which lens has the most 3D POP?
p.167 #1which lens has the most 3D POP?
At times we will all use the 'two plane 3D technique' (sharp subject/bokeh background), as jojib is using here, to good effect. It's of course valid as one of two categories of 3D. The other one conveys some context even inside its bokeh, and it expresses different levels of abstraction inside that bokeh to show less detail on far objects and more definition on closer subjects.
The few people who really want the latter form of 3D stay well clear of most APO lenses because they invest heavily in APD or ED glass to control CA, to the relative neglect of the the bokeh quality. It's not a coincidence that many will strongly feature very close MFD in their specs, because it helps to hide poor backgrounds inside the often amorphous bokeh form they produce. They also struggle to deliver pleasant low contrast in the bokeh, because they are by their designs, high contrast lenses.
It was sad to hear Light Lens Lab will focus intently on a whole series of APO lenses, but I guess that means the Chinese lens makers cover all bases - we already have Mandler and Thypoch et al doing the enhanced older designs and Viltrox doing very good orthodox prime lenses (soon to be zooms also).
Below is one to look at also.
https://leica-camera.com/en-AU/photography/lenses/m/apo-summicron-m-35-f2-asph-black-anodized-finish?srsltid=AYCX9vIEEMWMDjeILrxXE6twGxqsrj8Kx3V7aac_ZjYeqzbEw4Thil99
This is the face that greets you when you open Leica's PR page for the APO-Summicron-M 35/2. In it (besides the curving wall left side) you can see very little differentiation in bokeh definition from near to far as you run your eyes along the building walls; the face looks flat to me, the ears appear to be afterthoughts, the curve of the scarf is hard to get a visual grip on. Highlights are very often ungraceful in APO images, a topic for another time.
The few people who really want the latter form of 3D stay well clear of most APO lenses because they invest heavily in APD or ED glass to control CA, to the relative neglect of the the bokeh quality. It's not a coincidence that many will strongly feature very close MFD in their specs, because it helps to hide poor backgrounds inside the often amorphous bokeh form they produce. They also struggle to deliver pleasant low contrast in the bokeh, because they are by their designs, high contrast lenses.
It was sad to hear Light Lens Lab will focus intently on a whole series of APO lenses, but I guess that means the Chinese lens makers cover all bases - we already have Mandler and Thypoch et al doing the enhanced older designs and Viltrox doing very good orthodox prime lenses (soon to be zooms also).
Below is one to look at also.
https://leica-camera.com/en-AU/photography/lenses/m/apo-summicron-m-35-f2-asph-black-anodized-finish?srsltid=AYCX9vIEEMWMDjeILrxXE6twGxqsrj8Kx3V7aac_ZjYeqzbEw4Thil99
This is the face that greets you when you open Leica's PR page for the APO-Summicron-M 35/2. In it (besides the curving wall left side) you can see very little differentiation in bokeh definition from near to far as you run your eyes along the building walls; the face looks flat to me, the ears appear to be afterthoughts, the curve of the scarf is hard to get a visual grip on. Highlights are very often ungraceful in APO images, a topic for another time.
 |
||
 |
||
|
Nov 08, 2026 at 05:46 PM
p.167 #2which lens has the most 3D POP?
philip_pj wrote:
At times we will all use the 'two plane 3D technique' (sharp subject/bokeh background), as jojib is using here, to good effect. It's of course valid as one of two categories of 3D. The other one conveys some context even inside its bokeh, and it expresses different levels of abstraction inside that bokeh to show less detail on far objects and more definition on closer subjects.
The few people who really want the latter form of 3D stay well clear of most APO lenses because they invest heavily in APD or ED glass to control CA, to the relative neglect...Show more →
Hey Philip! You don't like that Summicron image? I kinda like it---rendering is beautiful. Background separation is also excellent at f/2. Bokeh looks good to me. However, I just checked the price
. I got a sticker shock!! If I had that amount of money I would rather keep my three 35mms and use the funds to travel business class to Sydney :-)
At times we will all use the 'two plane 3D technique' (sharp subject/bokeh background), as jojib is using here, to good effect. It's of course valid as one of two categories of 3D. The other one conveys some context even inside its bokeh, and it expresses different levels of abstraction inside that bokeh to show less detail on far objects and more definition on closer subjects.
The few people who really want the latter form of 3D stay well clear of most APO lenses because they invest heavily in APD or ED glass to control CA, to the relative neglect...Show more →
Hey Philip! You don't like that Summicron image? I kinda like it---rendering is beautiful. Background separation is also excellent at f/2. Bokeh looks good to me. However, I just checked the price
. I got a sticker shock!! If I had that amount of money I would rather keep my three 35mms and use the funds to travel business class to Sydney :-) Nov 08, 2026 at 06:28 PM
p.167 #3which lens has the most 3D POP?
