I personally think @jojib@'s recent shots, the ones on the boat and in the forest actually show some 3d pop compared to shots posted previously, especially those with flash, which IMHO makes pictures rather flat.
But I think the whole discussion about those pictures sums up the difficulty of this topic in general:
there is no one definition of 3d pop, one which would be naturally understood by everyone ...
And that's where the confusion (and near-outrage presented by some in this thread ) comes from I think...
j4nu wrote:
I personally think @jojib@@'s recent shots, the ones on the boat and in the forest actually show some 3d pop compared to shots posted previously, especially those with flash, which IMHO makes pictures rather flat.
But I think the whole discussion about those pictures sums up the difficulty of this topic in general:
there is no one definition of 3d pop, one which would be naturally understood by everyone ...
And that's where the confusion (and near-outrage presented by some in this thread ) comes from I think...
"near-outrage" is an exaggeration. It was more like a mild disagreement.
If I am not mistaken, I haven't seen your posts on FM in a long while - for a year, or may be longer.
Have you been well?
I have not read all 145 pages, but in there I assume there are multiple discussions (perhaps disagreements?) about what "pop" means?
Why I prefer separate optical terms like sharpness, bokeh, contrast, micro-contrast, vignette; plus even including coma, stigmatism and chromatic aberration.
To me, the best artistic version of these combines in a balanced fashion that does give certain lenses what I refer to as "the juice." That said, it's usually lenses with some vignette, good sharpness, smoother bokeh and at least medium to moderate contrast end up the clear winners.
The newer lens trend to sharp and contrasty above all else so they test out on a resolution chart as technically excellent, many times look so clean as to render too sterile for my liking. And that's great for those that like that look. But most lenses that had this older "juice" look to my eyes were older designs. Good examples for me to share are almost any of the older, pre-asph primes from any of the major manufacturers -- almost all had at least some if it.
Probably the best recent example I can share is Nikon's 58/1.4 G lens -- it was (still is actually) a gem in this regard, very reminiscent of Leica Mandler designs. Unfortunately it has pretty horrible CA which regularly rears its head on todays digital sensors. Ironically though, some new releases from Viltrox and Samyang have at least a significant amount of "juice" in many situations. The caveat is they also tend to lean toward great sharpness, contrast, micro-contrast and low CA for a slight tradeoff to busier bokeh. With that said, in Viltrox 2 standouts for me are the Viltrox 50/2 air and 26/2.8 EVO pancake; and in Samyang, the 18/2.8 (yes, big surprise for a wide!) and 75/1.8. All 4 of these are wonderful street/environmental run-and-gun prime options, all are small and lightweight, and all 4 of them can be had for about the same money as a typical f4 doitall zoom or even a little less... FWIW and my .02 only.
Hey Jack! When I stumbled upon this thread my eyes opened wide. I said to myself man this is like a walk in the park for my Canon 85/1.2 LII. This is akin in getting a 'sitter'---that's a tennis term for a ball to be smacked hard. I said to myself I will hit this tennis ball so hard you have to retrieve it in the parking lot. So after a long hiatus of the thread I bumped it and showed my 85L pics shot wide open. Right away a couple of people said---that is not 3D! Dang so I said what---it's as if my overhead smash wasn't a winner after all because they are claiming I hit the top of the tennis net !
Anyway I agree that 3D is more than silky smooth bokeh/background blur and it's more about getting the composition right. I still say that my Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB N has the most 3D pop!
Jack Flesher wrote:
I have not read all 145 pages, but in there I assume there are multiple discussions (perhaps disagreements?) about what "pop" means?
I only contributed jokes and puns into this forum, until now. Jokes aside, I believe there used to be a very real phenomenon which gave birth to the 3D pop folklore.
Back in the uncoated lens days, shooting into the sun (or with the light source anywhere close to the frame) resulted in a massive loss of contrast. Early coatings started to improve the situation. The introduction of T* by Zeiss, along with their optical designs optimizing for low-mid MTF contrast, allowed photographers to shoot into the light with the resulting contrast they couldn't achieve before.
I believe that was the origin of "pop".
These days, of course, all coatings are excellent.
jojib wrote:
Hey Jack! When I stumbled upon this thread my eyes opened wide. I said to myself man this is like a walk in the park for my Canon 85/1.2 LII. This is akin in getting a 'sitter'---that's a tennis term for a ball to be smacked hard. I said to myself I will hit this tennis ball so hard you have to retrieve it in the parking lot. So after a long hiatus of the thread I bumped it and showed my 85L pics shot wide open. Right away a couple of people said---that is not 3D! Dang so I said what---it's as if my overhead smash wasn't a winner after all because they are claiming I hit the top of the tennis net !
Anyway I agree that 3D is more than silky smooth bokeh/background blur and it's more about getting the composition right. I still say that my Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB N has the most 3D pop! ...Show more →
I agree that the Viltrox 35 LAB has it in spades — I just wish it wasn’t so darn humongous 🤣
...
That said, it's usually lenses with some vignette, good sharpness, smoother bokeh and at least medium to moderate contrast end up the clear winners. 
!
