Best 35MM lens for 3d look?

ziggy7 · Aug 13, 2011

I am addicted to the 3D look I get with the Jupiter 3 50MM 1.5 lens on my Canon P. What 35MM lenses have that 3D property?

tjaded · Aug 13, 2011

Not what you are hoping for, but this should do the trick...

http://cgi.ebay.com/VintageKodak-St...196?pt=US_Vintage_Cameras&hash=item43a90e630c

ziggy7 · Aug 13, 2011

No, I don't want a 3D camera, just a 35MM lens for the Canon P that produces that nice 3D effect like the Jupiter 3 does.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Aug 13, 2011

You have an excellent lens and you are happy with it , if you have money around 200 or more , buy an old Leitz Wetzlar lens. They are all excellent and dont listen peoples words about old lenses. They didnt use them or not capable to understand them.

brucemuir · Aug 13, 2011

SLR or rangefinder?
I think one of the better for slr is the newish Zeiss 35 f/2 in ZF or other mounts.
The Z* series 50 1.4 Planar is supposed to exhibit this at medium distances although it's not as sharp at closer distances as the f/2 macro planar.

A lot of things play into it, light of course, distance etc.

Brian Legge · Aug 13, 2011

Why not a Jupiter 3 if you like that look?

ziggy7 · Aug 13, 2011

I have the Jupiter 3, but I'd like to have a 35MM lens for wider shots. Has anyone here used the Jupiter 12?

darkosaric · Aug 13, 2011

Hi,

I was wondering about same issue - take a look in this old thread:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Basically after reading other people advices and meditating a lot , I know: it is more about lightning than about lens.

regards,

Brian Legge · Aug 13, 2011

Ah, okay, I misunderstood what you meant initially by 35mm.

Have you looked around on flickr at example shots from different lenses? I'm not sure what affordable options have a similar look.

I may be off here, but I feel like people often refer to shots taken with a wider than usual aperture as 'more 3d'. If so, perhaps a 35mm 2.0 or faster lens?

Nicholas Lindan · Aug 13, 2011

If by '3D look' you mean the shallow depth of field possible with a 50mm/f1.5 then you will be disappointed by any 35mm focal length lens. Even a 35mm/f1.4 lens will give backgrounds that look quite in-focus.

Some older lenses with lots of uncorrected spherical aberration were said to give a '3D look'. If this is what you are looking for then I would try for the oldest lenses you can find. There is quite a craze for high SA lenses in large format photography, but these all tend to be long focus.

brucemuir · Aug 13, 2011

brucemuir said:
SLR or rangefinder?
I think one of the better for slr is the newish Zeiss 35 f/2 in ZF or other mounts.
The Z* series 50 1.4 Planar is supposed to exhibit this at medium distances although it's not as sharp at closer distances as the f/2 macro planar.

A lot of things play into it, light of course, distance etc.

sorry didn't notice this was the rangefinder forum

georg16nik · Aug 13, 2011

Jupiter 12 is very sharp lens, even wide open, especially a good sample of the black paint ones, from the 70's and upwards.
However, old Jupiter 12 from the late 50's could match the vintage vibe better.
As Nicholas Lindan wrote already, there is no lens @ 35mm focal length that will even come close to the signature of Jupiter 3.
Every focal length has its specific signature and there are brands that add or extract certain properties.. the Leitz Elmars from its 35mm to 135mm is a very good example - besides the differences, they have something common pretty much the same optical formula, they are very sharp and with sufficient contrast, even the uncoated ones. The Zeiss Sonnars are a good examples for other brand specific qualities.
The early Jupiter 3, in fact, were using original Zeiss parts brought from Jena by the russians - hence they are very very desired and hard to find.
A lot of countries from the WWll "wining" ally got their hands onto Zeiss, Leitz and lots of other top brands data and tools around the war time, so thats how You have canons, nikons and other new comers that initially copied Zeiss and Leitz.
1st nikons are pretty much Zeiss identical
1st canons are pretty much Leica copies
Things haven't changed enormously, since, they are slightly improved but since more and more people are wearing glasses these days.. its gets really hard to say if the new lenses are better or the old ones
If You like the Jupiter 3, then You might check into some of the Zeiss stuff or copies but, then again, everything under 50mm is going to have a different character, DOF etc, etc.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Aug 13, 2011

I want to add Georgs notes. Nikon copied 50 mm Elmar, because there was no Leitz patent in Japan and 9 million unit sold. Its difficult to know whos hand in whos pocket.
And for SLRs , 58 mm Helios Zenit lens is a Biogon copy and daylight pictures are amazing.
Short , If you happy with your lens , contuniue to use it until you collect enough money for Leica.
We have a word here , dont change the horse , when you are crossing a river.
Sometimes , the problem is photographer , not the lens , when someone complaining not able to compose with 50mm. Some photographers create large format like pictures with 50 mm.
If you need Zeiss , look Kiev 60 and a east German Soviet Zeiss Jena. Changing format makes you happy and total cost will be similar

rulnacco · Aug 13, 2011

A good (relative) bargain amongst the Leica lenses is the 35 Summaron. They came in two versions, F2.8 and F3.5. The 3.5 version in screwmount is often fairly cheap for a lens from Leitz.