Ha! I thought I’d start at page one and look at every photo posted in this thread. I got to about page 32 before I quit and opened a bottle of wine. The only image I saw that actually exhibited a 3D rendering so far was the cow on page one. 
Nov 08, 2026 at 06:37 PM
p.167 #4which lens has the most 3D POP?
The top photo is as posted by philip_pj
The bottom photo is as it actually looks on the Leica page for the APO-Summicron-M 35 f/2 ASPH lens.
In this case, I agree with philip_pj: the photo he posted doesn't look good.
The bottom photo is as it actually looks on the Leica page for the APO-Summicron-M 35 f/2 ASPH lens.
In this case, I agree with philip_pj: the photo he posted doesn't look good.
Nov 08, 2026 at 08:47 PM
p.167 #5which lens has the most 3D POP?
The Leica jpeg again - slightly corrected.
Nov 08, 2026 at 09:23 PM
p.167 #6which lens has the most 3D POP?
philip_pj wrote:
At times we will all use the 'two plane 3D technique' (sharp subject/bokeh background), as jojib is using here, to good effect. It's of course valid as one of two categories of 3D. The other one conveys some context even inside its bokeh, and it expresses different levels of abstraction inside that bokeh to show less detail on far objects and more definition on closer subjects.
The few people who really want the latter form of 3D stay well clear of most APO lenses because they invest heavily in APD or ED glass to control CA, to the relative neglect...Show more →
I'm not familiar with Leica lenses so I read up a bit on it.
I agree with this guy--why settle for the f/2.0 when you really want the f/1.4.
https://www.overgaard.dk/leica-35mm-summicron-M-f20.html
Sometimes I like the look of the bokeh of classic lenses and sometimes I prefer the ones from the modern lenses.
At times we will all use the 'two plane 3D technique' (sharp subject/bokeh background), as jojib is using here, to good effect. It's of course valid as one of two categories of 3D. The other one conveys some context even inside its bokeh, and it expresses different levels of abstraction inside that bokeh to show less detail on far objects and more definition on closer subjects.
The few people who really want the latter form of 3D stay well clear of most APO lenses because they invest heavily in APD or ED glass to control CA, to the relative neglect...Show more →
I'm not familiar with Leica lenses so I read up a bit on it.
I agree with this guy--why settle for the f/2.0 when you really want the f/1.4.
https://www.overgaard.dk/leica-35mm-summicron-M-f20.html
Sometimes I like the look of the bokeh of classic lenses and sometimes I prefer the ones from the modern lenses.
Nov 08, 2026 at 09:47 PM
p.167 #7which lens has the most 3D POP?
This photo always stood out to me as 3d pop-
More so because it felt like I was there looking at the picture. Doesn't translate as much on a phone but in print/on a 5k monitor it does. To be fair, its probably more lighting that lens here but....
I know expensive and not really practical anymore- These Zeiss ML lenses are pretty special.
More so because it felt like I was there looking at the picture. Doesn't translate as much on a phone but in print/on a 5k monitor it does. To be fair, its probably more lighting that lens here but....
I know expensive and not really practical anymore- These Zeiss ML lenses are pretty special.
|
||
 |
||
|
Canon EOS R5m2 ZEISS Otus ML 1.4/50 lens 50mm f/1.4 1/125s 800 ISO 0.0 EV
Nov 09, 2026 at 09:55 AM
p.167 #8which lens has the most 3D POP?
RustyRus wrote:
Consequently, all your posts with images are off topic.
This thread is already flooded with enough useless stuff.I disagree. Like I said cut and paste delivers the subject in a monitor busting mode---so that to me is 3D. Hey but you can make the last word if you like.I think what he’s getting at is that you’ve posted basically the same shot over and over: a different model, a fast prime, the same look. After 50 or 60 of them, they stop adding anything to the conversation. We get it, you like how a fast lens makes a portrait pop. But at this point it’s the same picture with a different face. Mix it up or tell us something about the shot, otherwise it’s just noise.
I like the different shots, each and every one of them. RustyRus, obviously you know what you like yet that and a ticket will get you a ride on the bus. Vive la différence. This is an example of where we differ and find our differences.
Nikon Z7 and Cosina Voigtlander 125mm APO- Lanther.
jojib wrote
Ripolini wrote
jojib wrote
The cut and paste look is exactly what I wanted!This thread is already flooded with enough useless stuff.
I like the different shots, each and every one of them. RustyRus, obviously you know what you like yet that and a ticket will get you a ride on the bus. Vive la différence. This is an example of where we differ and find our differences.
Nikon Z7 and Cosina Voigtlander 125mm APO- Lanther.
Nov 09, 2026 at 12:31 PM
p.167 #9which lens has the most 3D POP?
There's a lot of really great photos being posted but for the most part I see no 3D to the Pop. Mine included.
(Sorry but cheesecake cutouts just aren't my thing).
(Sorry but cheesecake cutouts just aren't my thing).
LEICA M10-R Summilux-M 1:1.4/50 ASPH. lens 50mm f/2.4 1/90s 100 ISO 0.0 EV
Nov 09, 2026 at 01:48 PM
p.167 #10which lens has the most 3D POP?
Flowers and women. Now all that’s missing are the birds. 😄👍🏻
Nov 09, 2026 at 03:40 PM
|
p.167 #11which lens has the most 3D POP?
Is the consensus here that this thread is the stupidest one on FM yet we all can't help ourselves?
Nov 09, 2026 at 03:50 PM
p.167 #12which lens has the most 3D POP?
Hodie wrote:
Is the consensus here that this thread is the stupidest one on FM yet we all can't help ourselves?
Is the consensus here that this thread is the stupidest one on FM yet we all can't help ourselves?
Nov 09, 2026 at 03:59 PM
p.167 #13which lens has the most 3D POP?
Hodie wrote:
Is the consensus here that this thread is the stupidest one on FM yet we all can't help ourselves?
On the contrary - I find this thread educational.
My reason to be here is that I am mostly interested in learning, and one can learn from both good AND bad examples.
It is interesting to hear different, even conflicting opinions and views, because they help me refine my own.
It is also interesting and education to see the pictures posed in this thread (show me your photos and I will know you better as a photographer). For example, I like the composition and the subject of the picture from @rodenmg on this page, yet I cannot help noticing the pronounced posterization in the jpeg that the photographer didn't see apparently - this makes me wonder how this happened?
Is the consensus here that this thread is the stupidest one on FM yet we all can't help ourselves?
On the contrary - I find this thread educational.
My reason to be here is that I am mostly interested in learning, and one can learn from both good AND bad examples.
It is interesting to hear different, even conflicting opinions and views, because they help me refine my own.
It is also interesting and education to see the pictures posed in this thread (show me your photos and I will know you better as a photographer). For example, I like the composition and the subject of the picture from @rodenmg on this page, yet I cannot help noticing the pronounced posterization in the jpeg that the photographer didn't see apparently - this makes me wonder how this happened?
Nov 09, 2026 at 04:05 PM
p.167 #14which lens has the most 3D POP?
Hodie wrote:
Is the consensus here that this thread is the stupidest one on FM yet we all can't help ourselves?
I'd say it is one of the more divisive threads
... those who genuinely want to discuss optics, as it pertains to the subject (i.e. the intent of the thread) ... and those who have spent a decade exercising their efforts to incessantly impede, derail, deflect and mock the conversation (interlopers), moreover than trying to help develop and foster an increasing understanding of optical influence.
Edited on Nov 09, 2026 at 04:17 PM · View previous versions
Is the consensus here that this thread is the stupidest one on FM yet we all can't help ourselves?
I'd say it is one of the more divisive threads
... those who genuinely want to discuss optics, as it pertains to the subject (i.e. the intent of the thread) ... and those who have spent a decade exercising their efforts to incessantly impede, derail, deflect and mock the conversation (interlopers), moreover than trying to help develop and foster an increasing understanding of optical influence.Edited on Nov 09, 2026 at 04:17 PM · View previous versions
Nov 09, 2026 at 04:13 PM
p.167 #15which lens has the most 3D POP?
ruthenium wrote:
On the contrary - I find this thread educational.
My reason to be here is that I am mostly interested in learning, and one can learn from both good AND bad examples.
It is interesting to hear different, even conflicting opinions and views, because they help me refine my own.
It is also interesting and education to see the pictures posed in this thread (show me your photos and I will know you better as a photographer). For example, I like the composition and the subject of the picture from @rodenmg on this page, yet I cannot help noticing the pronounced posterization...Show more →
Yes, I see it too. It's definitely not in the original. I'm new to posting here and wondering what's going on myself as I've never seen this happen before. Any ideas??
