No New 50mm Lens Coming in 2017 [CR2]

[Larsskv]

Looking back at all the images.. "cut out" images often appear to have direct in-line with camera light sources or even light (over-cast available light).

the ones with more 3D often have dominant light sources off axis from the camera, especially laterally... so create very 3D making shadows on peoples faces.

If lighting is different for the subject vs background this effect can be profound, one reason to go easy on fill flash, especially if the flash colour doesn't quite match the available light.

The lighting definitely plays a part, and I agree that off axis light sources seems important. But lighting isn't the whole explanation. Have a look at these pictures, which have even and not very dominant light sources in them, but still renders depth in a very good way:

24LII:
https://flic.kr/p/RxoiBS
https://flic.kr/p/GzUgPJ

50L:
https://flic.kr/p/vu6cih

85LII:
https://flic.kr/p/KGBNPt
https://flic.kr/p/Mbxz3n

 

[jd7]

I have reviewed many pictures of the 85L pictures that are on flickr, and find that many of them actually look a bit flat, compared to my own experience with the 85L. One factor in many of the flickr pictures is that photoshopping/smoothening the skin seems bad for the 3D-effect. Pictures that are out of focus are bad too.

Further, and probably more important, shooting at f1.2 is not helping at creating a sense of depth. From my own experience with the 85L, I see more of a 3D effect if I shoot at f2.8 and f4.

This may very well correspond with Viggo's explanation, that it is the quality and the "length" of the falloff from sharp focus to the background, that plays the most important part when comparing different lenses. The other factors we have mentioned, light, shadow, distance to subject + + + will also play a part in creating a 3D-effect, but will play an equal role no matter what lens you are using (given that focal length and aperture is the same).

My understanding is:

how much blur, and how shallow a depth of field, you can achieve is directly related to the physical aperture size - for example, a 135 f/2 lens (67.5mm aperture) can create more blur than an 85 f/1.4 lens (60.7mm aperture). Of course, if the 135 causes you to go back further from your subject, that will tend to increase your DOF, so it's possible you could end up with more DOF despite the larger physical aperture.

the relative aperture tells you about how quickly an image will transition from in focus to out of focus: for example, an f/1.4 shot will give a quicker transition from in focus to out of focus compared with an f/2 shot.

My belief is that the ability to get DOF large enough to suit a person while still greatly blurring the background is part of the reason why longer lenses with wide apertures, like the 135/2, 200/2, etc, are highly regarded as portrait lenses.

I guess that's a long-winded way of saying I can believe there might be something in the idea that how quickly a shot transitions from in focus to out of focus could be part of creating the 3D effect ... although I have to say I'm not really seeing how it would work. I can see why it might be good for the image overall, but I'm struggling to see how it would help create the 3D effect. Anyone got a theory about that?

I certainly agree about skin smoothing. My guess is it's because the smoothing messes around with the transition from light to shadow.


Edit: Just dug up this old CR thread which you might find interesting if you haven't seen it before:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27986.15

 

[jd7]

The lighting definitely plays a part, and I agree that off axis light sources seems important. But lighting isn't the whole explanation. Have a look at these pictures, which have even and not very dominant light sources in them, but still renders depth in a very good way:

24LII:
https://flic.kr/p/RxoiBS
https://flic.kr/p/GzUgPJ

50L:
https://flic.kr/p/vu6cih

85LII:
https://flic.kr/p/KGBNPt
https://flic.kr/p/Mbxz3n

For what it's worth, my attempt to explain the feeling of depth in those photos is:

the lighting may not be strong but, at least in most of them, it's not completely flat - it has some direction to it. For example, if you look at the 50L shot the right side of the girl's head is clearly in shadow and there are changes of tone over her face

there are layers apparent in the images, eg in the 50L shot, the woman holding the girl is clearly closer to the camera (based on relative sizes, and on fact she is a bit blurred), then the girl who is the subject, then a man a bit further back, then other people further back again.

I'm not saying the lens couldn't be part of it too, and/or other factors as well, but my feeling is the combination of lighting, composition and depth of field are probably major contributors.

 

[jd7]

I thought I recalled reading a Neil van Niekerk article about creating a 3D effect in images, and I just managed to dig it up:
http://neilvn.com/tangents/making-your-images-pop-through-lens-choice/

Not sure it adds much to what we've been talking about, but worth a quick look I think.

 

[Larsskv]

I have reviewed many pictures of the 85L pictures that are on flickr, and find that many of them actually look a bit flat, compared to my own experience with the 85L. One factor in many of the flickr pictures is that photoshopping/smoothening the skin seems bad for the 3D-effect. Pictures that are out of focus are bad too.

Further, and probably more important, shooting at f1.2 is not helping at creating a sense of depth. From my own experience with the 85L, I see more of a 3D effect if I shoot at f2.8 and f4.

This may very well correspond with Viggo's explanation, that it is the quality and the "length" of the falloff from sharp focus to the background, that plays the most important part when comparing different lenses. The other factors we have mentioned, light, shadow, distance to subject + + + will also play a part in creating a 3D-effect, but will play an equal role no matter what lens you are using (given that focal length and aperture is the same).

My understanding is:

how much blur, and how shallow a depth of field, you can achieve is directly related to the physical aperture size - for example, a 135 f/2 lens (67.5mm aperture) can create more blur than an 85 f/1.4 lens (60.7mm aperture). Of course, if the 135 causes you to go back further from your subject, that will tend to increase your DOF, so it's possible you could end up with more DOF despite the larger physical aperture.

the relative aperture tells you about how quickly an image will transition from in focus to out of focus: for example, an f/1.4 shot will give a quicker transition from in focus to out of focus compared with an f/2 shot.

My belief is that the ability to get DOF large enough to suit a person while still greatly blurring the background is part of the reason why longer lenses with wide apertures, like the 135/2, 200/2, etc, are highly regarded as portrait lenses.

I guess that's a long-winded way of saying I can believe there might be something in the idea that how quickly a shot transitions from in focus to out of focus could be part of creating the 3D effect ... although I have to say I'm not really seeing how it would work. I can see why it might be good for the image overall, but I'm struggling to see how it would help create the 3D effect. Anyone got a theory about that?

I certainly agree about skin smoothing. My guess is it's because the smoothing messes around with the transition from light to shadow.


Edit: Just dug up this old CR thread which you might find interesting if you haven't seen it before:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27986.15

I do follow your logic all the way, and I have the same questions as you do.

With regards to the calculation of aperture and blur, I guess that it goes more into it than the physical size of the aperture. Different lenses has varius numbers of elements and different construction. I guess it is hard/impossible to understand how the "blur" works in a a particular lens, without understanding the lens design and how it affects blur. (which is way, way over my head..)

 

[Viggo]

I often feel a slight edge light along with my main light gives better separation and pop. And it helps with a longer focal length and wide aperture, but I have plenty of shots with shorter focal lengths that also pops, and very wide apertures.

Pop! ;D

 

[Larsskv]

The lighting definitely plays a part, and I agree that off axis light sources seems important. But lighting isn't the whole explanation. Have a look at these pictures, which have even and not very dominant light sources in them, but still renders depth in a very good way:

24LII:
https://flic.kr/p/RxoiBS
https://flic.kr/p/GzUgPJ

50L:
https://flic.kr/p/vu6cih

85LII:
https://flic.kr/p/KGBNPt
https://flic.kr/p/Mbxz3n

For what it's worth, my attempt to explain the feeling of depth in those photos is:

the lighting may not be strong but, at least in most of them, it's not completely flat - it has some direction to it. For example, if you look at the 50L shot the right side of the girl's head is clearly in shadow and there are changes of tone over her face

there are layers apparent in the images, eg in the 50L shot, the woman holding the girl is clearly closer to the camera (based on relative sizes, and on fact she is a bit blurred), then the girl who is the subject, then a man a bit further back, then other people further back again.

I'm not saying the lens couldn't be part of it too, and/or other factors as well, but my feeling is the combination of lighting, composition and depth of field are probably major contributors.

I agree that what you are pointing to are factors that contributes to the depth rendition. However, I am more convinced than you, that the lenses used is the main explanation. I just dont experience such kind of 3D-effects with all lenses, and I have noticed over quite some time that the L-series primes + the 28mm f2.8 IS is particularly good at giving this effect.

 

[Larsskv]

I thought I recalled reading a Neil van Niekerk article about creating a 3D effect in images, and I just managed to dig it up:
http://neilvn.com/tangents/making-your-images-pop-through-lens-choice/

Not sure it adds much to what we've been talking about, but worth a quick look I think.

I had a quick look at the article, and I would like to let you know that I have had more useful input from you on the matter, than I got from that article.

 

[jd7]

I often feel a slight edge light along with my main light gives better separation and pop. And it helps with a longer focal length and wide aperture, but I have plenty of shots with shorter focal lengths that also pops, and very wide apertures.

Pop! ;D

Nicely done Viggo. And I certainly agree a rim/edge light is great for giving separation and pop!

 

[jd7]

I thought I recalled reading a Neil van Niekerk article about creating a 3D effect in images, and I just managed to dig it up:
http://neilvn.com/tangents/making-your-images-pop-through-lens-choice/

Not sure it adds much to what we've been talking about, but worth a quick look I think.

I had a quick look at the article, and I would like to let you know that I have had more useful input from you on the matter, than I got from that article.

I did wonder if it was worth including the link to that article here ... at least it was pretty short

 

[geekpower]

as much as i love the 50L, and do think its RSA does contribute to drawing the eye to the subject, on the topic of whether certain lenses have a "sticker on a background" effect, i think that has more to do with composition/technique than the lens. if there is enough DOF to get the whole subject in focus, but also a large distance between the subject and the background, you will get the sticker look. to avoid it, you either need a shallower DOF, so the edges of the subject are already starting to blurr, or some intermediate background objects that are less blurred than the furthest background objects (or better yet, a continuous rough surface like grass, that fades from sharp to slightly blurred, to very blurred.

 

[Ozarker]

As much as I'd like to round out my fast prime lens collection in one year, it won't be happening for me anyway ($$$$).

I do hope everyone gets what is on their wish lists announced this year though. If nothing else it gives us a way to plan purchases.

I never thought I needed a lens faster than f/2.8 until I got the new 35mm f/1.4. Wow.

Now I believe it would be great to have a fast 50L and 85L.

These are exciting times what with the BR optics coming out at just the right time for those just starting on their lens collections. One lens a year is all I can handle as a casual hobbyist. :'(

 

[YuengLinger]

I never thought I needed a lens faster than f/2.8 until I got the new 35mm f/1.4. Wow.

Now I believe it would be great to have a fast 50L and 85L.

Ahhh haaaaaaa!