I might a lens that falls in 3D pop and least pop list. It’ll depend on the lighting and the distance of the subject from the background. It’s the Sonnar 24/1.8 for my aps-c A6700. Nevertheless it’s a superb lens for travel and environmental portraiture.
I like this question. Until recently, 3D Pop was not something that really mattered to me as I was largely focused on large format photography (think f64). I was also fascinated with pre-Ansel Adams explorations in soft focus photography as well as more contemporary use of out of focus. As someone who is interested in photographing things like architecture (first interest) I look for lenses that have flat fields, minimal distortion, and less diffraction at smaller apertures. Here's a couple example images:
Looks like we have the same clowns ruining yet another thread. At least Philip writes intelligent posts…these clowns are well just clowns…crying to be heard.
old-gregg wrote:
Humanity will be better off if we treated everything posted on the Internet as a comedy club material.
I do appreciate humor, but I also think we need substance, especially in a photography forum discussion that's this specific. I don't agree that 'everything' needs to be humor. We are here to learn from each other and share real understanding as well.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I do appreciate humor, but I also think we need substance, especially in a photography forum discussion that's this specific. .....
agree...now pls post the same on that famous 3D pop thread with multiple trolling, arguing, barking etc...oh, yes..there was some substance as well
Jonas B wrote:
I’ve appreciated many of Philip’s posts over the years and also liked many of his photos. Over the past year, however, he’s been quite… let’s say tiresome. I think that’s why you’ve seen posts that have been negative.
Who knows. Hacked accounts are a thing. A while back I used to receive nonsensical spam posts that had me scratching my head. Turned out later that I probably was at the receiving end of bot farm tests. The recent 3d messages I've read from our Phillip here just might similarly be coming from an LLM bot. It has been said that these days more than half of all internet traffic is due to bots.
Did you read the other thread? The same one I (tried) to read?
Fred Miranda wrote:
If "3D pop" is serious enough to fuel pages of debate about which lens has the most, then asking which one has the least shouldn't suddenly turn the thread into a comedy club.
bmike-vt wrote:
Did you read the other thread? The same one I (tried) to read?
This is the inverse thread. And to be true to the OP's question, we should be identifying lenses we've found produce the least 3D, not debating the reality of 3D.
From my experience I can put lenses into 3 categories. Those that often give 3D, those that sometimes give 3D and those that never give 3D. My answer to the OP's questions would be my 3rd list.
No lens at infinity has 3D pop. The only way this question can be answered is to show images at close to mid subject distances. Ideally comparing one with pop to one w/o.
