Lenses that give that 3-D look

[nigel_pollitt]

First of all let me say ‘thank you’ to all users of this website. I have found this an invaluable source of information

over recent years. As this is my first post I thought I’d kick off a discussion on the much sought after ‘3-D’ look i.e.

which lenses tend to produce this. I’m not talking about the 3-D effect achieved through selective focusing but rather

where even a photo in which everything is in focus still appears to have depth.

 

As Leica and Zeiss users often champion their lenses as being special in rendering 3-D looking photos I thought it

would be interesting to consider how our lenses compare. Like many photographers, I would put this quality top of

my desirable features in a lens. Amongst my own modest collection of Canon / Canon-fit lenses I would nominate

the following as being capable of rendering a 3-D look:

 

FDn 35mm (F2 / F2.8), SC 28mm F2.8, FDn 50 1.4, Vivitar Series 1 28 – 105mm F2.8, Sigma 24mm F2.8.

 

As regards the Sigma, I also have the FDn 24mm 2.8 but whilst this lens may be a fraction sharper I find the images

it produces somewhat flat compared to the Sigma.

 

I would be interested to hear back from other Canon users which lenses amongst their collection they find lend

themselves to producing that 3-D look.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

[ivan_iskra]

My FD 200mm f4 and FD 100mm f4 seem to have a special look Lighting, subject matter and exposure are important. Regards. aka John Wire

[SCL]

Although in almost 50 years of using Leica gear I've never seen nor achieved what some refer to as "Leica glow", in my FD gear, in keeping with your description, I would say three of my FD lenses stand out - 100mm/f2.0, 135mm/f2.0 and the "lowly" 50mm/f3.5 macro. I think, like the poster above....the real answer lies in lighting and exposure...and a reasonably decent lens.

[tsuacctnt]

28mm f 2.8. I think the wider angles help to produce that layered you can walk into the picture look.

[Lou_Meluso]

Chrome-nose, Pre SCC 35mm f2, 100mm f2, 50mm f3.5 macro. The ability of these Canon FD lenses to render micro texture is amazing. I think the balanced combination of lens contrast,resolution and optimal aperture, is the key to the "3-D" effect. The effect appears enhanced by textural lighting. The Zeiss primes for my Contax G1 system seem to exhibit this 3-D quality as well.

[douglas_vitello]

Sunny day,Tiffen polarizer,Elitechrome 100,Canon FDn 20mm 2.8,24mm 2.8,28mm 2.8.The images are surrealistic.

[dirk_dom1]

Do you mean by 3D look an image like this? Then you need a wide angle. This shot was taken with a Canon FD 17mm F4<div></div>

[vfg]

Louis Meluso has it right. The old 35 f2 is one of the sharpest pieces of glass ever, perfect for B&W, not so good for color with its thorium color shift. Of course if your budget allows there are many high end glass manufactures, some of which might even be better than some of the Canon glass, maybe, then again it may depend on who is using it.

[mesullivan]

I would say the 135mm and the 35mm f/2 give a certain look I really like that would resemble what you care talking about.<div></div>

[nigel_pollitt]

Thanks for all the responses on this subject. As regards the photo posted by Dirk using the 17mm lens that 3D look was achieved by selective focusing. I was referring to the inherent quality of a lens that tends to render images with depth. There are many terms (tonality, plasticity, tonal gradation etc) that are used to describe this quality but I believe that the correct technical term is micro-contrast i.e. the ability of a lens to distinguish increasingly fine differences in colour / tone. A lens with high micro-contrast tends to produce more 3D looking images.

 

I believe that both the FDn 35mms (F2 and F2.8) are two of the best lenses in terms of micro-contrast. In fact I believe they are two of the sharpest lenses ever made by Canon – to use an old cliché they are both capable of producing ‘bitingly sharp’ images. The FDn 35 F2.8 has to be THE ‘bargain’ lens on the second-hand market (along with the SC 28mm).

 

Thank you to Micheal Sullivan for posting a photo with what I assume are autumnal colours. It makes me feel even more guilty that, for about the third year running, I have failed to get out with my camera while our trees here in the UK were showing their finest autumnal colours!

[mesullivan]

I thought the pic I posted was a good example of the look at used not only the lens but the light (as someone else mentioned) to give that look. Notice the leaves on the road between the camera and the colored tree, and the canon and stone monument on the left. The photo "as depth" and layers as some would say.

[Lou_Meluso]

Here is an example of the CN Pre-SCC 35mm f/2. The textural lighting adds to the effect. It becomes quite noticable in a print.<div></div>

[Lou_Meluso]

Getting that 3-D effect on your subject AND using out of focus bkgs as a foil, creates a powerful sense of depth. Here is a Canon nFD 100mm f/2 @ f/5.6. Solid tripods and MLU on an Original F-1 body help get solid shots. I've had people run their hand over prints trying to feel it.<div></div>

[nigel_pollitt]

As some of you have been kind enough to post sample photos I thought I'd so the same. The attached photo (if successfully uploaded - my first attempt at this process!) illustrates the 3D look albeit mainly due to selective focusing. It should at least demonstrate the fine quality of the FDn 35mm F2.8 lens. Exposure was at F4 (or possibly F5.6) on Fuji 200 print film.

[JDMvW]

I think that what you are probably getting at is achieved with high-contrast lenses.

 

However, I just have to point out that there are a lot of us who like 3-D as achieved with stereo attachments, stereo cameras, etc. Googling™ will get you many sites, here's just one http://www.3dphoto.net/

[GerrySiegel]

Now you can even set up a stereo 3-D system with a twin camera bar and a couple A-1's with 50mm 1.4 lenses.

