Markuswelder
Well-Known Member
If you're asking me, I have to say yes. Based on what I've seen and shot, with my own eyes, and posted above
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?
- Thread starter Oíche
- Start date
Pete_W
LMF-Patron
He seems to mention quite often about Sigma having no pop, meaning the Creamy Tony versionsI watch him regularly. Good fun!
He needs new material, maybe Pentax, and I could write a years worth of scripts for him starting with the dpreview forum.
I need to watch his pop one here, never seen it.
But then I found this done with the Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN Art, quite a few of this photographers images are poppy.He seems to mention quite often about Sigma having no pop, meaning the Creamy Tony versions
CharlesH
LMF-Patron Gold
Lumix make a M43 3D lens
- OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. - E-30
- 35.0 mm
- ƒ/11
- 1/200 sec
- Pattern
- Manual exposure
- ISO 200
https://www.panasonic.com/uk/consum...ix-camera-lenses/lumix-g-lenses/h-ft012e.html
However going by these examples from ephotozine the M43 lens doesn't look so spectacular over the first image I posted in the thread from the standard Pentax 77 Ltd.
It doesn't look worthwhile, it's probably discontinued.
- Panasonic - DMC-GF3
- LUMIX G 12/F12 3D
- 12.0 mm
- ƒ/12
- 1/125 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 160
- Panasonic - DMC-GF3
- LUMIX G 12/F12 3D
- 12.0 mm
- ƒ/12
- 1/125 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 160
- Panasonic - DMC-GF3
- LUMIX G 12/F12 3D
- 12.0 mm
- ƒ/12
- 1/60 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 250
It doesn't look worthwhile, it's probably discontinued.
That video is unusable for our discussion, because he is comparing apples with oranges during the video! He is using different focal length and camera sensor sizes all the time. With such an „test“ you can show the differences of the systems but not if one lens has more 3d pop than another. Also the focus is sometimes on the background and not on him, that destroys by definition all possible 3D pop…
You need the same camera and the same focal length to show what we are discussing here! Also the settings including focus shall be ok.
Example: One camera like a Sony a7xx and then a bunch of different 50mm lenses from Sony, Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, Viltrox… Could include also Nikon, Canon and Vintage lenses with adapters or Zooms, but Zooms will offer typically slower apertures with more DOF and therefore less possible pop. It should be clear that a comparison of lenses with very different apertures will also show expectable results.
Example 2: the Pentax 77mm was mentioned to have a lot of 3D pop. I know this lens, but never worked with it lacking Pentax bodies. It has a nice size and is well known in Pentax community. The proof would be a comparison with different 1.8/85 which are available from nearly every manufacturer.
Has anyone seen a comparison like this or can provide something?
With such a test we can start to discuss if 3D pop is a myth or something to consider…
Come on, 1st of April is over!
This lens was a real 3D lens to be used with 3D equipment like special TVs with special spectacles. Great results but only under these special conditions. For standard pictures it is quite useless…
I don't think what you see is a myth. I was thinking was I propagandised as a Pentaxian regarding the 77 Ltd but then there are many photos from it showing it as indeed others. It seems to be a rather grey area and hard to be definitive on how it happens but overall it's a good discussion and good if you can get it as it can really make a photo, it's a goal to achieve just as Camera Conspiracies said
I wouldn't take Camera Conspiracies too seriously, that's the whole purpose of it as well as slagging off any theories and especially trends, it's refreshing entertainment. I should message him about "Pentax pixie dust" which BTW the 77 Ltd is the god status king, the Japanese gather it from a secret mountain and sprinkle the dust into the molten glass for the Limited lenses. I owned 4 of these lenses and now with Lumix it is missing from my life.
Yeah I thought you need 3d glasses to do stereoscopic if that's the correct term. When the 3d came out years ago in cinema, TV & blu ray I couldn't watch it as it hurt my brain within minutes. That trend fairly disappeared although there is still a following and collectors etc.
CharlesH
LMF-Patron Gold
Here is a modern version of that M43 3D Lens. From Canon, around $2,000USD, made for your Canon R5. The primary application is to shoot 3D videos for virtual reality headsets like the Meta Quest 2 and the Apple Vision Pro.
CharlesH
LMF-Patron Gold
3D POP means adding a perception of depth to a 2D photograph. How can we trick our brains to see 3D in a 2D picture?
I’m not a 3D POP shooter and have never tried for this effect. But as a scientist and all it is interesting to think about what one can do to make a 2D picture look 3D. First a discussion about how our eyes and brains perceive depth. There are lots of ways we perceive depth.
