I guess you're trying to wear us down, Phillip. You probably won't give up until we've all bought at least two Simera lenses.
It's possible to identify traits that seem to have been borrowed from the current US administration:
• Always act like an authority on the subject, no matter what you're talking about.
• Facts don't have to be true. It's enough that they are smashing and alternative.
• Don't answer questions. Avoid anything that could be considered follow-up.
You should know what an A/B comparison is.
EDIT: I'm sorry for mentioning politics. Perhaps it would have been better comparing with ads for dishwashing detergents.
Jonas B wrote:
I guess you're trying to wear us down, Phillip. You probably won't give up until we've all bought at least two Simera lenses.
It's possible to identify traits that seem to have been borrowed from the current US administration:
• Always act like an authority on the subject, no matter what you're talking about.
• Facts don't have to be true. It's enough that they are smashing and alternative.
• Don't answer questions. Avoid anything that could be considered follow-up.
You should know what an A/B comparison is.
EDIT: I'm sorry for mentioning politics. Perhaps it would have been better comparing with ads for dishwashing detergents....Show more →
I don't have anything against Simeras, or any other brand to be honest, but this constant derogatory tone against non-chinese lenses is having the opposite effect on the audience here I think...
Picture This! wrote:
Not a good comparison. As others have already called out lighting is very different. Some lenses paint warmer but the ZA is cooler than the simera ? Hmm... The photos also seem to be taken at very different time periods (there is a tree covering one of the buildings in the second photo that isn't on the first). As much as you'd like to claim the wide gamuts of reds and greens in the simera :-), nothing meaningful can be inferred from these photos unfortunately.
+1 that it's a "comp" that isn't a comp ... including diff focal length.
But, there is one nugget of interest that is buried in the comments about it. That's the number of ASPH elements being used in an optic.
Personally, I find it interesting the (historical) movement toward the use of a single ASPH, and then the use of multiple ASPH elements and now we have some optics that have almost as many ASPH elements as not in some lenses.
Then, a shifting away from such extensive use of ASPH elements began to emerge, with other formulations that were either absent of ASPH altogether, or reduced to a single (single / double sided), etc. Voigt's 75 Nokton and their Vintage series, moves in this direction a bit. The Thypoch's take a page to turn away from the extensive reliance on ASPH, also.
Personally, I have the VM 50/1.5 II Nokton for this reason. I had the VM 75, but the focus shift was more than I cared for without any ASPH at all. As it pertains to acuity / distortion across the frame, the use of ASPH vs. non-ASPH can be a quid pro quo thing, imo. Phillip's point about the color rendering ... I'm not quite sure how that plays into the ASPH / non-ASPH space, but I'll entertain the potential that it does have influence (tbd) on rendering. I do know that Leica has a keen eye to color, so the mention that Leica's use of ASPH might be degrading their color rendering has me a bit . Also, the newer XCD glass from Hassy (as noted for the color in the HNCS, etc.) is a bit ASPH heavy vs. their older XCD glass. So, is there an impact from significant use of ASPH vs. non-ASPH on color tonality ... I've not dug into that myself, but I'll entertain the question (presented as a statement buried in the "comp" text) for further consideration / understanding.
That said ... I'm with the others that the two images provided (as "comps") don't allow me to discern much of anything, taken at face value for what they show.
RustyBug wrote:
I'm not quite sure how that plays into the ASPH / non-ASPH space, but I'll entertain the potential that it does have influence (tbd) on rendering. I do know that Leica has a keen eye to color, so the mention that Leica's use of ASPH might be degrading their color rendering has me a bit . Also, the newer XCD glass from Hassy (as noted for the color in the HNCS, etc.) is a bit ASPH heavy vs. their older XCD glass. So, is there an impact from significant use of ASPH vs. non-ASPH on color tonality ... I've not dug into that myself, but I'll entertain the question (presented as a statement buried in the "comp" text) for further consideration / understanding. ...Show more →
I am no expert here. Wait....this is the Internet. I mean I am an expert. ASPH elements were introduced to solve among a few problems spherical aberrations. Fast lenses with more spherical aberrations will have an effect on color by making colors more pastel than vibrant. That is the best I can describe it. I have observed this phenomenon, but it perhaps best described or gone in depth here:
You may find this more pastel color palette pleasant. I personally do especially for portraits and people. With that said the more vibrant color of an ASPH lens is the better corrected color and more accurate.
