Zeiss 3D Effect?

C

Conner999

Member
Local time
9:24 AM
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
40
View My Gallery
Am in the process of shifting a lot of my shooting from DSLR to a soon-to-be-acquired M8. As result am in process of building a short list of starter lenses.

having had experience with Contax Zeiss (50,60 MP, 28mm) and Zeiss ZF lenses(35/2) on the 5D, etc., I had a question for Zeiss ZM users.

The aforementioned Zeiss lenses are reknowed for producing a 3D effect some attribute to the T* coatings and micro-contrast, some to how Zeiss handles bokeh.

Has anyone seen this in ZM glass?

Secondly, does anyone know where to find a review of the 85/2?

Thanks
 
Can't say I've noticed any 3D effect. Some wacky tobaky might help and then everything would be 3D.
But on the serious side, I've got the Biogon 28 f/2.8 and 35 f/2.0. The build quality is similar to the ZF, if not better. In terms of sharpness, their great lenses, but their bokeh cannot match the faster Leica's or CV's when shooting the same shot. (Zeiss doesn't have anything faster 🙁 )
The cost is just a fraction of the Leica and similar to the CV if you're comparing with the CV Nokton. But then again I'm comparing f/2 with f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses. 😱
Good Luck
Rob
 
Here's a shot of Lake Tahoe from a recent business trip. Shot with my M8 and CV 25P f/4.

2037259562_a6d8871b81_b.jpg
 
Conner999,
You will find the exact same 3d effect in the ZM line like in the ZF line. I shoot both, as well as the Hasselblad line. The Sonnars have a remarkable 3D effect, and you should definitely try the C Sonnar 50/1.5 if you don't know this lens yet, as well as you could dig up the HFT 40/2.8 Sonnar for the Rollei RF, which, I believe could be used with an adapter on the M8 - jsuominen has some nice shots made with this lens on his flickr. I do not have the Sonnar 85 yet, and I am not totally convinced I want to buy one, as I prefer to shoot these FL on an SLR.
Next, the Planar 50/2 is a very 3d lens, and also a tremendous value for money. Then we enter into a hot territory: the Biogons - I thought for a long time, my best lens was the SWC/M Biogon 38/4.5, this has changed when I bought the C Biogon 21/4.5, this lens is as good as the SWC, but obviously has a much bigger resolving power, and above all the fantastic ZM T* coatings - this is the second incredible value lens in the ZM line. It is as 3d as the SWC/M, and here is a shot, just to make you see what I mean:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1459260603&context=set-72157602063137880&size=l
The 35/2 Biogon is a better lens than the 35/2 Distagon ZF, and above all it is much smaller:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1042302856/in/set-72157602216165509/,
you will get enough 3d effect with it as well:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1362510410&size=l

Finally, the 25/2.8 Biogon, which is probably optically the most balanced lens of the whole line, is in my opinion a benchmark lens for all wide angles, for the incredible clarity of images produced in a very equilibrated manner in terms of flatness of field, lack of distorsion, smooth in and out of focus and 3d - here's an example I like a lot:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1544162482&size=l

The only Biogon FL I do not have is the 28, as I have chosen a more compact Leica lens for this fl, but I do not believe you could go wrong with that one either.

There has been some lengthy debate on fredmiranda forums about the 3d effect of various lenses, and the conclusions have been, it has to do with both the construction philosophy, number of optical elements (the fewer the better) and glass types. Overall, the verdict has been, the Zeiss glass is particularly 3d, but some other brands produce occasionally outstanding 3d lenses as well, especially in the LF photography.
 
Last edited:
baycrest said:
Can't say I've noticed any 3D effect. Some wacky tobaky might help and then everything would be 3D.
But on the serious side, I've got the Biogon 28 f/2.8 and 35 f/2.0. The build quality is similar to the ZF, if not better. In terms of sharpness, their great lenses, but their bokeh cannot match the faster Leica's or CV's when shooting the same shot. (Zeiss doesn't have anything faster 🙁 )
The cost is just a fraction of the Leica and similar to the CV if you're comparing with the CV Nokton. But then again I'm comparing f/2 with f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses. 😱
Good Luck
Rob
Click to expand...


🙄
 
I shot my Zeiss Planar 50 on an M8 about two months ago and yes, I think the 3D effect really transfered over, I was shocked as I never really see it with my 20D. Upon close inspection the zeiss lens handled the digital conversion well. I was not able to get the files that I shot (it was a passer by's m8 who noticed my zeiss and stopped to ask) but I did shoot some others on an RD1, I was quite impressed with those as well.

Like this one:
 

Attachments

  • rd1wy.jpg
    rd1wy.jpg
    146.1 KB · Views: 0
The Emporer's New Clothes

The Emporer's New Clothes

Is all in your heads.
Comments like, 'flatness, and no distortion (curvature of field?) are all oxymorons or antithesis to 3D effect.

There is no 3D effect. What you may be seeing is just an example of micro contrast. During the Renaissance painters toyed with the idea of atmospheric perspective, you know, purple mountain magisties and all that? Longer wave lengths are absorbed through atmosphere at a different rate than shorter ones.

Anyway, folks like Da Vinci, Rafael and later Rembrandt added atmospheric perpective to portraits and still lifes to increase 3D illusion. The Camera Oscura as a drawing aid was very popular then as well, so they were using this effect to highten what photographers call depth of field.