The first is obvious, we have stereoscopic vision from the different perspectives of our two eyes. This is the basis of 3D movies and stereograms. This is typically for close vision, from very close to a few meters away. We use this to pick things up, and to help guide us up and down stairs. But this effect can’t be used for depth perception of a 2D photograph because the photo has no actual depth and both eyes see it the same.
Relative size is an important depth cue. Our brains know how big things are, and if they are smaller, they are further away. In a picture if the main object is close and familiar objects behind it are smaller, this can communicate depth to the brain. Relative speed is also important to the brain, known objects further away appear to move slower, but this effect can’t be utilized in a still photograph.
Our eyes re-focus with depth. Assuming normal vision eyes, or eyes corrected to normal vision, the “Far Point” is infinity. If the eyes are focused at infinity and something comes into view it will be blurry. Likewise, if the eyes are focused at the “Near Point” (the closest you can see) and something comes into view at a farther distance it will be blurry. The brain knows where your eyes are focused and uses this information to judge distance. This is for the closer distances, and not so useful for longer distances. Also, the sensitivity of this depends on brightness. On a bright day the iris closes, and the eye has more depth of field, and less sensitivity to focus depth. For a photograph to relay a depth clue to the brain the change in focus versus depth should be similar to our eyes. The photo would not be with a wide-open aperture with very short depth of field, and not a very small aperture with very large depth of field. Since our eyes have variable depth of field depending on brightness, the brain should accommodate some range. The aperture should not be large enough to cause large bokeh in the background, since our eyes don’t normally have large bokeh.
The variables for 3D POP seem to be size variation and the out of focus transition. For 3D POP the main object itself should have some distance variation (maybe shot at an angle} so the brain can use both size variation and focus variation to perceive depth. Also, besides the target the photo could have some familiar objects in the background (now smaller and out of focus). Also, the ideal lens would probably be around 50mm, or at least not too telephoto, to most emulate the human eye and not artificially compress the depth.
Why are older lenses better than “modern” lenses for 3D POP? Possibly older lenses have a smoother transition as they go from in-focus to out-of-focus with distance. This and aberrations could give a more natural look for the brain to recognizes as depth.
I thought some of the shots ‘Markuswelder’ posted had chance at 3D POP and tricking my brain. It might be interesting to see a set of shots like these with different f stops to vary the depth of field and bokeh. Also, it could be interesting to vary the distance to the background objects.
I’m not a 3D POP shooter and have never tried for this effect. But as a scientist and all it is interesting to think about what one can do to make a 2D picture look 3D. First a discussion about how our eyes and brains perceive depth. There are lots of ways we perceive depth.
The first is obvious, we have stereoscopic vision from the different perspectives of our two eyes. This is the basis of 3D movies and stereograms. This is typically for close vision, from very close to a few meters away. We use this to pick things up, and to help guide us up and down stairs. But this effect can’t be used for depth perception of a 2D photograph because the photo has no actual depth and both eyes see it the same.
Relative size is an important depth cue. Our brains know how big things are, and if they are smaller, they are further away. In a picture if the main object is close and familiar objects behind it are smaller, this can communicate depth to the brain. Relative speed is also important to the brain, known objects further away appear to move slower, but this effect can’t be utilized in a still photograph.
Our eyes re-focus with depth. Assuming normal vision eyes, or eyes corrected to normal vision, the “Far Point” is infinity. If the eyes are focused at infinity and something comes into view it will be blurry. Likewise, if the eyes are focused at the “Near Point” (the closest you can see) and something comes into view at a farther distance it will be blurry. The brain knows where your eyes are focused and uses this information to judge distance. This is for the closer distances, and not so useful for longer distances. Also, the sensitivity of this depends on brightness. On a bright day the iris closes, and the eye has more depth of field, and less sensitivity to focus depth. For a photograph to relay a depth clue to the brain the change in focus versus depth should be similar to our eyes. The photo would not be with a wide-open aperture with very short depth of field, and not a very small aperture with very large depth of field. Since our eyes have variable depth of field depending on brightness, the brain should accommodate some range. The aperture should not be large enough to cause large bokeh in the background, since our eyes don’t normally have large bokeh.
The variables for 3D POP seem to be size variation and the out of focus transition. For 3D POP the main object itself should have some distance variation (maybe shot at an angle} so the brain can use both size variation and focus variation to perceive depth. Also, besides the target the photo could have some familiar objects in the background (now smaller and out of focus). Also, the ideal lens would probably be around 50mm, or at least not too telephoto, to most emulate the human eye and not artificially compress the depth.
Why are older lenses better than “modern” lenses for 3D POP? Possibly older lenses have a smoother transition as they go from in-focus to out-of-focus with distance. This and aberrations could give a more natural look for the brain to recognizes as depth.
I thought some of the shots ‘Markuswelder’ posted had chance at 3D POP and tricking my brain. It might be interesting to see a set of shots like these with different f stops to vary the depth of field and bokeh. Also, it could be interesting to vary the distance to the background objects.
This is how human beings really see, we always look at one point and we go around and move our vision to different points that the brain reconstructs to make a total image, but we always look at a fixed point. This is very clear when we are reading, or watching a football game on television.
Here one example:
This picture was taken wide open at f/1.4. The transition between the focused area, that is, the dog's eye, and the rest of the image is very interesting and very smooth with this lens (50mm 1.4 Lumix PRO). This is how we really see, IMHO.
Here one example:
- Panasonic - DC-S1R
- LUMIX S 50/F1.4
- 50.0 mm
- ƒ/1.4
- 1/80 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 100
This picture was taken wide open at f/1.4. The transition between the focused area, that is, the dog's eye, and the rest of the image is very interesting and very smooth with this lens (50mm 1.4 Lumix PRO). This is how we really see, IMHO.
Jonathan-Mac
Well-Known Member
Since I moved to the L-mount I have been generally impressed by the 3D pop / fairy dust in many of the lenses I've bought, though I've also seen some of this effect on vintage lenses on the S5. I believe the camera and other factors also contribute to 3D-ness but the lens is a big part of it. It's something I probably notice most in portraits, the majority of which I don't have online, but I've had a look at some of the best examples I have.
Lumix 50/1.8
Gondola by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN
Looking down the garden by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Madrid in the rain II by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Sigma 24mm f/2 DG DN
Doggy by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Old door by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Lumix 50/1.8
Gondola by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN
Looking down the garden by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Madrid in the rain II by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Sigma 24mm f/2 DG DN
Doggy by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Old door by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Thankfully, back to a more serious discussion of the topic.
From my point of view, I would like to add some thoughts.
I doubt older lenses are better.
Yes there are several known old lenses that have very nice smooth transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas with distance.
But also other old lenses, just the opposite of ugly nervous “soft” double lined background rendering.
And “old” lenses famous for there very special out of focus rendering.
en.m.wikipedia.org
fotohandeldelfshaven.nl
www.lomography.com
www.thecameradept.com
en.wikipedia.org
radan.be
But that necessary does not give a “Pop 3D” effect.
If the general sharpness is poor, and contrast is flat, you are far from it IMO.
Specially when lenses are used at about full wide open aperture, by all kinds of lens aberrations, it can be lacking of “3-D pop”,
Old lenses have plenty of lens aberrations. You can like these aberrations, but that is another discussion.
Looking to unsharp out of focus areas only, (not taken into account the “bad bokeh lenses),
there is no difference old versus new lenses as it comes to 3D-pop, as it is unsharp. No profit to be made there within these areas.
It comes down to the rendering of sharp “in focus areas” in comparison to these out of focus areas.
The sharper the “in focus” areas, the bigger the difference "sharp" going into unsharp background.
(Older lenses doesn’t hold up by that, as they are not that sharp).
For better “Pop” the more high resolution image, looking at distance to the image, or looking closely to details of the image
and still can see another perceptual DOF of these areas closely, the more wide spatial image effect of the total image.
So also the use of a High Res camera is part of it.
A similar part of the effect to suggest a more perceptual depth.
Is to increase contrast between lightest and darkest areas by viewing circumstances.
"Back in the days" when film was used. The difference between looking at a “printed” image in incident light.
Or the same image as seen by a film transparency on a light table, or projected to a screen.
When I show people old days 4x5” and 8x10” film transparency sheets on a light table.
And giving them a “Peak” loupe. They all respond by a “wow” effect.
By today options. You can do the same. BUT EVEN MORE on top of it, by all today's simple digital tools.
Add “fine-tune” some extra unsharp mask, micro contrast, and pump up the colour saturation.
Show your images on a High Dynamic OLED 4K / 8K LG or Sony television.
Comparable TV settings used as big TV stores do, where all those demo TV screens,
are shouting to your eyes like a colourful fair with all those "candy canes" colours.
Colours so rich, and saturated, contrast that big, you have the feeling it isn’t real any-more. ALL can be done.
Subjects like carnivalesque costume parties as shown more early by @Oíche
are the best examples for showing these capabilities in such HD TV environments.
By the way, -important- I'm not saying that Oche's image itself is “over the top”.
Just could be a wonderful example for showing these “over the top settings” generally used at TV stores.
As e.g. a well know subject in our country also is a wonderful example for that: https://keukenhof.nl/en/
Much can be done at processing level, or in camera settings, for most of all today good quality lenses, and even older lenses, just to “pop”.
And I haven't even mentioned making choices illuminating photo scenes / models.
That’s even far more important IMO.
-
From my point of view, I would like to add some thoughts.
I doubt older lenses are better.
Yes there are several known old lenses that have very nice smooth transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas with distance.
But also other old lenses, just the opposite of ugly nervous “soft” double lined background rendering.
And “old” lenses famous for there very special out of focus rendering.
Joseph Petzval - Wikipedia
Voigtlander Brass large format Petzval lens, 1870-ish - Fotohandel Delfshaven / MK Optics
Inkoop / Verkoop. - Vintage camera store in Delft - Early Voigtlander petzval lens. Marked Voigtlander & Sohn in Wien und Braunsweig. In good condition considering it's age. But missing flange, stops and hood. Glass with few tiny marks and some internal dust. Smooth focus. Made approx in 1870...
fotohandeldelfshaven.nl
New Petzval 85 Lens
The Lomography Petzval Portrait Lens is a high-quality glass lens. Compatible with Canon EF and Nikon F cameras, it produces photos with beautiful bokeh effects.
microsites.lomography.com
New Petzval 85 Lens
The Lomography Petzval Portrait Lens is a high-quality glass lens. Compatible with Canon EF and Nikon F cameras, it produces photos with beautiful bokeh effects.
microsites.lomography.com
Lomography - Antonio Borzillo: Portraits with the New Petzval 85 Art Lens
Antonio Borzillo entered into photography through his passion for drawing. His artistic inclination results, also in photography, in a delicate, gentle and dreamy style
www.lomography.com
The Petzval Lens: A Modern Classic — The Camera Department | Cine Equipment Rentals
We are proud to add two unique lenses to our full-frame lens arsenal. They utilize a nearly two hundred year old optical design, but in modern TLS housings.
www.thecameradept.com
Rodenstock Imagon - Wikipedia
Svetlana Nostalgia | Radan Photo Art
radan.be
But that necessary does not give a “Pop 3D” effect.
If the general sharpness is poor, and contrast is flat, you are far from it IMO.
Specially when lenses are used at about full wide open aperture, by all kinds of lens aberrations, it can be lacking of “3-D pop”,
Old lenses have plenty of lens aberrations. You can like these aberrations, but that is another discussion.
Looking to unsharp out of focus areas only, (not taken into account the “bad bokeh lenses),
there is no difference old versus new lenses as it comes to 3D-pop, as it is unsharp. No profit to be made there within these areas.
It comes down to the rendering of sharp “in focus areas” in comparison to these out of focus areas.
The sharper the “in focus” areas, the bigger the difference "sharp" going into unsharp background.
(Older lenses doesn’t hold up by that, as they are not that sharp).
For better “Pop” the more high resolution image, looking at distance to the image, or looking closely to details of the image
and still can see another perceptual DOF of these areas closely, the more wide spatial image effect of the total image.
So also the use of a High Res camera is part of it.
A similar part of the effect to suggest a more perceptual depth.
Is to increase contrast between lightest and darkest areas by viewing circumstances.
"Back in the days" when film was used. The difference between looking at a “printed” image in incident light.
Or the same image as seen by a film transparency on a light table, or projected to a screen.
When I show people old days 4x5” and 8x10” film transparency sheets on a light table.
And giving them a “Peak” loupe. They all respond by a “wow” effect.
By today options. You can do the same. BUT EVEN MORE on top of it, by all today's simple digital tools.
Add “fine-tune” some extra unsharp mask, micro contrast, and pump up the colour saturation.
Show your images on a High Dynamic OLED 4K / 8K LG or Sony television.
Comparable TV settings used as big TV stores do, where all those demo TV screens,
are shouting to your eyes like a colourful fair with all those "candy canes" colours.
Colours so rich, and saturated, contrast that big, you have the feeling it isn’t real any-more. ALL can be done.
Subjects like carnivalesque costume parties as shown more early by @Oíche
are the best examples for showing these capabilities in such HD TV environments.
By the way, -important- I'm not saying that Oche's image itself is “over the top”.
Just could be a wonderful example for showing these “over the top settings” generally used at TV stores.
As e.g. a well know subject in our country also is a wonderful example for that: https://keukenhof.nl/en/
Much can be done at processing level, or in camera settings, for most of all today good quality lenses, and even older lenses, just to “pop”.
And I haven't even mentioned making choices illuminating photo scenes / models.
That’s even far more important IMO.
-
Last edited:
CharlesH
LMF-Patron Gold
All nice photos. Of these the one with the gondola shows depth the best for me. It may be because of the poles in the water and their placement from fairly close to further away. They frame the gondola nicely.
CharlesH
LMF-Patron Gold
I didin't mean old lenses THAT old. I think the high aberrations in some of these is too distracting. When I've read some older lenses could have more 3D pop , I was thinking more like the Pentax 77 f/1.8 that "Oiche" wrote about. This is from the modern era, but still a pretty old design.
And Petzval discovered the Laplace transform? Wow.
CharlesH
LMF-Patron Gold
I agree with that. But I think experiencing 3D pop is different than this. Think when you are walking around in your home. You are experiencing 3D vision. You know where the chairs and tables are and you step around them as you get close. It may be, like you say, you eyes are constantly looking around and your brain is putting it all together. But it is also doing this with 3D information. So the question and challenge, can we take 2D photographs that have enough 3D information so with our brains we see it in the same way we see our living rooms? Or at least a little bit that way.
Try this. Bring up the nice picture "Jonathan-Mac" just posted of the gondola. Now look at this picture, not in the sense that you are studying or analyzing it. But just relax and have the picture in your field of view. Imagine you are in Italy on a nice warm day, sitting on the pier. Now slowly look around the gondola. Do you get a feeling of depth at all? That the gondola is closer to you, and maybe with a stretch you could reach out and touch it? Maybe a little 3D pop?
"THAT" old lenses is only for giving thoughts that age doesn't matter that much.
It is more about giving an idea that "imaging" is much more than just a choice of yes or no "3-D pop" lens.
As for comparison some examples of the same test image. (Made last year as the first test-images of a friend I made by a new lens):
Any today lens "old" or "new" just by some in camera presets, or afterwards by using a personal processing profile.
Output can be changed. Just to your personal likings. If it isn't "poppy" enough, just make it "poppy".
Picture A:
Can be changed to:
Picture B (this one has a better perception of a spatial representation).
By processing an image (and converting to B & W), we can make a more flattering representation of the same person IMO.
Picture C
And one can adjust it "over the top" to a completely different view:
Picture D
The limits have not yet been reached at all. One can take it to extremes, but then it becomes more of a caricature.
Picture E
All these types of processing is possible with any lens that is used.
Those operations could be done as well by e.g. a Russian $30 lens - Industar 50-2 F3.5
What I bought last year for "fun". The adapters weight to fit with an L-camera is more heavy than the 68 gram lens itself.
Sharpness is not to the demanding what people do expect today when using a 47 MP pixel camera (or e.g. 60 MP Leica SL3).
But generally, if it is not the purpose to make big blow-up prints, it is not a really bad lens at all.
If you want take some gentle female modelling pictures, with no harsh skin rendering (as opposite to above examples),
it can be fully used for it to models expectations.
Industar 50-2 Vintage lens [review and photos]
I photographed Eva in Pushkin's park, where cherries were flowering in that time. And in this photoshoot I used a legendary vintage Industar 50-2
rezedaphoto.com
Make use of equipment and tools as they are intended for. Use them to create the image you have in mind.
Everything can be done (within reasonable limits).
-
Getting back to the original purpose of the thread it seems to me so far the Lumix S 100mm f2.8 Macro can do the best pop for native L-mount lenses.
It is still early days for many more photos to appear from it but they have definitely produced something quite special and it's jumping up my list in lenses I'd possibly want to get in the future. From what I've seen I prefer it to the 85mm f1.8 for portrait style, not that I photograph many humans myself but I prefer the isolation 'pop' it can produce over the more blurry bokeh f1.8 or faster lenses around thus focal length.
Everything else about it is very appealing except for the price but it is now available from Wex UK as a S5ii combo kit along with 50 f1.8 and 20-60 f3.5-f5.6 for £2698 for anyone interested.
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/panas...umix-s-100mm-f2-8-macro-lens-bundle-30000208/
It is still early days for many more photos to appear from it but they have definitely produced something quite special and it's jumping up my list in lenses I'd possibly want to get in the future. From what I've seen I prefer it to the 85mm f1.8 for portrait style, not that I photograph many humans myself but I prefer the isolation 'pop' it can produce over the more blurry bokeh f1.8 or faster lenses around thus focal length.
Everything else about it is very appealing except for the price but it is now available from Wex UK as a S5ii combo kit along with 50 f1.8 and 20-60 f3.5-f5.6 for £2698 for anyone interested.
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/panas...umix-s-100mm-f2-8-macro-lens-bundle-30000208/