Because I‘m still a disbeliever in terms of 3d pop, that would be an interesting comparison! Maybe there is someone at this forum who owns both lenses, the 85 and the 100 and can do some tests using the same scenery…
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
That is indeed a review which does not exist, it would be great regardless of pop as a comparison of portrait performance with humans, animals or anything which is a subject.
I'll see what I can get over time with 85-100mm range using the 24-105 f4, 70-300 f4.5-f5.6 and some legacy CZ Jena and Pentax 135's I have plus a few 50mm.
So apparently you are only concerned with a certain foreground / background separation for portraits,
related to perspective / shooting position. As used normally for portraits. (Roughly: Face / head - torso).
But because in your opening post you also mention focal lengths of 35 and 50 mm and indicate that they are all very “flat”,
it is very confusing by what you labelled as “3D pop”??
This confusion also evident in the subsequent responses with photo examples that forum users have provided.
Shooting positions that one would like to take with shorter focal lengths “for portrait” in order to achieve more or less "same" crops (face / head - torso)
are absolutely not comparable to those of longer focal lengths. Because shooting position in relation of angle of view/perspective is completely different.
It purely is an optical / physics affair.
Old or new lenses have nothing to do with it either as it comes for separation. As optical physics is not different for old or new lenses.
If you specifically want to use background separation versus perspective / shooting position of approximately 100mm for portrait.
Any lens with comparable brightness (as for comparable DOF) will be able to do this. However, you don't have much choice for L-mount.
-
By one of the Lumix 100mm macro tests seen at YouTube - Gordon Laing made that comparison, with the Lumix 85mm/1.8
Check at about: 3:09 minutes --and-- 8:40 minutes
-
Michael_too
Member
As a clue to why some images appear to have more 3D pop than others, we might have to look at how the old painters did it. By choosing the colors carefully and using the brightest white paint they could find to paint specular highlights, right next to the deepest black paint to get maximum contrast they could create a greater sense of depth and realism. The bright specular highlights contrasted with deep blacks also works well on oled screens which also more easily give a greater perception of depth and realism then LCD screens. So I do suspect that lenses which can accurately render bright specks of highlight detail against a dark background have an advantage here. The choice of colors works as some colors have a tendency to be perceived as coming towards you (in particular yellow or red) while others appear to recede more easily into the background like pale blue in particular but also greens. So then it is more a choice of composition and choice of subjects. Exaggerated perspective by a bit of barrel distortion of a lens might also help.
Another thing I noticed is that images where the entire subject is sharp front-to-back, but the background is out of focus gives a greater sense of depth to me than an image where the DOF is so shallow that the subjects silhouette is already soft and blending into the OOF background.
I am one of those people that can't see proper depth from the parallax effect of having two eyes, so the depth clues also available to 2D images is all I have anyway (well, and moving my head a little).
Another thing I noticed is that images where the entire subject is sharp front-to-back, but the background is out of focus gives a greater sense of depth to me than an image where the DOF is so shallow that the subjects silhouette is already soft and blending into the OOF background.
I am one of those people that can't see proper depth from the parallax effect of having two eyes, so the depth clues also available to 2D images is all I have anyway (well, and moving my head a little).
xaviergut
LMF-Patron
If I'm not mistaken, this photo was taken wide open, at 1.8, right? The 3D effect is produced by the separation or distance of the subject from the background, and the "visual cut", a clear line between the subject and the blurred background, right?
Howarth Steam Punk Weekend 2019 by Iain, on Flickr
I have been looking in my photographic archive for some examples with the Lumix 85mm f1.8 to illustrate the differences and how to achieve more 3D effect:
#1, wide open at f/1.8:
#2, at f/8:
Which photo has the most 3D effect?
Would it be possible to achieve this effect with another lens and sufficient separation between subject and background and with the ideal aperture?
Howarth Steam Punk Weekend 2019 by Iain, on FlickrI have been looking in my photographic archive for some examples with the Lumix 85mm f1.8 to illustrate the differences and how to achieve more 3D effect:
#1, wide open at f/1.8:
- Panasonic - DC-S5
- LUMIX S 85/F1.8
- 85.0 mm
- ƒ/1.8
- 1/320 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 100
#2, at f/8:
- Panasonic - DC-S5
- LUMIX S 85/F1.8
- 85.0 mm
- ƒ/8
- 1/100 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 640
Which photo has the most 3D effect?
Would it be possible to achieve this effect with another lens and sufficient separation between subject and background and with the ideal aperture?
Yes f1.8 and yes, it's not my photo. As for your Lumix photos, the f1.8 has a bit more but maybe need more distance to background but it might not make much difference.
I feel there is something else more to the 77 Ltd one giving that profound pop that another lens may not.
Thank you for this video link! The comparison at 8:40 is exactly what I meant. Both lenses used for portrait at a typical distance. The result shows the awaited difference in background blurr.
Now the question to the 3dpop department (no offense, I just want to understand the arguments!): do you see more or less 3d pop in the compared pictures? For me both are working well with a slight difference based on the difference of the maximum aperture.
CharlesH
LMF-Patron Gold
3D pop department here. I can't see 3D pop in either lens, the 100mm or the 85mm. I kind of assume the picture itself has to have pop, before it can have 3D pop. And neither picture pops for me.
There are two 3D pop camps. One maintains there is a magic property in some lenses so they can display 3D information in a 2D image. My camp is if the brain somehow sees 3D in a 2D image, there must be something about the image that conveys this. I've boiled it down to the only two things that make sense to me, the out of focus transition and the decreasing size of known background objects. Sadly I've not seen images that support that idea very much.
On the other hand, I own the 100mm f/2.8 macro and it is the most magic lens I have. If I keep shooting with it maybe something will pop out.
In die 80ies/90ies with analog film, I found lenses from Zeiss (Contax cameras) and Leica (M&R) to have very often this 3D effect. Especially in combination with the slide films Fuji Velvia and Provia 100F.
At that time there was a significant image quality difference between the excellent Zeiss/Leica lenses and the crowd of Canon/Nikon/Minolta/Pentax/Sigma etc . Sony did not exist in photography in these decades.
Then Sigma decided to offer DSLRs. This alone was already a sensation. But on top of that, they offered these cameras not with a traditional Bayer sensor like the rest of the world, but with a Foveon sensor. Foveon was still an independent company back then (did you know that a Kodak camera existed with a Foveon sensor?).
The first Sigma DSLR camera was the Sigma SD9 with a Foveon sensor.
This was for me the first time when I saw this 3D pop effect also on images not shot with Zeiss or Leica lenses. On almost every image shot with the Foveon sensor. For me this was crazy, because the Sigma lenses were not different. If I used the same lens on a Nikon body, there was no 3D effect at all. So only the sensor was the reason.
From that moment on I was a die-hard fan of the Foveon sensor.
I founded the first and only Sigma only user community in German and English to show others that you can have Leica like (and often even better) image quality for a very low price (with some disadvantages in postprocessing).
This 3D experience continued from the Sigma SD9 to SD10, SD14, SD15 and SD1. The Sigma compact cameras (DP) had this too, especially the Sigma DP Merril 1, 2 and 3. BUT the DP cameras after the DP3M had a different designed Foveon sensor and due to this, this 3D pop effect almost disappeared (in my view) in all successors of the DP Merrill compact cameras.
Having had this experience with the very different setups I concluded for me, that there is more than one factor which leads to this 3D pop effect and it has nothing to do with DOF or background seperation.
In my view, if it comes from the lens, it has something to do with microcontrast. It is a certain rendering. Even if you shoot at F11, you get this 3D effect.
But for me most important is the sensor. That most cameras have nowadays no AA filter anymore helps. But this 3D transparancy reality of a Foveon sensor is still unmatched.
The Foveon sensor not only gives a Pop effect, it shows a clarity, a realism in the image that gives you the impression that you look through an open window instead of looking through the closed window.
You have the impression to touch the subject you are shooting with your hands. It is not an image anymore. It is real like it would be in front of you.
The downside of the Foveon sensor is high ISO noise, colour shift and it is difficult to correct it in the Sigma software SPP. Lightroom supported only the first version of the Sigma DSLRs, later model not anymore.
I have to see whether I can dig an old Sigma photo out of my backups to show you what I mean.
This is the reason why I was so excited when I heard on the press conference at Photokina 2018 about the L-Mount alliance. Because with Sigma the Foveon idea could continue. I created this L-Mount forum in the first night after this press conference while I was still there in my hotel room in Cologne/Köln. That was a lot of adrenalin at that time.
At that time there was a significant image quality difference between the excellent Zeiss/Leica lenses and the crowd of Canon/Nikon/Minolta/Pentax/Sigma etc . Sony did not exist in photography in these decades.
Then Sigma decided to offer DSLRs. This alone was already a sensation. But on top of that, they offered these cameras not with a traditional Bayer sensor like the rest of the world, but with a Foveon sensor. Foveon was still an independent company back then (did you know that a Kodak camera existed with a Foveon sensor?).
The first Sigma DSLR camera was the Sigma SD9 with a Foveon sensor.
This was for me the first time when I saw this 3D pop effect also on images not shot with Zeiss or Leica lenses. On almost every image shot with the Foveon sensor. For me this was crazy, because the Sigma lenses were not different. If I used the same lens on a Nikon body, there was no 3D effect at all. So only the sensor was the reason.
From that moment on I was a die-hard fan of the Foveon sensor.
I founded the first and only Sigma only user community in German and English to show others that you can have Leica like (and often even better) image quality for a very low price (with some disadvantages in postprocessing).
This 3D experience continued from the Sigma SD9 to SD10, SD14, SD15 and SD1. The Sigma compact cameras (DP) had this too, especially the Sigma DP Merril 1, 2 and 3. BUT the DP cameras after the DP3M had a different designed Foveon sensor and due to this, this 3D pop effect almost disappeared (in my view) in all successors of the DP Merrill compact cameras.
Having had this experience with the very different setups I concluded for me, that there is more than one factor which leads to this 3D pop effect and it has nothing to do with DOF or background seperation.
In my view, if it comes from the lens, it has something to do with microcontrast. It is a certain rendering. Even if you shoot at F11, you get this 3D effect.
But for me most important is the sensor. That most cameras have nowadays no AA filter anymore helps. But this 3D transparancy reality of a Foveon sensor is still unmatched.
The Foveon sensor not only gives a Pop effect, it shows a clarity, a realism in the image that gives you the impression that you look through an open window instead of looking through the closed window.
You have the impression to touch the subject you are shooting with your hands. It is not an image anymore. It is real like it would be in front of you.
The downside of the Foveon sensor is high ISO noise, colour shift and it is difficult to correct it in the Sigma software SPP. Lightroom supported only the first version of the Sigma DSLRs, later model not anymore.
I have to see whether I can dig an old Sigma photo out of my backups to show you what I mean.
This is the reason why I was so excited when I heard on the press conference at Photokina 2018 about the L-Mount alliance. Because with Sigma the Foveon idea could continue. I created this L-Mount forum in the first night after this press conference while I was still there in my hotel room in Cologne/Köln. That was a lot of adrenalin at that time.
If you look at these details from a technical point of view there is something common between old slide film an the Foveon sensor: Both are working not plane, but with some depth or layers inside the film and sensor. The slide filters definitely works with different layers and the Foveon sensor creates different colors from a different depth of each pixel.In die 80ies/90ies with analog film, I found lenses from Zeiss (Contax cameras) and Leica (M&R) to have very often this 3D effect. Especially in combination with the slide films Fuji Velvia and Provia 100F.
At that time there was a significant image quality difference between the excellent Zeiss/Leica lenses and the crowd of Canon/Nikon/Minolta/Pentax/Sigma etc . Sony did not exist in photography in these decades.
Then Sigma decided to offer DSLRs. This alone was already a sensation. But on top of that, they offered these cameras not with a traditional Bayer sensor like the rest of the world, but with a Foveon sensor. Foveon was still an independent company back then (did you know that a Kodak camera existed with a Foveon sensor?).
The first Sigma DSLR camera was the Sigma SD9 with a Foveon sensor.
This was for me the first time when I saw this 3D pop effect also on images not shot with Zeiss or Leica lenses. On almost every image shot with the Foveon sensor. For me this was crazy, because the Sigma lenses were not different. If I used the same lens on a Nikon body, there was no 3D effect at all. So only the sensor was the reason.
From that moment on I was a die-hard fan of the Foveon sensor.
But then the lens must do something additional, because at old slide film times the film was identical with different bodies and lenses...