When a thread in which partisans insiste resolutely that the tiniest differences in lens function produce monumental differences in… “pop,” posting “photographic evidence” in which the subjects are significantly different to begin with seems… special.
Rarely have I seen such striking examples of motivated thinking and confirmation bias.
philip_pj wrote:
The first is from Sony’s 55mm f1.8; the UV cast is left intact as it acts as a counterpoint to the near ridge content.
I call my 55mm the blue-green lens as these hue regions are always dominant in its landscape images. The second image, from the Simera 28mm, shows the first image’s scene, plus its extra angle of view material. Lifting WB a little in the Sony photo would bring the overall color balance closer, but it would not change the characteristics I want to point to here.
You could almost be forgiven for thinking the Sony image only has one green, with its variation affected only by differences in brightness. The lens has a reputation for its 3D rendering, but they do not flow from color handling. Moving from greens to reds, we see the same effect – there are differences but they are muted and difficult to perceive easily. So we have the two main colors by which we assess brightness doing a not very good job here, and real life is full of color nuance.
In the Simera image, Immediately obvious are the strikingly wide gamuts of greens and reds. You can clearly see old trees with different hues than their more recent trees nearby. Different species have very different color presentations. Reds (and near tones like red-oranges and crimsons) are very well presented, and roof panels facing different directions are distinct too. We are only looking at color here, but it’s easy to see the exact location and shapes of trees and roofs. In this facile comparison, we can appreciate that color is a dominant force in 3D, enlivening the scene with vigor, shape and information. ‘Sharpness’ is reduced to near-irrelevancy here, because once past a certain threshold, more is not better, or necessary.
You understand the Simera image more easily and fully, as it rapidly engages your vision. A similar deficiency is seen in many modern Leica lenses that, like the Sony 55mm, rely heavily on aspherical surfacing. The range of hues are compressed in a similar fashion in lenses like those fitted to the Q3 and Q3 43 cameras. Asphericals are here to stay – made of both glass and plastic – but they may need careful balancing in designs to deliver better depth. If that aspect is desirable and enters the picture at the design stage, so to speak. A massive proportion of M images are black and white; or feature consistent surfaces of one color; or are of streets. Leica is playing to its strengths there. ...Show more →
cbass wrote:
I am no expert here. Wait....this is the Internet. I mean I am an expert. ASPH elements were introduced to solve among a few problems spherical aberrations. Fast lenses with more spherical aberrations will have an effect on color by making colors more pastel than vibrant. That is the best I can describe it. I have observed this phenomenon, but it perhaps best described or gone in depth here:
You may find this more pastel color palette pleasant. I personally do especially for portraits and people. With that said the more vibrant color of an ASPH lens is the better corrected color and more accurate.
I'd say that's a reasonable way of describing it. When I look at the comps of Hassy's 1st gen XCD lenses vs. the newer, more ASPH laden glass, the comps pretty much follow suit of what you describe. Reminds me too, of my Alt days when Oly was described with a bit of an "egg tempora" vibe vs. some of the punchier rendering glass.
Maybe if the aperture was stopped down a bit. And in my opinion, for a three-dimensional, "poppy" look you also need a bit more scene content — not just drowning the main subject in a lot of blur.
Reminded me of something like the Voigtlander 40/1.2, not so much of bokeh, but the in focus subject...
That lens can create strong cut out look shooting full body portrait, but not so much close range. 🤔 j4nu wrote:
Ok, how about this one (it turned out quite high-key inadvertently - no processing ): https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54945974370_e7a2e8fa18_k.jpg
Not simera this time .
gammarART wrote:
Maybe if the aperture was stopped down a bit. And in my opinion, for a three-dimensional, "poppy" look you also need a bit more scene content — not just drowning the main subject in a lot of blur.
Yes, as we already known it's very personal .
For me there are at least two types of these kind of shots:
* ones with depth / dimensionality, where the scene consists of multiple layers, each visible, not necessarily one being the most prominent ("popping out"). These kind of shots don't need thin DoF / blur, but rely on strong composition and/or lightning.
* ones with cut-out object of the (3d) pop. These ones most often (if not always) require strong separation through blur, where bokeh and transition zones play an important role in how we perceive the scene as 3d. Too much and we get that cardboard / toy look, too little and there's no pop at all...
I focus on the latter, as these are the ones more likely to trigger my eyes/brain .
Well I did a quick little "test" Sunday of my various 50mm lenses. I really expected the Pentax to blow the others away. But in all honesty there just wasn't a lot of difference amongst them. Of course that should be expected since 50mm are usually some of the easiest to get right, at least that has always been my understanding.None gave me the "pop" I was expecting to see at least out of my usually pretty consistent Pentax. But....the test did show me that my Pentax has yellowed even more over the years, quite obvious in the RAW shots. It'll be going under a UV lamp for awhile to clear that up.
This quickie did emphasis how hard it would be to actually test all the lenses on the same subject. Even working quickly I had changing light making things an issue. Plus I was surprised at the difference in bokeh at similar apertures.
The setup was just all the lenses adapted on the Leica Sl. Tripod mounted and I did not move the tripod. The subject was the same bike I used a few pages back in that test of the Mamiya 645 200/2.8.
Manually focused using the zoom in feature of the EVF. Yet I still missed focus on one lens. The bright sunlight on the bike was giving me a weird glare of sorts in the EVF. I haven't noticed that before.
Lenses:
Leica R Leitz Wetzlar Summicron-R 50/2.0
Contax Yashica Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50/1.4
Pentax Asahi Opt Co., Japan SMC Takumar 50/1.4 - My favorite over the years
Minolta Auto Rokkor-PF 55/2.0-Missed focus
Minolta MD Rokkor-X 50/1.7
So anyway, my rambling ol' brain point is that even with a not so serious test I seemed to disprove my own belief that certain lenses are more prone to give the 3D pop. I've gotten so many out of the Pentax over the years. I really expected to see it with this simple test shot yet did not. I do wish I had taken the time to add in the Canon EF and Leica SL zoom that has a 50mm range.
'This quickie did emphasis how hard it would be to actually test all the lenses on the same subject.'
It's quite easy to do the testing with a little care (I mean if you care at all), but the best way is to shoot several lenses side by side, as I do for a large number of compositions (on trips).
Very few people post the results of their tests, which is interesting given that all have an opinion, often quite strongly expressed. Image analysis does require images, strange as that may seem.
So it's a new way of seeing, as much as anything else. Old habits are hard to change, alas! It's not a matter of belief either, unless the best people in the cine world are totally ignorant. I have many many quotes on the subject, if you need to see what the experts 'believe'.
The differences are easier to see in test scenarios when using quite different lenses, which we would expect. Many of the high end digital lenses are dreadful, and while the issue is long-standing, it's come into sharp focus just recently thanks to digital and other factors, such as people getting saturation coverage of poor 3D lenses.
If you compare several of them, all will render similarly; I suspect the same is true of tests including only film era double gauss 50mm optics.The industry prefers this outcome, and they are confident of success. It happens when there is no opposition to the cultural zeitgeist.
The thread has gone well, ranging around a lot of aspects, lots of personal voices, it's added to the foundation - for revision the next time it slides into obscurity.
Below is an excellent YouTube video explaining many of the key points involved in learning to see better what our lenses are doing.
Some of the serious people in Hollywood are changing their treatment of lens contrast based on each lens's spatial frequencies. They want to reduce the measure for high spatial frequencies to portray people more like people than rocky surfaces, while keeping the low frequencies intact. Cooke round off facial structures as a thing they do. ARRI mutes micro-contrast (and they are number one).
The hook for the video:
Which lens does best at 3D in an indoor setting: Viltrox 35/1.8; or LLL's 35/2; or Nikon 35/1.4G?
There is a lot of wisdom in it. 'The problem of quantifying "3D pop"'.
If you have only a few moments to devote to the topic, move the slider to time: 24:00 for all three in a side-by-side. My little cognitive 3D test when I see (see, not 'look at') images: to what extent does the image show how the person would look, if I saw them in person from two metres away?
The sharp eyed will also see how each lens changes the shape of the face and head. How many would believe that happens? (portraitists, hopefully.)
..
^
I'd say that for support for the favored preferences in the domain of cinema lenses, one really needs to look no further than the ideas and constructive practice of - Zeiss itself. (The "problem" is that the alternative visual approach has not found an echo in any series of Zeiss photographic lenses - maybe, here-Leica m-domain, partly with the exception of the 50mm Sonnar.)
Namely, it is precisely as a "deviation" towards similar aesthetic goals in conjuring up images that the Zeiss Supreme (and even more so the newer Supreme Radiance with the new T blue coating) series was created versus the traditional Zeiss Ultra and Master lines... so, that interested and knowledgeable in the issue can more easily consult the solutions of their more extensive documentation.
So, what Dzo actually tries mostly to mimic is, imo, Zeiss Supreme results.
From advertising: "The Zeiss Supreme Primes were developed after heavy consultation with cinematographers across the world. The vintage Zeiss "Super Speeds" have gained popularity with DP's in recent years, given their gentle roll off and sharpness wide open. With the Supreme Primes, Zeiss wanted to give cinematographers a lens series that offered a similar character, but for use in large format cinematography and with modern design reliability. The Supreme Primes have a pleasing roll off on the edge of the full frame, with a lower contrast than previous Zeiss lenses such as the Ultra and Master Primes series."
Or Rodrigo Prieto: "The light sources became a very important point of the story. And the lenses allowed me to utilize the characteristics of them for storytelling. I would describe the look of the Supreme Prime Radiance lenses as relatively soft but with sharpness. These lenses don't have an aggressive sharpness to them, they feel organic."
Finally, given the above examples - those concerning shades of green in vegetation - I would venture to recommend one of, imho, extremely visually gorgeous recent examples of a film shot with Zeiss Supreme lenses - The Eight Mountains:
"ZEISS Supreme Primes are specifically designed to produce an aesthetic, smooth focus fall-off that results in a gentle, non-abrupt background blur (bokeh).
- Key Features Related to Background Blur
Aesthetic Focus Fall-Off: A defining characteristic of the Supreme Primes is the very smooth transition between in-focus and out-of-focus areas. This gentle roll-off adds depth to the image and avoids the harsh, abrupt blur associated with some other lenses.
- Elegant Bokeh: The out-of-focus background (bokeh) is described as "elegant" and "rounded". This is achieved through a high number of aperture blades: 16 blades for most focal lengths (15mm-100mm) and 18 for the longer ones (135mm-200mm), ensuring a nearly perfectly round aperture shape.
- Gentle Sharpness: While the lenses are very sharp in focus, they have a "gentle sharpness" or "organic look" compared to the more "aggressive" or clinically sharp look of previous ZEISS lenses like the Master Primes. This balance contributes to pleasing skin tones and a smooth image character."
jamesdak wrote:
Well I did a quick little "test" Sunday of my various 50mm lenses. I really expected the Pentax to blow the others away. But in all honesty there just wasn't a lot of difference amongst them. Of course that should be expected since 50mm are usually some of the easiest to get right, at least that has always been my understanding.None gave me the "pop" I was expecting to see at least out of my usually pretty consistent Pentax. But....the test did show me that my Pentax has yellowed even more over the years, quite obvious in the RAW shots. It'll be going under a UV lamp for awhile to clear that up.
This quickie did emphasis how hard it would be to actually test all the lenses on the same subject. Even working quickly I had changing light making things an issue. Plus I was surprised at the difference in bokeh at similar apertures.
The setup was just all the lenses adapted on the Leica Sl. Tripod mounted and I did not move the tripod. The subject was the same bike I used a few pages back in that test of the Mamiya 645 200/2.8.
Manually focused using the zoom in feature of the EVF. Yet I still missed focus on one lens. The bright sunlight on the bike was giving me a weird glare of sorts in the EVF. I haven't noticed that before.
Lenses:
Leica R Leitz Wetzlar Summicron-R 50/2.0
Contax Yashica Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50/1.4
Pentax Asahi Opt Co., Japan SMC Takumar 50/1.4 - My favorite over the years
Minolta Auto Rokkor-PF 55/2.0-Missed focus
Minolta MD Rokkor-X 50/1.7
So anyway, my rambling ol' brain point is that even with a not so serious test I seemed to disprove my own belief that certain lenses are more prone to give the 3D pop. I've gotten so many out of the Pentax over the years. I really expected to see it with this simple test shot yet did not. I do wish I had taken the time to add in the Canon EF and Leica SL zoom that has a 50mm range.
I'm curious how similar / dissimilar the optical designs are of these lenses.
I remember my C/Y 50/1.4 Planar ... it was not a "producer" for me, the way some of my other glass was. I'd never give it consideration as a "go to" for me. I appreciate the candor of your surprise, but if their optical designs aren't substantially different (rear element, use of ASPH single / multilple, Sonnar, Planar, etc.) ... I wouldn't expect substantially different outputs. Although, they are of differing brands, how different / similar are the optical designs ... compared to one another, but also compared to some of the more popular "producers".
Not sure I recall seeing these lenses show up on very many folks "fav's" radar (wrt to this topic).
RustyBug wrote:
I'm curious how similar / dissimilar the optical designs are of these lenses.
I remember my C/Y 50/1.4 Planar ... it was not a "producer" for me, the way some of my other glass was. I'd never give it consideration as a "go to" for me. I appreciate the candor of your surprise, but if their optical designs aren't substantially different (rear element, use of ASPH single / multilple, Sonnar, Planar, etc.) ... I wouldn't expect substantially different outputs. Although, they are of differing brands, how different / similar are the optical designs ... compared to one another, but also compared to some of the more popular "producers".
Not sure I recall seeing these lenses show up on very many folks "fav's" radar (wrt to this topic). ...Show more →
Yeah for me when I shot just a 50mm I always seemed to grab the Pentax. It just gave me the best look all the time. In fact, as I went through my past couple of decades of work recently I found quite a few shots with the Pentax that stood out. I can't remember any from the Leica or the C/Y. The Minolta's would have been used a way long time ago. I actually had even forgot I had those camera's and lenses. My two favs from the C/Y ones have been mentioned a lot over the years in this thread. The 100/2.0 and 85/2.8 have been 3D pop producing stars over the years.
Here's another old shot from the Pentax SMC 50/1.4 with pop to it when printed. When selling printed work years ago this was a frequent seller. The one tree in the foreground pops out of the printed image and it feels like you can wrap you hand around it. The side lighting probably helps too as I always printed it with a nice warm glow coming from the left.
. Also, the newer XCD glass from Hassy (as noted for the color in the HNCS, etc.) is a bit ASPH heavy vs. their older XCD glass. So, is there an impact from significant use of ASPH vs. non-ASPH on color tonality ... I've not dug into that myself, but I'll entertain the question (presented as a statement buried in the "comp" text) for further consideration / understanding.
):
.
.