Upload & Sell: On
| p.4 #5 · which lens has the most 3D POP? |
Hmm, well, interesting post, but I disagree with several items. First of all, and this is a minor semantic quibble, the two types you list aren't lens 3D types, but rather characteristics of lenses which you propose can produce 3D images. Minor, but important.
Secondly, I disagree with your characterization of Leicas as falling off towards the corners, Modern Leicas are some of the most solid performers in this regard. If you want to restrict this characterization to older Leicas, then I would agree somewhat. I also disagree with Zeiss lenses having high sharpness across the frame. This depends very much on the specific lens, but even some of the top Zeiss ZF/ZE lenses have dramatic fall-off towards the corners. Saying that Leica lenses are about optical perfection, sometimes at the cost of some personality and rendering style, and Zeiss images are about the rendering style, sometimes at the cost of optical performance, is much closer to the truth.
I agree 100% that the discussion of 3D pop would need to include the topic of DoF falloff rate. I disagree that processing is not relevant, simply because the OP asked about lenses. Any discussion of 3D needs to include processing. Not all lenses can take the same processing, and so the final result comes from lens+processing appropriate for that lens. I also disagree that colour considerations are not important. The spatial/textural rendering of a lens depends very much on its ability to render subtle colour differences visible, and this is why so many Canon lenses have no 3D, among other things (such as missing micro-contrast).
Finally, perhaps you could post a 50 Cron shot with lots of 3D? I used to own this lens, and loved it to bits, but I don't recall seeing any 3D from it.
What I feel is direly missing from this discussion is a definition of 3D. All previous threads fell flat on their inability to have the participants agree what 3D is, in theory and in photos. Most people are merely referring to a sense of depth, usually foreground and background planes, when they say 3D. The vast majority even. I find that more is needed. But as long as we want to discuss something in detail, we need to agree on what we are discussing, no?
I agree with pretty much all of your points - and we all know how subjective the idea of "3D" rendering is - so here is a test shot from my v2 Summicron R showing what I find to exhibit some "3Dness". The only thing I did to this shot was to slightly push the black level up.
100% crop 1 from above:
100% crop 2 from above: