Edit: Sorry, wrong thread. Didnt realize theres a clone of the past mega thread! Lol!
I dont care to think much about lenses with the least pop, most modern lenses come to mind.
Especially the high end Otus or Leica APO so many special glass elements, makes it difficult to pop
This thread made me realise that my own personal choice is specifically 2D rather than 3D rendering lenses. I do appreciate seeing what Zeiss T* coatings will do, especially in B&W but it's not how I see myself.
carstenw wrote:
but I think it is fairly easy to make a good case that some lenses regularly produce "3D" whereas other lenses rarely or never produce "3D", so there must be at least some degree of lens involvement.
I'm inclined to think that different lens design approaches (double gauss, etc.) lend to this. I think that in the "older" era of lenses, the differentiations of lens designs (i.e. Zeiss vs. Olympus) approach made it easier to differentiate the "producers" from the non-producers.
Now, the degree of hybrid variant lens designs has become very iterative and the distinction among the plethora of lenses continues to decrease. I think that if someone had the same focal length with two very different optical designs, that is where we might most greatly see the distinction. For most folks, however ... their personal ownership of lenses does not provide such a great distinction in design approach.
I've often thought that the 40/2 Summicron-C vs. the Voigtlander 40/1.2 might make a good example (pondering others) ... but, finding someone who actually owns both at the same time is not readily upon us. Personally, I've since sold my 40/2 (sans buying the VM). My previous link to Fred's wide open comps (car / license) I think shows a significant difference in the realm of lens influence. Of course, no one has bothered to acknowledge the reference to that difference. Here's the link again.
Go to Page 3 and look at the comps of the Nova.
Note: It would be (imo) interesting to compare the lens design / structure of those lenses, to see if we glean a correlation.
But, I think that for folks to consider the optical design diff's in the query to look for great examples to illustrate the difference, they first have to start thinking about the physics of the optics ... relative to rate of change in how the optic functions. The basic premise of human physiological response to depth perception is rooted in rate of change. The attributes of human physiological depth perception are simultaneously complex (i.e. focal plane, acutance, color, tone, shape, mass, texture, saturation, contrast, etc.) in a manner that combine for the mind to assess.
So, whenever those different (singular vs. combinations) attributes have varying rates of change, the perception of depth is enhanced or more readily perceived. The optical contribution does combine with non-optical contributions, and it is a complex matter that doesn't get boiled down to a singular thing.
That said ... for the seasoned folks of FM ... I can recall Paul Yi's work long ago as being a steady producer. The naysayers will always continue to be naysayers, but for the folks who witnessed the regularity of which Paul (et al) did so, your perspective of "there must be at least some degree of lens involvement" is a reasonable consideration of observation, imo.
I agree, I think that modern designs are converging to some extent, and it is hard to find a really bad design now. The differentiation is to be found in older designs, when the restrictions forced the manufacturers to choose compromises.
freaklikeme wrote:
Consider the Z mount of the Otus 35 ML as well. It's gorgeous, better corrected than either, and lighter than the F (either version).
It's nice to see you around, by the way.
Thanks! I have to say that I am pleasantly surprised how many names I recognise here I even unblocked everyone I had blocked back in the day, who knows, maybe the world is better now, and everyone deserves a second chance