I've got the 2.8 version--with goggles, for my M3--and it's extraordinarily sharp. I haven't really shot it much wide-open, as I generally like more extensive depth of field, but I'd say it would come close to giving a 3D look used that way. Of course, as others have pointed out, a fast 50 will give even more of that sort of thing owing to the shallower depth of field of the longer lens and the wider aperture.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Aug 13, 2011

Summaron , one amazing lens. If you look 25000 dollar Leica S2 , one or two lens is still a Summaron design. Old ones will satisfy all your needs and more. I have 1957 Popular Photography Annal and light spreads on the subject like a dream , if you know Leica , You would know what I do mean. And its extremelly 3D.

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 13, 2011

Voigtländer Vitessa-L with the 50/2.0 Ultron.

BradS · Aug 13, 2011

...scratching my head...trying to figure out what meant by "that 3D look"...????:confused:

matthewm · Aug 14, 2011

Someone mentioned that a 35mm lens would give you in focus backgrounds, even at f/1.4. I shot this at f/2 on a 35 f/1.4L and the background is nicely blurred, I think. And there's plenty of separation between subject and background:

ziggy7 · Aug 14, 2011

Reply to BradS

BradS said:
...scratching my head...trying to figure out what meant by "that 3D look"...????:confused:

Most photos are simply flat, as you would expect them to be. But with the Jupiter 3 I often get photos with some apparent depth to them. It is certainly not as pronounced as stereo photos, but stlll noticable. If you search Flickr for Jupiter 3, as you brouse the photos you will see some examples of the 3D effect. Here is one I noticed right away: flickr.com/photos/blazejs/3382732112/

I think it is a combination of the creamy bokeh caused by the large number of aperture blades, shooting wide open, and having the subject as close as possible to the camera. It helps if the subject has texture. I particularly like knarly trees and old wooden buildings.

I'm going to try the Jupiter 12 for the 35MM focal length.

georg16nik · Aug 14, 2011

@ziggy7 - Jupiter 12 have a lot less aperture blades than Jupiter 3.
When stopped down, the J 12 iris is of a pentagonal shape.

@matthewm - thumbs up for the Roland Barthes quote.
btw: we were commenting about the DOF of Jupiter 12, the shot You posted, if I am not mistaken is with SLR.
The Jupiter 12 @ its wide open f/2.8 will have the house on Your shot a bit more in focus.
Last time I used J 12 @f/2,8 was inside Madrid Barajas airport, I was focusing on a friend of mine at a coffee table standing 3 or 4 steps away - everything in the frame is in focus, hundreds of steps away. I have to check my archives if we want to go into detail.

@Monito, its a game of words, You say David Douglas Duncan, I say The Photographers of Magnum Photos.
You say "Japanese manufacturers came out with new fast designs", I say the same way the US presented Kodak and Fuji with Agfa's data after the war?..

@benjiboy, "racial stereotypes" exists in countries specializing in slavery up until recently.
I am from the Balkans, we don't care about racial stuff, because we've never had an allies for more than a few seasons.., a werewolves we are, like Dracula

Gerald C Koch · Aug 14, 2011

BradS said:
...scratching my head...trying to figure out what meant by "that 3D look"...????:confused:

Me too!

If I understood the OP question I might post a reply. However this thread seems to have veered away from the original post. Please people, stay on topic or start your own thread.

Monito · Aug 14, 2011

"3D look" is just a stand-in catch-all phrase for a conglomeration of lens qualities, notably sharpness, clarity, and contrast. It's not a useful term, because other factors such as depth of field and composition have greater effect.

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 14, 2011

I think that "3D look" is what some people think of as the "Heliar look"--very smooth out of focus background with a very sharp subject that seems to pop out, in part the result of having a sharp design and a certain amount of uncorrected spherical aberration. In catalogue descriptions of classic large format lenses from the age of soft focus, some are described as having a "plastic" look, which I think points to the same thing. The effect depends on aperture and subject distance, and can be played up with lighting and other elements.

BradS · Aug 14, 2011

Gerald C Koch said:
Me too!

If I understood the OP question I might post a reply. However this thread seems to have veered away from the original post. Please people, stay on topic or start your own thread.

The OP offered some examples of what he meant by "the 3D look" but no definition. From the examples given it appears to me that the OP is simply looking for short DOF....which is, of course, more about how the photographer uses the equipment than about the specific equipment used.

w.r.t. the off topic content, I agree. There is some interesting history being discussed. Surely, it deserves its own thread.

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 14, 2011

Off-topic posts moved to a new thread. Please take the discussion of Zeiss, Leitz, WWII and the cold war and their connection to rangefinder photography to-->

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Best 35MM lens for 3d look?

ziggy7

tjaded

ziggy7

Mustafa Umut Sarac

brucemuir

Brian Legge

ziggy7

darkosaric

Brian Legge

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

brucemuir

georg16nik

Mustafa Umut Sarac

rulnacco

Mustafa Umut Sarac

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

BradS

matthewm

ziggy7

georg16nik

Gerald C Koch

Monito

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

BradS

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Best 35MM lens for 3d look?

Advertiser

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency