asekcsc5 wrote:
How is the pop of the Eagle Rare 12 compared to the 10?
Though I shouldn't ask - I was told the 12 won't make it to WA State, for some reason...
c.
The 12 is great! It’s not that much different than the 10 though-
Now the Old Fitzgerald 7 is probably my favorite bottle out right now!!!!
As my username suggests the 3d pop in lenses is my holy grail. In every discussion regarding this phenomenon there seems to be those who reject the notion of a 3d pop, those who confuse it with shallow dof. And those who see it. Unfortunately my gear acquisition let's me down and I've sold the lenses giving me the most 3d pop but kept a few!
Contax zeiss 28 2.8, and especially the 35-70 3.4 have those qualities.
Also the pentax 77 and 43 limited smc fa have it.
I've just re purchased a zeiss zm 35 2.8 but so far seeing no 3d pop. Plenty of sharpness though
3dpophunter wrote:
As my username suggests the 3d pop in lenses is my holy grail. In every discussion regarding this phenomenon there seems to be those who reject the notion of a 3d pop, those who confuse it with shallow dof. And those who see it. Unfortunately my gear acquisition let's me down and I've sold the lenses giving me the most 3d pop but kept a few! Contax zeiss 28 2.8, and especially the 35-70 3.4 have those qualities. Also the pentax 77 and 43 limited smc fa have it.
I've just re purchased a zeiss zm 35 2.8 but so far seeing no 3d pop. Plenty of sharpness though ...Show more →
The suspense is killing me. We all urgently await your demonstration of how much more an image from your popping lens lens pops than the same image taken with a decent but non-popping lens.
One of the issues that has consistently been presented by dissenters is the lack of proper comparison ... always citing the variable other than lenses having the attribution, dismissing the influence of the lens.
Here's a series of 10 lenses that were compared in a rather extensive manner ... which took place in multiple parts. Below is Part 3. I reference it because there is an interior series that is about as steady a comparison as you're gonna find. The studio shot with the wine bottle is presented at a variety of apertures for each lens ... including WO as well as stopped down.
There is more to be gleaned from the infinity shots in Part 1, but since they are outside, there'll be folks that decry lighting variance. Part 3 mitigates that. But, I also think that the differences exhibited in Part 1 are significant enough, that anyone who truly is looking to understand the lens contribution will recognize where the lighting variance is too small to matter (or not). I'll leave that to folks to explore on their own.
One thing that catches my attention in the Studio set, is the influence from the lens contributing to color cast. As the matter of dimensionality is rooted in rates of change, take note of the different lenses and explore certain pairings to see where the differences are most notable. Point being, that casts will "muddy" (or reduce) the rate of hue change differently than those with lesser casts.
Similar to the point made earlier about APO / acutance ... the rate of change from neutral > color is a different rate of change from cast to cast, hence the contribution of well color corrected optics can be seen. Part of the key here though is the ability of the human vision accommodation to compensate for the delta when not viewed side by side. I mentioned before, some of Leica's consideration to color cast correction and APO lenses, etc. I think the studio shots reveal this to a degree.
For those who perpetually dissented and decried due to a lack of proper comparison ... this is likely a better comp than any one of us will be able to provide. Most folks simply do NOT have this range of glass in the bag to properly present, so I share it accordingly.
The author went to great lengths in these comps ... across multiple parts. The value of such should be recognized. Any earnestly interested person might welcome the time to explore all the work that the author did. That said, there are some segments that clearly have multiple variables in play (the 6 meter bokeh has lighting changes, etc.), so they shouldn't be the area of focus (imo).
For earnestly interested folks, there's quite a bit of info in this shootout. Enjoy.
Unless your lens was manufactured in the Pop region of the United States I’m afraid you all are just seeing fizzy images. Sorry to offend anyone using fancy German glass, but in this regard the US can be a bit snobby.
Merry Christmas to you all, and may this thread have a healthy and productive new year.
*Kent - thorough and interesting link… but Pop drinkers have clearly shown that science is for fancy European drinks and we just go by our gut here!
bmike-vt wrote:
*Kent - thorough and interesting link… but Pop drinkers have clearly shown that science is for fancy European drinks and we just go by our gut here!
Posh and usa, yes that's why your elected king loves McDonald's😆😆 jk 😉 merry Christmas to everyone whether you celebrate at the local mall or at a 400 year old building, whether your lens has pop or not 😆🎄
3dpophunter wrote:
As my username suggests the 3d pop in lenses is my holy grail. In every discussion regarding this phenomenon there seems to be those who reject the notion of a 3d pop, those who confuse it with shallow dof. And those who see it.
You forget another group: those who see “it” (however “it” is defined) but recognize that the contributions of various lenses to it is minuscule, while the application of various visual/photographic techniques produce it.
A lot of information there, thank you for sharing.
I found it a little, hm, what's a good word? amusing, perhaps, that he used 12 categories for each lens, but missed 3D pop.
But perhaps on a more serious note, could we look at a set of pictures there and rank them for 3D pop ourselves?
I would start, but I have to admit I am a philistine, when it comes to this.
asekcsc5 wrote:
I would start, but I have to admit I am a philistine, when it comes to this.
You can tell, otherwise you'd know that all comparisons are pointless. The only thing that matters are poorly composed snapshot portraits taken with Thypoch Simera lenses. The rest is stale coffee and barely tolerable.
One day I'll make a controlled comparison set of my duplicate lenses:
28mm - CY 28/2.8 vs Z 28/2.8
50mm 4-way
- Meike 50/1.8
- 7artisans 50/1.1
- VM 50/3.5
- Sigma Art F-mount 50/1.4
- maybe bonus old Minolta 50/1.4, Z 40/2, VF 58/1.4
All ultra wide angles, and 18mm is well into that envelope, display image depth. Why? They increase longitudinal separation between motifs in image space, exaggerating what we see in the real world view. They also have a more progressive fade character, courtesy of the extreme focal length.
So lens makers can get away with more radical UWA designs. Perhaps as a counterbalance to the relatively low element count (11/10), Zeiss specified an extreme composition of: seven APD glass (referred to as 'special glass') and four aspherical elements, leaving only two normal optical glass elements (some elements have both asph and APD).
This Batis is a formula we would not normally associate with 3D, but the lens is AF and was designed to be small and light, and at the 18mm angle of view they really need the correction. It works well and most users enjoy it.
late to this thread so this may have already been nominated
this was taken with Summilux 50/1.4 pre asph version 2 (with M11M). Wide open this lens is pure vintage, barely sharp in the center with beautiful low contrast fall off - one of Mandler's best designs IMO.
It creates nice 3D pop when fairly close to the subject.
brick33308 wrote:
late to this thread so this may have already been nominated
this was taken with Summilux 50/1.4 pre asph version 2 (with M11M). Wide open this lens is pure vintage, barely sharp in the center with beautiful low contrast fall off - one of Mandler's best designs IMO.
It creates nice 3D pop when fairly close to the subject.
