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.
Dec 23, 2025 at 12:16 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
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.
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.
Dec 23, 2025 at 12:04 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #16953722 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