Would be great if you will find some examples from your archive where you see the 3D pop to start collecting examples.
Not always. As I said in my posting, the same Sigma lens on a SLR or DSLR Nikon gave me no 3D effect. No matter whether I used Fuji Velvia or not. But on the Foveon sensor it did.
I do think that it has a lot to do with microcontrast. You can see similar effects (but not to that degree) with the clarity filter in Lightroom. If lenses and/or the sesnor support this special microcontrast, you will see the effect. But I am not an expert in it. at the end of the day, I do not care how it is achieved, as long as I get it
Here is an image shot with a Sigma DP3 Merrill. Snapshot. Jpeg only, since LR does not read the RAW files and I am not in the mood to install now SPP software. The kid was moving back and forth, so the AF hit on the arms.
- SIGMA - SIGMA DP3 Merrill
- 50.0 mm
- ƒ/7.1
- 1/200 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 200
I do not know how much the forum software change the image, so I attached 2 zip files. The web4k_zip file is not the original jpeg size, which is bigger. The original jpeg attached is without sharpening etc., so you can edit it at your taste.
Last edited:
The image of the kid in my posting above is of 2014. As you can see in the above image, the part of the pullover which I focused on is very real. This is the "Foveon effect" I am talking about. Clear, transparent, as if you could touch the pullover.
Nothing like DOF, blurred background etc. is causing this. The lens in the DP3M is excellent, but not the reason for it.
I sold all my Sigma cameras, since I thought that there will be soon one available in L-Mount. Therefore I can not make a newer photo.
As it looks like atm, it is very difficult to produce a fullframe Foveon sensor in larger quantities cost efficient. It is not sure, whether Sigma will be able to succeed with this.
If they will only offer a variation of the original 3 layer Foveon design as it was the case in all Sigma cameras after the DP3M, I am not sure whether it will have this "Foveon effect" again.
There is always a compromise you have to take. I would be happy also with a rebirth of the DP2M/DP3M with an APS-C sensor, but better control of this greenish/yellow teint. And RAWs please in DNG format, so we can pick the editing software ourselves. Saves Sigma also a lot of money by not developing the Sigma RAW files editing software SPP in the future anymore.
Nothing like DOF, blurred background etc. is causing this. The lens in the DP3M is excellent, but not the reason for it.
I sold all my Sigma cameras, since I thought that there will be soon one available in L-Mount. Therefore I can not make a newer photo.
As it looks like atm, it is very difficult to produce a fullframe Foveon sensor in larger quantities cost efficient. It is not sure, whether Sigma will be able to succeed with this.
If they will only offer a variation of the original 3 layer Foveon design as it was the case in all Sigma cameras after the DP3M, I am not sure whether it will have this "Foveon effect" again.
There is always a compromise you have to take. I would be happy also with a rebirth of the DP2M/DP3M with an APS-C sensor, but better control of this greenish/yellow teint. And RAWs please in DNG format, so we can pick the editing software ourselves. Saves Sigma also a lot of money by not developing the Sigma RAW files editing software SPP in the future anymore.
Last edited:
Could you please upload the Image on our server? If I click on it, it asks me always to register with flickr, which I do not want to do.
I can't Dirk, they're not my images, download not available regardless. This is the only way I can link them with the tools here.
Yeah that's frustrating needing to be logged in to view these which I wasn't aware, I'm the same with facebook links but they asked me to upload my passport or driving licence to log in... No mission!
Edit: I can view them with not being logged into flickr.
CharlesH
LMF-Patron Gold
I can view them, and don't have a flikr account. Yes a few are really good, with depth.
Please don't tell me I'll need to invest in Leica gear.
I see a used Leica 50mm Summilux-SL f/1.4 ASPH with a dent in it from a UK photo retailer for only £1989
It's probably the best 50mm you can get for L-mount and no doubt this is probably at the top of the 3d pop list for now, a good review and more sample photos within:
https://www.thephoblographer.com/20...f1-4-summilux-the-best-l-mount-portrait-lens/
You'd need this for the 61MP S1R ii
I can see them here in the forum. But as soon as I click on the image to see it bigger, it leads me to a login Flickr page.
It is your geographic location, certain IP regions require logging in, if you had a vpn you could switch countries.
I tested it switching my location to Berlin and hey presto up pops the flickr login page.