The bar I have is made by Jasper Engineering company and is not pricey:

 

http://www.stereoscopy.com/jasper/heavyduty-bar.html

 

Now you will get real 3-D effect not ersatz 3-D. I know it sounds newfangled but it stems from the earliest days of photography.<div></div>

[GerrySiegel]

FD 85mm 1.2 L is super sharp if that is what you are after. But I suggest modeling and light are very important

to the illusion of depth in a flat picture which is achieved by perspective, aerial haze, selective focusing,

contrast in color and a few other techniques known to artists in paint too.

All technique items. No golden FD nuggets,sorry, to suggest and I have tried a bunch of FDs that are mentioned

above, but let us keep up the search.

The legend continues....(.the prices are a steal...collect them while you can)

[GerrySiegel]

...Thorium, you did say thorium, ...I want nothing in its early decay cycle in my hobby shop...yes I heard of that yellow bugger...gs

[Lou_Meluso]

Right about the contrast of those lenses being high, JDM. Especially the 35mm f/2. One thing I notice is I don't get the 3-D effect all the time by just using the lens although results are plenty sharp and contrasty. For me, it seems a number of elements join beyond the optic, by design or happenstance. Point of view, framing, quality and direction of the light, depth clues like overlapping compositional elements, subject texture, film type, and good basic camera technique all contribute. Sometimes, when it all comes together, having a well-shielded, sharp, contrasty lens, is a critical link in that chain. The Canon CN 35mm f/2, nFD 50mm f3.5 Macro and nFD 100mm f/2 are my sharpest FD lenses. However, I suggest that the 3-D effect does not live by glass alone.

[nigel_pollitt]

I agree with comments that technique and lighting contribute to achieving the 3D look as well as selective focusing. That said there are definitely some lenses which simply don't have the inherent optical quality to achieve the look in a picture where everything is in focus. One lens that I find is 'hit and miss' as regards this look is the FDn 50mm 1.4. This may be partly because my 'standard' lens is the FDn 35mm F2 so I'm much less experienced with the '50. Anyway, here's my second (and last) attempt to upload a sample photo (FD 35mm F2,8 @ F4 / F5.6).<div></div>

[andy_game]

following this thread with interest. Louis, that Egyptian bust is one hell of a nice shot, and does have a 3D look to me. Smooth and sharp, and the lighting enhances the 3D effect too.

[GerrySiegel]

One small thing about FD lenses that bugged me is the eventual failure (at least in this h ereclimate) of the

little nylon

"springs" that hold the lens hoods onto the bayonet grooves on the throat of the lens. This is discouraging because

hoods add contrast to any lens by reducing stray light that bounces around the most blackened and baffled

lens.... I have tried a number of fixes- none great approaches, 1) screw on rubber hoods- never quite right, and

crack. 2) a bellows

type hood- too bulky and 3) buying new used hoods -which suffer same failure and slip off,- and finally 4)

settled on wrapping the grooved hood with

teflon plumbers' tape and leaving the hood

on,i.e. permanently attached! (Except for my very nice IF 200mm F2,8 which has a built in hood. ) That latter is

solid and I mean solid...

 

I may be talking down to some

of you, apologies offered,but it may ring a bell with others. I have bought most of my FD lenses used and they

are second to none

in quality even from early Pop Photo tests ,when they did tests regularly.

 

I guess this is a response to your comment Nigel, in a sense. I believe the 50/1.4 is one great classic optic(

wll at least one stop down )anyway

neglecting

samples which by now may have haze or some fungal growth) And my early upside down numeral macro 50mm

3.5 and 28mm f 2.8 are both superb...in my opinion anyway. I even like the 35-105mm zoom which was at one time

demeaned

as too consumerish and too much distortion.

With the 28mm one needs the lens hood even more and even then, a hat to block sun is not amiss in some

situations. i wish

you all the best ahead and keep up the forum. One day I may go back and have the A-1 mirror squek removed and get it

in action!. A great system I joined from my first

FTb a long time ago...a black model no less. I sold it after I bought an original F-1 and M

F motor and Speed Finder. I miss that black beauty now. aloha, gerry

[GerrySiegel]

I forgot the compact and sharp 100mm f 2.8 which is another gem in a focal length I used a lot. gs (boy Canon churned out a lot of these FD lenses and most are swell.)

[astral]

"One small thing about FD lenses that bugged me is the eventual failure (at least in this her eclimate) of the little nylon "springs" that hold the lens hoods onto the bayonet grooves on the throat of the lens!"

 

Gerry - I have just bought a 32mm f2 of pre-SC vintage and the hood's nylon locks have turned to wax. I have solved this by picking out the goo and replacing it with small pieces of (real) leather, approximately 3mm square, cut from an old bookmark. They slid into place easily - no glue needed. I'm sure that this isn't a permanent solution, but it's such an easy fix that I'll be happy to repeat it every few months.

 

As this lens is new to me I cannot vouch for its imaging characteristics.

[nigel_pollitt]

Gerry,

 

Although it's going slightly off-topic I'm somewhat intrigued by your comments regarding using lens hoods. I very rarely use a lens hood myself and I invariably don't suffer any significant flare issues. I've always considered FD lenses, or at least the later ones with their advanced coating, to be quite flare-resistant. That said, I guess I don't tend to shoot in the same conditions as you have in Honolulu! It suddenly feels a LOT colder here in UK.