast. A good Summitar or a Biogon (I own both) have this characteristic. As the image decays through depth of field, a broader tonality of the image is drawn in greater detail than with a high contrast lens. This is the '3D effect'. I guess you could call this 'mid range bokeh'.
As always a 'compared to what' is in order. A 35mm ASPH Summicron is a modern high contrast lens, a Zeiss Biogon is a modern low contrast lens.
I am constantly preaching the praises of Kodak Porta film. NC is very low contrast film in density although its depth is as goods any other major brand color negative film.
No color negative film can approach the density of slide film, hence the battle with noise generated in areas of darker tones when scanning and with the use of high contrast lenses and films. However, if one pairs a lens with excellent micro contrast characteristics (usually a low contrast lens) with a low contrast film there is almost no noise at all. As scanned, the image is very washed out, but corrected in the computer a very dense, noiseless, reasonably saturated image can be made by using compression techniques.
This is a tad bit involved for discussion here. The most important thing to remember is that low contrast lenses with superior micro contrast and lower contrast film gives the greatest amount of information to play with.
The goal is not to give a 3d effect, but with right image that is just a bonus.
Disadvatages? I know of no algorithm for batch recreation of this technique. One has to slug out the process one image at a time.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
rich815 said:
I agree, obviously Leitz lenses (even the "lowly" Elmar-M) also exhibit this characteristic wth ease. Although I have to agree with Pherdinand also that sometimes a "cheap" lens surprises me with the result, for instance the AR mount Konica Hexanon 50/1.4 and the CZJ Biotar 58/2.
Olsen
Well-known
Conner999 said:
Several here don't seem to know what you are talking about, but a '3D effect' is indeed a good way to describe the properties of Zeiss Lenses (from Hasselblad, Contax to Leica M). I use the same description. Although several of the Leica lenses have the same effect. Even Voigtländer offers excellent glas for the M-system. - Which is typical for the M-rangefinder system. Here you can choose between some very good glas. One of the best test sites for M-lenses are: http://www.reidreviews.com/reidreviews/ and.. Erwin Puts is a name you should look for on the Net. His excellent Leica site seems to be down or on the move.
I have two Zeiss lenses for the M-system; ZM 25 mm 2,8 and the ZM 50 mm 2,0. Of these I would strongly reccommend the 25 mm - since it is smart to go for anything wide on the M8 which has a crop factor of 1,33. The ZM 25 mm is the 135-sytem equaliant to the Hasselblad SWC - probably one of the world's best cameras. It draws practically streight lines and with a resolution and micro contrast , and thus this 3D effect, equal to very few lenses on the market. - If any.
mfogiel
Veteran
Dektol Dan,
What you say is true, but also the inverse can be true. I particularly like the combination of the C Sonnar with chromogenic films, as they seem to enhance that lense's characteristics:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1809723689&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1019892254&size=l
On the other hand, the SWC/M shots made with Delta 100 exhibit incredible contrast, but still are very 3d in rendering and the same can be said of the Planar 50/2 ZF for example, so although the 3d is in a way enhanced by this soft yet high resolution image, it can be seen to a great extent even in the digital high contrast shots.
What you say is true, but also the inverse can be true. I particularly like the combination of the C Sonnar with chromogenic films, as they seem to enhance that lense's characteristics:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1809723689&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1019892254&size=l
On the other hand, the SWC/M shots made with Delta 100 exhibit incredible contrast, but still are very 3d in rendering and the same can be said of the Planar 50/2 ZF for example, so although the 3d is in a way enhanced by this soft yet high resolution image, it can be seen to a great extent even in the digital high contrast shots.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
If you really want a "3D" effect, get a Stereo Realist.
Olsen
Well-known
OT: Some excelent photos from Singapore on your Flickr, Northernlight (wonder if you have ever seen northern light - aurora borealis. Where i live it is common every automn and early winter..) Frank Sinatra lost his heart in San Fransisco. I didn't. I lost mine in Singapore. A pearl of a city.