Check out the Mona Lisa's nose lips and eyes, very compressed atmosperic perspective is added to her face to give her a 3D illusion. Under her nose has sharp shadows, as does the middle of her lips. Later painters (like myself) added color to highten the illusion of 'compressed' atmosphere.

Zeiss lenses of the Sonar design are very good at micro contrast, but in general appear as very low contrast lenses in today's high contrast world. Low contrast lenses are being rediscovered (for me they never went away). A world of only high contrast lenses would be awful indeed.

The 3d effect can be created in other ways photographically. One way is to use very low contrast color negative film then 'compress' for maximum contrast by adjusting the curves in Photoshop color by color.

As the photo is being taken, use the old depth of field rule of focusing 1/3 in 2/3 out; this adds 'atmosphere' to the subject. If the subject is a full face portrait the rule would have the photographer focusing on the eyes only as they are one third the way to the subject's ears.

If a landcsape is presented that looks particularly 3D like, notice the color contrast from foreground to background. If by chance it lends itself to color atmospheric perspective, then it looks more 3D like.

Curvature of field can only add to a 3D effect as do exagerated lines of perspective provided by wide angle lenses.

There are better ways to 'tune' a photograph to have a more 3D appearance using optical aids, but I ain't saying anymore!
 
Dektol Dan,
All what you say is true to a certain extent, but the actual 3d efect happens in the way the boundaries of objects that are depicted are being drawn. Since you are so meticulous, try to enlarge the borders of objects shot with strongly 3d lenses and with other lenses. I've seen dozens of digital photos on fredmiranda, where this effect has been shown, it is a kind of an inversion of tonality. This can take place with a shallow or deep dof, which is a completely dfferent story.
 
I think I am with Dan here. It is not so much in your head as just an example of high sharpness at the point of focus and lack of focus at some other point in the image. This contrast of crisply focused and out of focus makes and image pop and look like it is more 3D. I see it more in medium format lenses than in 35mm for this reason. It's not really a Zeiss or Leica trait as much as it is a trait of good lenses used in a particular manner.

Here are two that, at least to my eyes, have that effect, and it is mostly about the sharpness on the subject and the blur of the backgrounds.

vik-trucks.jpg


sinclair-fedora2.jpg


The first is the Leica 35/1.4 ASPH, and the second a Rollei (zeiss) 150 sonnar.
 
My 35/2 Biogon definitely has the effect you're talking about. As one who has owned and sold the 40/1.4 Nokton, the latter does not even hold a flame to it....
 
Dektol Dan,

I think you're talking about something else.
When I see the term "3D" used to describe a lens quality or photo, it's not the real 3D as in three-dimensionality.

It's more of a "slang" for "pop" or "standing out" usually applied to a well captured subject against some distinct but not distracting background, and a smooth back-background as it were 🙂

Some lenses exhibit this characteristics more often (in various settings) than others.
 
There are many variables including distance from subject, angle of light source, separation of subject/background, relative contrast of subject/background, lens aperture, and lens aberrations among others. Way too many variables, and also many threads on this subject here.
 
i agree with Dan and Peter above. There are way too many variables.
And in my opinion it's maybe the LAST one in line, what lens you are using.
You definitely DO NOT need super special or expensive lenses to achieve it. Just a bit of experimenting - analyzing shots you think have 3D effect -, or tricks, or luck.
I can give you a few tips, some of them were mentioned above already.
-Use a wideish aperture but make sure the whole subject is in good focus and the whole background is smoothly out of focus. There should be no transition between the in-focus and out-of-focus regions. Very large apertures might not be the best choice, producing strange "bokeh" that distracts attention.
-The foreground, the subject that is in focus, should be brighter both in lightness and colours(if it has any), than the background .
-A wideish angle perspective might help. Remember, long lenses do have shallow DOF but they compress the depth of the image.
-You can also separate the subject from the background by having a different textured background:e.g. a very regular geometric pattern in the background and a curvy smooth subject in the front. In this case even if both are sharp in focus, the subject will "pop".

Probably there are many more.
 
While you may be able to coax any lens into the 3d/pop effect. I will say that the 35/2 biogon does it with ease wide open.
 
Conner999 said:
Great input, keep it coming. Very nice photos as well. The 35/2 ZF was a stellar performer.
Click to expand...

Conner99
It is a stellar performer and thank you for the great lens.

Marco
 

Attachments

  • f3t-71.jpg
    f3t-71.jpg
    168.9 KB · Views: 0
rich815 said:
My 35/2 Biogon definitely has the effect you're talking about. As one who has owned and sold the 40/1.4 Nokton, the latter does not even hold a flame to it....
Click to expand...

Rich, are you saying that the Nokton is not up to the same par as the Biogon?
Just curious really, as I too have owned both lenses (currently holding the Biogon for now).

Dave
 
dcsang said:
Rich, are you saying that the Nokton is not up to the same par as the Biogon?
Just curious really, as I too have owned both lenses (currently holding the Biogon for now).

Dave
Click to expand...


I don't really think that's a fair comparison, they're two completely different lenses.
I love the Biogon, and I've only briefly used the 40 Nokton. I prefer the Biogon but they're two very different lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom