L-MOUNT Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Which lenses have really good 3d pop?

Oíche

Active Member
Top Poster Of Month
Besides Leica lenses, which L-mount lenses have that beautiful 3d pop that most of you forget about watching YT reviews, fretting over sharpness, speed and toneh etc.?

The Sigma Art are very lacking, looking at the dpreview gallery of the new 50mm f1.2 it was predictably 2d flat, undynamic and very disappointing but all of them are. I'm not sure about the Sigma Contemporary but I think these may have better 3d qualities from what I've seen.

I only realised today that the Lumix S 100 f2.8 Macro has really profound 3d pop, despite my somewhat doubts before release it therefore is an excellent portrait lens, if a bit too long. I don't know how the Lumix 85 f1.8 compares 3d pop wise but the 100mm is 2 lenses in one and definitely worth the extra expense. You can also get it as a much more affordable price if buying a camera kit combo from Wex UK. I thought it had a look of the Pentax 77 f1.8 Ltd going for it and you need to stop that down to around f2.8 for good centre sharpness.

You can talk about Leica if you want BTW, especially the Lumix 35 & 50 f1.8 close DNA (almost identical) with Leica 50 & 35 f2 Summilux.
 
I confess that I'm a bit of a philistine where it comes to aesthetic considerations, and on top of that I don't tend to do portraits where significant subject separation via blur seems to be a desirable quality. So maybe it's obvious to others, but to me I really don't know what you mean by "3d pop".

Do you mean the degree of blur? If so, I assume that is mostly a function of focal length, aperture, and distance to subject with the lens not playing a role? The equations for DOF definitely have no role for anything other than those parameters.

Do you mean the "quality" of the blur (the bokeh)? I guess this is probably a big differentiator between lenses, but does the quality of the blur contribute to "3d pop".

Do you mean the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus? I'm guessing this is the closest to what I would think would give "3d pop". But how can that be measured? Is there any objective measure to it?, or is it just something subjective?

I guess also the photographer can use composition and lighting to emphasis the apparent dominance of the subject, but I appreciate that's not always possible.

Anyhow, I'd be interested to hear people's views since I really don't have any opinion myself on this - apart from liking the images I've seen from the Sigma 35mm f1.2 Art.
 
Eh no not really, you know if you see it, i.e 3d versus flat or 2d. I thought you were being disingenuous for a while there :D It's probably one of the biggest reasons Leica lenses are what they are.

Not degree of blur whatsoever, however it can be part of the equation but not really necessary.

There is literature out there trying to or explaining how it happens and why it does not, number of lens elements and lead glass being a couple.

Forget descriptions and use your eyes, here is a great example from Pentax 77mm f1.8 Limited


I'll try and find some of the new Lumix macro used for portrait type.
 
I thought you were being disingenuous for a while there :D
No, not at all. I mostly do landscapes where the objective is to have everything in focus! To get depth you need to use compositional elements, or lighting.

It's probably one of the biggest reasons Leica lenses are what they are.
Ha, that explains why I've never understood the lure of Leica!

Forget descriptions and use your eyes, here is a great example from Pentax 77mm f1.8 Limited

That's a really impressive shot!
 
Besides Leica lenses, which L-mount lenses have that beautiful 3d pop that most of you forget about watching YT reviews, fretting over sharpness, speed and toneh etc.?

The Sigma Art are very lacking, looking at the dpreview gallery of the new 50mm f1.2 it was predictably 2d flat, undynamic and very disappointing but all of them are. I'm not sure about the Sigma Contemporary but I think these may have better 3d qualities from what I've seen.

I only realised today that the Lumix S 100 f2.8 Macro has really profound 3d pop, despite my somewhat doubts before release it therefore is an excellent portrait lens, if a bit too long. I don't know how the Lumix 85 f1.8 compares 3d pop wise but the 100mm is 2 lenses in one and definitely worth the extra expense. You can also get it as a much more affordable price if buying a camera kit combo from Wex UK. I thought it had a look of the Pentax 77 f1.8 Ltd going for it and you need to stop that down to around f2.8 for good centre sharpness.

You can talk about Leica if you want BTW, especially the Lumix 35 & 50 f1.8 close DNA (almost identical) with Leica 50 & 35 f2 Summilux.
Greetings everyone, I don't know if you have had the chance to try the fujifilm 56mm 1.2f APD, I am sure you would like it. I had it for a few years and it is fantastic in quality and blur.
 
The Sigma Art are very lacking
Surprisingly, I see it a bit in some of my Sigma contemporary lenses. The 28-70 f2.8 in L mount, and 30mm f1.4 in m4/3. Personally, I think it's got more to do with lighting & processing, but the lens does play a bit of a part.
P1089617220213.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-G9
  • 30.0 mm
  • ƒ/1.6
  • 1/10000 sec
  • Center-Weighted Average
  • Auto exposure
  • ISO 200
BN sore thumb.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-G9
  • 30.0 mm
  • ƒ/1.8
  • 1/800 sec
  • Center-Weighted Average
  • Auto exposure
  • -0.3
  • ISO 200
P1011987-RW2_DxO_DeepPRIME230312.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-G100
  • 30.0 mm
  • ƒ/1.6
  • 1/4000 sec
  • Pattern
  • Auto exposure
  • -1
  • ISO 100
240310-P1001738.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-S5
  • 56.0 mm
  • ƒ/2.8
  • 1/4000 sec
  • Pattern
  • Manual exposure
  • ISO 100
240310-P1001737.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-S5
  • 70.0 mm
  • ƒ/2.8
  • 1/2500 sec
  • Pattern
  • Manual exposure
  • ISO 100
240205-P1001258.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-S5
  • 40.0 mm
  • ƒ/2.8
  • 1/640 sec
  • Pattern
  • Auto exposure
  • 0.3
  • ISO 100
240205-P1001264.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-S5
  • 70.0 mm
  • ƒ/2.8
  • 1/500 sec
  • Pattern
  • Auto exposure
  • -0.3
  • ISO 100
240210-P1001314.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-S5
  • 28.0 mm
  • ƒ/2.8
  • 1/500 sec
  • Pattern
  • Auto exposure
  • -1
  • ISO 100
 
Even the humble Lumix 50 1.8 shows it a bit, which is probably not too surprising, given that Leica rebadge it & sell it as their own
240202-P1001105.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-S5
  • 50.0 mm
  • ƒ/2.2
  • 1/400 sec
  • Pattern
  • Auto exposure
  • -0.7
  • ISO 100
240106-P1000839.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-S5
  • LUMIX S 50/F1.8
  • 50.0 mm
  • ƒ/1.8
  • 1/3200 sec
  • Pattern
  • Auto exposure
  • -0.3
  • ISO 100
231203-P1000391-1.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-S5
  • LUMIX S 50/F1.8
  • 50.0 mm
  • ƒ/1.8
  • 1/6400 sec
  • Pattern
  • Auto exposure
  • -0.3
  • ISO 100
240106-P1000853.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-S5
  • LUMIX S 50/F1.8
  • 50.0 mm
  • ƒ/2
  • 1/500 sec
  • Pattern
  • Auto exposure
  • -0.7
  • ISO 100
 
Early days for finding good samples of 3d pop with the 100mm f2.8 macro but here is one, note the background is not obliterated cream. I find this very very appealing, I'm not one for people portraits but I like this with all kinds of static objects like statues with nice backgrounds or rock formations in nice landscapes where you want to show the landscape and not 'remove' it Tony Toneh style.
 
Even the humble Lumix 50 1.8 shows it a bit, which is probably not too surprising, given that Leica rebadge it & sell it as their own
View attachment 3187View attachment 3188View attachment 3189View attachment 3190
Nice shots. You do a good line in classic car photography :)

As to the 50/1.8 - I agree that it’s a very good lens. For what I use a 50mm lens for, it’s more than adequate. For those who have used m43 a lot, remember this is equiv to a 25mm f0.85 in DOF terms.
 
Yeah, it's definitely not something that comes with obliterating the background, or even using a particularly exotic or expensive lens. My tiny little under $200 Au new EF 40mm f2.8 STM on an adapter, keeps surprising me with its output, & it doesn't even have particularly pleasant Bokeh.
231231-P1000763.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-S5
  • EF40mm f/2.8 STM
  • 40.0 mm
  • ƒ/3.2
  • 1/2500 sec
  • Pattern
  • Auto exposure
  • -1
  • ISO 100
231231-P1000764.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-S5
  • EF40mm f/2.8 STM
  • 40.0 mm
  • ƒ/3.2
  • 1/1600 sec
  • Pattern
  • Auto exposure
  • -0.3
  • ISO 100
231231-P1000773.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-S5
  • EF40mm f/2.8 STM
  • 40.0 mm
  • ƒ/3.2
  • 1/2500 sec
  • Pattern
  • Auto exposure
  • -0.7
  • ISO 100
231231-P1000788.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-S5
  • EF40mm f/2.8 STM
  • 40.0 mm
  • ƒ/3.2
  • 1/800 sec
  • Pattern
  • Auto exposure
  • -1.3
  • ISO 100
 
My tiny little under $200 Au new EF 40mm f2.8 STM on an adapter, keeps surprising me with its output, & it doesn't even have particularly pleasant Bokeh.
The possible reason for that and the entire subject can be touched upon in the following article...

https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses

I had a similar Pentax 40mm f2.8 Ltd to your Canon except it was even slimmer (APSC lens) as the camera had the AF screwdrive but very very similar optics and results to yours.
 
Besides Leica lenses, which L-mount lenses have that beautiful 3d pop that most of you forget about watching YT reviews, fretting over sharpness, speed and toneh etc.?

The Sigma Art are very lacking, looking at the dpreview gallery of the new 50mm f1.2 it was predictably 2d flat, undynamic and very disappointing but all of them are. I'm not sure about the Sigma Contemporary but I think these may have better 3d qualities from what I've seen.

Personally, I think it's got more to do with lighting & processing, but the lens does play a bit of a part.
I totally agree.
All those discussions about "3D-pop" I always am surprised.
As by today's inside camera settings for customizing, and all kinds of digital editing tools,
you can "flatten" or "3-D" pop to any extend to far more wide borders than generally wanted.

It comes down to good craftsmanship to use the tools correctly and processing images to your likings.

So if one lens do have less "3D pop" than another by same default settings.
Just use some of the sliders to give more micro contrast, colour saturation, general contrast or whatever different tool.
And make a repeating automated processing "macro" option of it. So you can use it always when using some particular lenses.
 
I totally agree.
All those discussions about "3D-pop" I always am surprised.
As by today's inside camera settings for customizing, and all kinds of digital editing tools,
you can "flatten" or "3-D" pop to any extend to far more wide borders than generally wanted.
Personally, I don't do anything more than maybe bump shadows, pull back some highlights, maybe add a little bit of contrast & saturation, and that's it. Nothing fancy or anything heavy duty that requires anything much in the way of software or computing horsepower, so the lens definitely has its part to play in there, along with the lighting. And I don't see it all the time, or with every lens, that's for sure.

Edit -I've also noticed that I seem to really really like the look of images from lenses that are not clinically sterile & perfect, but have a certain amount of "imperfections" Main one being a bit of CA such as my m4/3 mount Sigma 30mm f1.4, & Panny/Leica 25mm f1.4.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I don't do anything more than maybe bump shadows, pull back some highlights, maybe add a little bit of contrast & saturation, and that's it.

That is the difference with others users, and come to your personal choice.
You have a kind of "default" work-around. Including default settings of a camera.
Buy equipment that matches your personal preferences by this "typical" combination of lenses and camera (and more or less "default" options).

In past, within the film era I could imagine this approach. I did the same in that time, as within film era, specially positive slide film,
for lithography / pre-press printing purposes, the characteristic of film is more or less "fixed".
So it comes down more to characteristics of equipment that matches the subjects I was photographing in best way.

But by today digital tools, you can reach "all" of these characteristics, (within reasonable borders).

See another message / subject, I wrote in February, but is very comparable:

-
 
The possible reason for that and the entire subject can be touched upon in the following article...

https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses
Hmm, I'm unconvinced about these "lenses are too good", or "there are too many elements" claims. It seems to me that it's a sort of photographic version of "vinyl sounds better" - an appeal to older tech and a desire for nostalgia. I'd like to see some unbiased testing that shows there is actually any correlation (let alone causation) between lens design complexity and the degree of "pop".

The challenge of course will be to make the test a level playing field - you'd need the same subject, same lighting, same camera position, same aperture, same focal length, same camera, same exposure, same processing. Only then can we make any claims about the lens design being a major contributor. I can see that this sort of test would be hard - but not impossible. I have an old Olympus OM 50mm f1.8 that I could try against the Lumix 50mm f1.8 - a job for another day!

Ahead of the test, I'm still of the view that the biggest contributor to "3d pop" is composition and lighting rather than some undefined magic in the lens. There was a guy called Yannick Khong who pushed out some posts years ago that was trying to say the same thing - but it was pseudo-science in the extreme.
 
Hmm, I'm unconvinced about these "lenses are too good", or "there are too many elements" claims. It seems to me that it's a sort of photographic version of "vinyl sounds better" - an appeal to older tech and a desire for nostalgia. I'd like to see some unbiased testing that shows there is actually any correlation (let alone causation) between lens design complexity and the degree of "pop".

The challenge of course will be to make the test a level playing field - you'd need the same subject, same lighting, same camera position, same aperture, same focal length, same camera, same exposure, same processing. Only then can we make any claims about the lens design being a major contributor. I can see that this sort of test would be hard - but not impossible. I have an old Olympus OM 50mm f1.8 that I could try against the Lumix 50mm f1.8 - a job for another day!

Ahead of the test, I'm still of the view that the biggest contributor to "3d pop" is composition and lighting rather than some undefined magic in the lens. There was a guy called Yannick Khong who pushed out some posts years ago that was trying to say the same thing - but it was pseudo-science in the extreme.
Well, it pays to read the linked article properly before responding. Having done that, it's clear that it's a spoof. There's even a PS to make sure it isn't misinterpreted:
P.S. I hope our readers realize that this article is a satirical piece, aimed at poking fun at those individuals and websites that post nonsense information about lenses and their “unique” qualities. In an upcoming article, we will reveal some facts and hopefully put some of the above arguments to rest. If you had fun reading this article and you can relate to some of the terminology and claims used in the article, please share your thoughts below :)

That'll teach me to skim something for 10 seconds before responding!

:) :)
 
More like teach me you meant :D

I never suggested taking it as Bible but merely there could be answers in it if you actually didn't skim read it like I did too :D

The tomato slider was unconvincing and I thought hmmmm at the time LoL then I think I looked at who the author was and thought hmmmmm.

All I'll say is try and replicate or come close to the Pentax 77 Ltd with anything you have, you can't deny what is seen. Obviously if you could do a controlled A/B test where the pop exists would be ideal but if you can't show any sort of anything like it from many photos then it can't do it. I'm wanting to know which L-mount lenses can do it or not as it's an important feature for me and the reason I posted the thread, I'm not looking to argue about theories. :)

I have a CZ Jena 50mm f2.8 Tessar and a CZ Jena 135 f3.5 Electric I must try on FF Lumix to see what I can get with those.

My eyes tell me it's not pseudo science and it's obvious the lens matters, my first Pentax 18-55 kit lens rendered everything as flat as a pancake, it was the reason you wanted a better lens. I eventually bought the 20-40 Ltd which had a level of pop and rendering well above the kit lens.

It's not my imagination that the Pentax 77 does tremendous pop and everyone sees the same thing. Unless all of us are wrong and merely parroted one another.

There is nothing pseudo scientific about optical illusion which is essentially what it is.

I knew a painter who could do the same with a paintbrush, especially portraits. He had a brain injury too but I'm not sure that had anything to do with it, I used to call him 77 Limited... No just joking and I've ranted enough about that lens. :)

Let's see more pics

Want See Pics
 
I would go with Paul. I checked some articles on the web and there are only very few direct comparisons with 2 more or less identical scenes from 2 lenses. But in all the examples I looked at, I could not see any major differences worth talking about. The individual situation (perspective, distances, light etc) is much more important then the lens. That is my impression.

Reinhard
 
Back
Top