If we can't identify 3D pop lenses, I wonder if we could identify lenses based on personal experience that never give any 3D pop? I suspect the list would be rather long.
Hi Garmadon, harsh as the images are too sharp, lighting conditions harsh, or are her expressions too serious? I took tons of pics and she does have smiling ones. I also have a lot of pics of her on the 'soft lighting' side of the window but mostly with the Batis 85/1.8. I'll show those later but this is all about the Sonnar 55/1.8. The main inspiration is-----I saw in my Instagram that Burberry is celebrating the 170th anniversary of its iconic trench coat. So I told my model to wear one. Unfortunately the weather was winterish (-6C to 0C) outdoors but still we were able to shoot. I was wearing my trench coat as well and asked her to take pics of me on my iPhone. She's a very good photographer and will post the pictures on my FB and hers on Insta.
Going back on the portraits---if the images are too sharp you can soften them up in post. BTW, I used my Sony A7V.
I talk about photos of my wife taken with these two lenses.
she preffer the batis because she 55mm never miss any face detail .
But I like them both jojib wrote:
Hi Garmadon, harsh as the images are too sharp, lighting conditions harsh, or are her expressions too serious? I took tons of pics and she does have smiling ones. I also have a lot of pics of her on the 'soft lighting' side of the window but mostly with the Batis 85/1.8. I'll show those later but this is all about the Sonnar 55/1.8. The main inspiration is-----I saw in my Instagram that Burberry is celebrating the 170th anniversary of its iconic trench coat. So I told my model to wear one. Unfortunately the weather was winterish (-6C to 0C) outdoors but still we were able to shoot. I was wearing my trench coat as well and asked her to take pics of me on my iPhone. She's a very good photographer and will post the pictures on my FB and hers on Insta.
Going back on the portraits---if the images are too sharp you can soften them up in post. BTW, I used my Sony A7V....Show more →
Garmadon wrote:
I talk about photos of my wife taken with these two lenses.
she preffer the batis because she 55mm never miss any face detail .
But I like them both
Ok....got it. I'm contemplating on adding a used Batis 40/2 as my Sigma 35/1.4 DG HSM Art is heavy. I like the colour and contrast of my Batis 85 so that would be a great 1-2 punch with the 40/2.
Yesterday, during my evening walk, I combined several mistakes that you absolutely shouldn't make if you want to create a "3D" effect.
1. (and worst) mistake: I didn't use a Chinese lens.
2. Mistake: I used a flat Sony lens.
3. Mistake: no lines leading into the background.
4. Mistake: flat, rather diffuse light.
5. Mistake: no clear contrast and/or color contrast between the subject and the background.
And yet, it somehow looks three-dimensional to me, in a pleasant, not exaggerated way—that is, it looks three-dimensional, but not like it's been cut out and pasted in. How is that possible? 😄
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Yesterday, during my evening walk, I combined several mistakes that you absolutely shouldn't make if you want to create a "3D" effect.
1. (and worst) mistake: I didn't use a Chinese lens.
2. Mistake: I used a flat Sony lens.
3. Mistake: no lines leading into the background.
4. Mistake: flat, rather diffuse light.
5. Mistake: no clear contrast and/or color contrast between the subject and the background.
And yet, it somehow looks three-dimensional to me, in a pleasant, not exaggerated way—that is, it looks three-dimensional, but not like it's been cut out and pasted in. How is that possible? 😄
I like this and I'm pleased to see you used a Sony 50/1.2 GM to achieve it. I have one and now I don't have to go out searching for something different. Thanks for sharing.
Mar 19, 2026 at 11:06 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Yesterday, during my evening walk, I combined several mistakes that you absolutely shouldn't make if you want to create a "3D" effect.
1. (and worst) mistake: I didn't use a Chinese lens.
2. Mistake: I used a flat Sony lens.
3. Mistake: no lines leading into the background.
4. Mistake: flat, rather diffuse light.
5. Mistake: no clear contrast and/or color contrast between the subject and the background.
And yet, it somehow looks three-dimensional to me, in a pleasant, not exaggerated way—that is, it looks three-dimensional, but not like it's been cut out and pasted in. How is that possible? 😄
I do think the ladder and the ropes holding up the structure work as lines that add significantly to the perception of 3D. They are a pretty strong 3D cue in the image.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I do think the ladder and the ropes holding up the structure work as lines that add significantly to the perception of 3D. They are a pretty strong 3D cue in the image.
I’d agree with that, and add that photographing the subject from a point where a corner is closest (rather than photographing a side/end straight on) also contributes, as does the camera position being lower than the vertical center of the subject. (It looks like maybe the verticals were “corrected” for perspective line convergence in post?)
There’s also a tonal difference between the dark upper part of the structure and the very bright sky, and between the highlights on the lower structure and darker background — the latter, in particular, help separate the foreground object from its background.
There’s considerable vignetting in the image, which also serves as a sort of photographic surrogate for the way that our own visual system tends to give less attention to objects that are not our primary focus.
On top of that, the use of what I assume was at least a somewhat larger aperture softens the focus on the background elements noticeably.
gdanmitchell wrote:
(It looks like maybe the verticals were “corrected” for perspective line convergence in post?)
No, that's how it is. Remarkable, considering that I took the picture slightly upwards and the lines should therefore actually be converging in the opposite direction.😄
Basically, I'll accept any explanation as long as no one tells me about cinematic-looking ED glass-free Chinese lenses that shape faces and have a 3D bokeh.😄
Nifty Fifty wrote:
No, that's how it is. Remarkable, considering that I took the picture slightly upwards and the lines should therefore actually be converging in the opposite direction.😄
That’s why I wrote “looks like” rather than “are!” :-)
After 116 pages trying to answer the unanswerable, I sure hope that we don’t conclude that AI blur provides the best 3D look. It sure can manage so much separation that it screams AI.
.