Nothing intellectual about 3D itself, it's simply a matter of knowledge and furthering your understanding of trends in optical achievements and directions users and lens designers take. Serious people, who invest large sums in what they do, in producing their work.
It's the same as anything else in the field. So I stubbornly persist in presenting actual information, because many people view such threads without commenting, as they don't enjoy the argy-bargy. It rolls off some of us like water off a raincoat, and we have our says.
I'm not a fan of bird images but I don't go and dirty up their threads. Photography, video and cine are all broad churches, as they say - so it's rather perplexing the heat and acrimony the subject invokes. The controversy itself is just fine, it stimulates critical thinking and that is in short supply these days.
It's the naysayers that get peoples' goat - their message seems to be 'I don't see it, so you can't either and you're a dope who is fair game for disparagement', and we shouldn't learn more about why it is so important in many optical fields these days.
I read the sad news that myopia is accelerating fast and will reach 50% of all people by 2050. And also that most people view images at 1.05-1.2-1.6 times the image diagonal as viewing standards - too close to see the forest for the trees IMO, and seeing the whole image in one take is critical to seeing 3D in images because you need to observe all the elements in one go, not move your eyes to each part sequentially. And I wonder if this has anything to do with the generated heat. cheers.
Here is a lengthy observation that helps explain why older lenses have remained in strong demand, both the lenses themselves and the look that many lens producers are trying to reproduce in newly manufactured lenses.
A lot of 3D was easily seen in last century's lenses, so it's intriguing to try and find out why that was so, and see where the industry 'went wrong' and lost touch so badly. But a lot of people are disturbed to realise progress is often regress, and you see that happening everywhere these days: car design, architecture, and yes, imagery.
--
'Modern coatings are advanced molecular stacks designed for precise spectra. They favor high contrast and digital optimization, yielding clean, neutral imagery. Yet many shooters find that vintage coatings—less perfect but more soulful—produce subtler tonal transitions that flatter skin and film emulsions.
Some old lenses perform better than modern ones, simpler coating formulas can yield images that feel more alive. Some old coatings actually complement the simple optical designs they were built for.
With fewer glass elements, light travels a purer path, giving images micro-contrast that feels rich and tactile. Instead of hyper-saturated tones, you get a balanced palette—especially appealing for portrait or black-and-white work.
Modern coatings can sometimes over-correct, creating sterile visuals devoid of atmosphere. Vintage coatings allow controlled flare that gently wraps highlights, producing depth modern lenses struggle to emulate.
Pros include: Organic color and smoother shadows; Natural highlight roll-off in bright light; Distinct rendering perfect for storytelling.
Creative reasons to keep vintage coated lenses in your Kit, how classic coatings add emotion and story to modern photography. Vintage coated lenses excel when character matters more than perfection. Soft flares, dreamy warmth, and pastel rendering inspire both still shooters and filmmakers seeking nostalgic moods. Combining old glass with digital bodies creates endless experimental possibilities.
Why do some old lenses perform better than modern ones?
Because simpler optical formulas and unique coating materials produce more natural color tones and softer contrast that modern lenses sometimes lose.'
All these characteristics produce, or are related to, dimensionality. An image is naturally more appealing when it exhibits 3D, so say the advocates of it.
