The flattening of modern lenses or the death of 3D pop

[kds315*]

Found this by coincidence: http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/10/4/the-flattening-of-modern-lenses-or-the-death-of-3d-pop

Basically the author states that a lens giving 3D pop should not have more than 9 lens elements

He gives plenty of examples ... especially here: http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/11/12/depth-vs-flat-lens-quick-comparison

Statements guys?

[luisalegria]

This is one of those comparisons where I realize I lack the visual processing brain connections, probably, to see the differences.

Im sure some people can. Just not me.

[miran]

Yes, that's all fine and true but that's only one part of the equation. You have to look at the imaging pipeline as a whole and optimize each single element of the chain to take the whole system to the highest level of colour 3D tonal fidelity. Because for example you can't really appreciate the full potential of your lenses until you replace all the connectors and flat cables inside your digital camera with high end gold plated ones with superior digital signal transmission properties. The chain is a strong as its weakest link! Of course I'm assuming you've already treated your sensor with a high quality nano fairy dust coating, that's a given in today's world of hi-fi photography.

[kds315*]

[Teemō]

The author is a known moron.

[marcusBMG]

3-D pop?



And this lens (guess) has only 3 elements. QED!

[wolan]

This story that modern lenses lack of 3d pop because of the too many glass elements in them is pure bullshit.
I have many modern Nikon lenses and I love them as much as my many vintage lenses. They are just different.

Read this article: https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses, but till the end!

[iangreenhalgh1]

This author is absolutely a moron. I have lenses with 4 elements, made in the 1950s (Ross Xpress 4/100) that can produce a lot of 3D pop and I have lenses made in the 200s with 16 elements (Hitachi Illumina Super ED 1.8-2.2/20-38mm) that can also produce a lot of pop.

[oldali]

I read an interview with Peter Karbe (Leica lens designer). He did't speak about 3D effect, but I think he thought similar effect in case of apo summicron 50 “the contrast has to fall off very fast in terms of depth of field. That’s it. That is the idea – and the ideal. The fall off has to be very fast!” I can see 3D effect almost all photos. Here the article: http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-50mm-APO-Summicron-M-ASPH-f-20.html

[chhayanat]

[cooltouch]

(quote) What does this sentence mean? blah-blather-blat-buh-blah-blat-blather-buh-bluh-blather-blat-buh-bluh . . . (and so on, ad nauseum)

Here's the way I see it with regard to "3D pop": Ya gets 3D pop with a fast lens. Ya don't gets 3D pop with a slow lens. Sensors be damned. We're talking about lenses, right? The above two statements of mine are somewhat dependent on focal length. That is, 3D pop is more noticeable with increased focal length, less noticeable with decreased focal length. But still noticeable, regardless.

[piggsy]

[cooltouch]

Okay, fine. Here's a modern lens -- a 50mm f/0.95 with 10 elements. For Sony E-mount cameras. Is anyone really gonna suggest that this lens lacks having a 3D look?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1072733-REG/mitakon_mtk50mf095bk_50mm_for_0_95_lens.html

Here's another -- a 40mm f/0.85 with 10 elements. For Sony E-mount and a couple of others. Same question as above:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1056301-REG/handevision_hvib4085se_ibelux_40mm_f_0_85_lens.html

[Himself]

[jamaeolus]

What does this moron have to say about vodka?

[folderholder]

Here is a comparison for tonality between a a modern Canon pancake EF-S 24mm f/2.8 lens (left) and a 24mm Yashica f/2.8 ML lens (right). The Yashica is a 9 element lens while the Canon has 6 elements. What interests me is the watermarks on the Beijing ticket in the center of the frame. The watermarks are clearly visible in the Yashica and nearly absent in the Canon pancake. If I owned the regular Canon 24mm (10 elements) I would like to try that out, too.

Anyway, in actual picture taking I find the Canon produces nice, sharp photos that lack depth and sparkle. Maybe this inability to separate tones is why? The size and weight of the Canon are great for traveling and I haven't had any mechanical issues with it at all.



Both images shot at f/2.8 on a Canon EOS-M6. No pp, straight jpgs from the camera. 50% magnification and cropped.

[Eddie46]

Reminds me of the Heady days of Analogue Hi-Fi, with so called journalists and other Experts claiming they could tell the difference between types of Cables used to connect speakers etc!

[visualopsins]

Big joke flattens our mental lenses by reexamination, reinforcing here and rejecting there. Mental masturbation.

[Pete]

My best 3D Pop lens is the Nikon 85 1.4 AF. I was noticing it before I knew what 3D Pop actually was.
I bought this lens new but I don't know if it classifies as a new or old school lens.

[Ray Parkhurst]

All the images I've seen with "3D Pop" show "quick contrast reduction" as someone said above. What I've noticed about a couple of lenses I own is that they don't focus "linearly". They are lenses which are optimized for a particular magnification range (I am a macro photographer) and within a narrow range around that optimum magnification the lenses show a flatter focus vs magnification than outside the range.

Magnification translates to working distance, so that objects a certain working distance from such an optimized lens have this quality of stable focus. Lenses with "close range correction" like the 55/3.5 or 55/2.8 Micro Nikkors have moving elements to help to optimize the lens to improve performance at higher magnification. These moving elements improve performance at close range, but what is their effect on objects farther away? From what I've seen, they show good 3D Pop when used in their optimum range of around 0.5:1 magnification. Depth of field is getting shallow here, and the fall-off seems very quick, perhaps due to the CRC corrections.

Another lens with this quality is the Zeiss 74mm S-Planar. It is not a full-range macro lens, but one specifically optimized at 1:1. So its "CRC" is designed-in to the lens formula. It has the strongest nonlinearity of focus of any lens I own.

Applying this principle to a portrait lens, which is often where I see the most 3D Pop going on, if the lens is optimized for best performance at middle distances, and allowed to fall-off a bit especially toward infinity, wouldn't that create 3D Pop?

I'm also curious about the Nikon "defocus control" lenses. These seem to have a variable control to the focus fall-off. Do they show better 3D Pop? I have no experience with them but the principle seems to be consistent.

[Pancolart]

[kryss]

Pentax super tak 55mm f2 WO. Click for large.



Hasselblad CZJ 80mm f2.8 WO.

[kds315*]

[folderholder]

I took that 24mm Yashica lens out on a walk yesterday to see what it can do, particularly in regards to colors and tonality. Here is a straight jpg from the camera (neutral setting, by the way) with no pp.

[kds315*]