which lens has the most 3D POP?
p.165 #1which lens has the most 3D POP?
SONY ILCE-7M5
1/250s f/1.2 at 35.0mm iso125
1/250s f/1.2 at 35.0mm iso125
Nov 07, 2026 at 07:48 AM
p.165 #2which lens has the most 3D POP?
Here is pop. Hasselblad XCD 120mm, top, Nikon Z7 bottom, not sure which lens for the Nikon. It could be the Voigtlander 125mm APO Lanthar but I would have to spend an hour to find the original raw file and I don't have that kind of time just now. I can post more that 'pop' if you like.
Nov 07, 2026 at 09:15 AM
p.165 #3which lens has the most 3D POP?
@MichaelErlewine awesome details there---both images!!! Definitely they pop!! Thanks for sharing.
Nov 07, 2026 at 07:14 PM
p.165 #4which lens has the most 3D POP?
Those are focus stacked images, right?
Nov 08, 2026 at 03:25 AM
p.165 #6which lens has the most 3D POP?
I see. In the first image, I can count several dust spots (>10), so I assume it was taken with a fairly small aperture. The background must have been far enough away to be sufficiently blurred.
Nov 08, 2026 at 07:59 AM
p.165 #7which lens has the most 3D POP?
In the second image stacking anomalies are pretty obvious.
Nov 08, 2026 at 08:05 AM
p.165 #8which lens has the most 3D POP?
Hahaha, I wouldn’t have thought it, but it actually seems as though the absurdity of this thread is getting another boost after 15 years.
Thanks, AI! Thanks, focus stacking!
😄👍🏻
Thanks, AI! Thanks, focus stacking!
😄👍🏻
Nov 08, 2026 at 08:20 AM
p.165 #9which lens has the most 3D POP?
This thread is certainly too long to digest all of it but reading the latest few pages I've come to learn most people have a different definition of "pop" than I ever had. It seems most think of pop as shallow depth of field and contrasty colors. I've never thought of pop with out adding 3D, as in 3D Pop. Where an image takes on a near holographic property. Sort of like looking through the old red and blue cardboard glasses. 
Of course that's an exaggeration but I think some 2D images come close with a little imagination.
Of course that's an exaggeration but I think some 2D images come close with a little imagination. Nov 08, 2026 at 08:25 AM
p.165 #10which lens has the most 3D POP?
EF 50/1.2 L
Canon EOS R6 Mark II
1/8000s f/1.2 at 50.0mm iso100
Canon EOS R6 Mark II
1/8000s f/1.2 at 50.0mm iso100
Nov 08, 2026 at 08:37 AM
|
p.165 #11which lens has the most 3D POP?
By now, it's turned into a thread about photography at f/1.2—a whole different story.
Nov 08, 2026 at 09:00 AM
p.165 #12which lens has the most 3D POP?
While I guess pop is more eye catching than dimensionality, I still enjoy the latter, even at f/11.
Nov 08, 2026 at 09:14 AM
p.165 #13which lens has the most 3D POP?
rodenmg wrote:
In the second image stacking anomalies are pretty obvious.
I don't think so, but I have so many images I could not find that particular raw file to see. Yet focus stacking is fine, but for the Night Blooming Cereus I doubt it. The problem is I changed the name of the shot for publication purposes, and finding the original shoot would be difficult.
In the second image stacking anomalies are pretty obvious.
I don't think so, but I have so many images I could not find that particular raw file to see. Yet focus stacking is fine, but for the Night Blooming Cereus I doubt it. The problem is I changed the name of the shot for publication purposes, and finding the original shoot would be difficult.
Nov 08, 2026 at 09:19 AM
p.165 #14which lens has the most 3D POP?
My take on this is like what I mentioned before a few times after watching 3D movies in theatres that it's like the subject (whether a person or object) is like trying to bust out from my monitor. And it leaves the background behind. So for me background blur/separation is a must.
Nov 08, 2026 at 09:28 AM
p.165 #15which lens has the most 3D POP?
MichaelErlewine wrote:
I don't think so, but I have so many images I could not find that particular raw file to see. Yet focus stacking is fine, but for the Night Blooming Cereus I doubt it. The problem is I changed the name of the shot for publication purposes, and finding the original shoot would be difficult.
Absolutely nothing wrong with focus stacking. I use it a lot.
rodenmg wrote
In the second image stacking anomalies are pretty obvious.Absolutely nothing wrong with focus stacking. I use it a lot.
Nov 08, 2026 at 09:34 AM
p.165 #16which lens has the most 3D POP?
jojib wrote:
So for me background blur/separation is a must.
I had no doubt that FOR YOU background blur/separation is a must 🤣
Ask AI and you get the following answer:
Misconception 1: 3D Pop is just another word for Background Blur
• The Myth: If you buy a massive f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens and shoot it wide open to completely obliterate the background, you automatically get 3D pop.
• The Reality: Ultra-smooth, "milky" background blur (Gaussian blur) can actually flatten an image. True 3D pop tricks the brain into seeing depth because of the focus falloff—the gradual, structured transition from sharp to blurry. If the background is a completely uniform, textureless mush, the brain loses context for how far away the background actually is. In fact, many images with distinct 3D pop are shot at moderate apertures like f/2.8 or f/4, retaining just enough background texture to create a sense of environmental scale.
I wrote more or less the same things a few hundred posts ago, without using AI 😂
So for me background blur/separation is a must.
I had no doubt that FOR YOU background blur/separation is a must 🤣
Ask AI and you get the following answer:
Misconception 1: 3D Pop is just another word for Background Blur
• The Myth: If you buy a massive f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens and shoot it wide open to completely obliterate the background, you automatically get 3D pop.
• The Reality: Ultra-smooth, "milky" background blur (Gaussian blur) can actually flatten an image. True 3D pop tricks the brain into seeing depth because of the focus falloff—the gradual, structured transition from sharp to blurry. If the background is a completely uniform, textureless mush, the brain loses context for how far away the background actually is. In fact, many images with distinct 3D pop are shot at moderate apertures like f/2.8 or f/4, retaining just enough background texture to create a sense of environmental scale.
I wrote more or less the same things a few hundred posts ago, without using AI 😂
Nov 08, 2026 at 09:39 AM
p.165 #17which lens has the most 3D POP?
Ripolini wrote:
I had no doubt that FOR YOU background blur/separation is a must 🤣
Ask AI and you get the following answer:
Misconception 1: 3D Pop is just another word for Background Blur
• The Myth: If you buy a massive f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens and shoot it wide open to completely obliterate the background, you automatically get 3D pop.
• The Reality: Ultra-smooth, "milky" background blur (Gaussian blur) can actually flatten an image. True 3D pop tricks the brain into seeing depth because of the focus falloff—the gradual, structured transition from sharp to blurry. If the background is a completely uniform, textureless mush, the
...Show more →
Yeah and I've asked Perplexity AI before as well and their description of 3D is like the above. However, based on my 3D movie experience I beg to differ. I think though even though I shot with F/1.2---I still found the backgrounds to be readable.
jojib wrote
So for me background blur/separation is a must.Ask AI and you get the following answer:
Misconception 1: 3D Pop is just another word for Background Blur
• The Myth: If you buy a massive f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens and shoot it wide open to completely obliterate the background, you automatically get 3D pop.
• The Reality: Ultra-smooth, "milky" background blur (Gaussian blur) can actually flatten an image. True 3D pop tricks the brain into seeing depth because of the focus falloff—the gradual, structured transition from sharp to blurry. If the background is a completely uniform, textureless mush, the
...Show more →
Yeah and I've asked Perplexity AI before as well and their description of 3D is like the above. However, based on my 3D movie experience I beg to differ. I think though even though I shot with F/1.2---I still found the backgrounds to be readable.
Nov 08, 2026 at 09:45 AM
p.165 #18which lens has the most 3D POP?
I could show more images shot at extremely large apertures with obliterated backgrounds that are flat as a table than I care to admit.
But every once in a while the stars align just right and the 3D thing happens. The frustration sets in though when you show it and no one else sees it. 😂
But every once in a while the stars align just right and the 3D thing happens. The frustration sets in though when you show it and no one else sees it. 😂
Nov 08, 2026 at 09:57 AM
p.165 #19which lens has the most 3D POP?
rodenmg wrote:
I could show more images shot at extremely large apertures with obliterated backgrounds that are flat as a table than I care to admit.
But every once in a while the stars align just right and the 3D thing happens. The frustration sets in though when you show it and no one else sees it. 😂
The stars align when other elements come into play in the image.
Using very wide apertures doesn’t necessarily prevent you from achieving a 3D POP effect. The point is that using very wide apertures, in and of itself, doesn’t guarantee a 3D POP effect.
That’s why many images taken at very wide apertures look flat: the photographer thinks that f/1.2 or f/1.4 is enough. But that’s not the case.
I could show more images shot at extremely large apertures with obliterated backgrounds that are flat as a table than I care to admit.
But every once in a while the stars align just right and the 3D thing happens. The frustration sets in though when you show it and no one else sees it. 😂
The stars align when other elements come into play in the image.
Using very wide apertures doesn’t necessarily prevent you from achieving a 3D POP effect. The point is that using very wide apertures, in and of itself, doesn’t guarantee a 3D POP effect.
That’s why many images taken at very wide apertures look flat: the photographer thinks that f/1.2 or f/1.4 is enough. But that’s not the case.
Nov 08, 2026 at 10:13 AM