Hodie wrote
Is the consensus here that this thread is the stupidest one on FM yet we all can't help ourselves?My reason to be here is that I am mostly interested in learning, and one can learn from both good AND bad examples.
It is interesting to hear different, even conflicting opinions and views, because they help me refine my own.
It is also interesting and education to see the pictures posed in this thread (show me your photos and I will know you better as a photographer). For example, I like the composition and the subject of the picture from @rodenmg on this page, yet I cannot help noticing the pronounced posterization...Show more →
Yes, I see it too. It's definitely not in the original. I'm new to posting here and wondering what's going on myself as I've never seen this happen before. Any ideas??
Nov 09, 2026 at 04:13 PM
p.167 #16which lens has the most 3D POP?
rodenmg wrote:
On the contrary - I find this thread educational.
My reason to be here is that I am mostly interested in learning, and one can learn from both good AND bad examples.
It is interesting to hear different, even conflicting opinions and views, because they help me refine my own.
It is also interesting and education to see the pictures posed in this thread (show me your photos and I will know you better as a photographer). For example, I like the composition and the subject of the picture from @rodenmg on this page, yet I cannot help noticing the pronounced posterization in the jpeg that the photographer didn't see apparently - this makes me wonder how this happened?Yes, I see it too. It's definitely not in the original. I'm new to posting here and wondering what's going on myself as I've never seen this happen before. Any ideas??
I would think of excessive compression as the likely cause.
You may want to check the "quality" among the export settings. I am not closely familiar with the Adobe software. This "quality" may have different names in different apps, however it is usually seen as percentage, e.g. 80.
The ISO was 100 (the base); thus, the dynamic range of the raw file was at maximum - as good as it could only be with the camera sensor. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the posterization could be caused by your lifting the shadows.
ruthenium wrote
Hodie wrote
Is the consensus here that this thread is the stupidest one on FM yet we all can't help ourselves?My reason to be here is that I am mostly interested in learning, and one can learn from both good AND bad examples.
It is interesting to hear different, even conflicting opinions and views, because they help me refine my own.
It is also interesting and education to see the pictures posed in this thread (show me your photos and I will know you better as a photographer). For example, I like the composition and the subject of the picture from @rodenmg on this page, yet I cannot help noticing the pronounced posterization in the jpeg that the photographer didn't see apparently - this makes me wonder how this happened?
I would think of excessive compression as the likely cause.
You may want to check the "quality" among the export settings. I am not closely familiar with the Adobe software. This "quality" may have different names in different apps, however it is usually seen as percentage, e.g. 80.
The ISO was 100 (the base); thus, the dynamic range of the raw file was at maximum - as good as it could only be with the camera sensor. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the posterization could be caused by your lifting the shadows.
Nov 09, 2026 at 04:33 PM
p.167 #17which lens has the most 3D POP?
ruthenium wrote:
On the contrary - I find this thread educational.
I feel like that as well! I think it shows how subjective our perception is. I find that fascinating. I'd love to have a single valid definition of what 3D pop is, but it doesn't seem to exist. As pointed out by @RustyBug here a lot of aspects can contribute to how "3D" something appears to our eyes. Because of that it's very hard to find an agreement on images which show 3D pop and which ones don't.
I personally don't have any idea how to find a consensus... I'm almost afraid there is none. Even in the article Zeiss published on the matter I can't really say, that I find a lot of good examples. I appreciate, that they try to show images which don't rely on extreme blur and/or color-contrast only, but that's it.
Does the vast majority of this thread feel pointless? Yeah, probably! But some of it (including some opinions and images) seem interesting regardless. And it's in part because they continue to challenge what I thought I knew about that matter...
Hodie wrote
Is the consensus here that this thread is the stupidest one on FM yet we all can't help ourselves?I feel like that as well! I think it shows how subjective our perception is. I find that fascinating. I'd love to have a single valid definition of what 3D pop is, but it doesn't seem to exist. As pointed out by @RustyBug here a lot of aspects can contribute to how "3D" something appears to our eyes. Because of that it's very hard to find an agreement on images which show 3D pop and which ones don't.
I personally don't have any idea how to find a consensus... I'm almost afraid there is none. Even in the article Zeiss published on the matter I can't really say, that I find a lot of good examples. I appreciate, that they try to show images which don't rely on extreme blur and/or color-contrast only, but that's it.
Does the vast majority of this thread feel pointless? Yeah, probably! But some of it (including some opinions and images) seem interesting regardless. And it's in part because they continue to challenge what I thought I knew about that matter...
Nov 09, 2026 at 04:40 PM
p.167 #18which lens has the most 3D POP?
RustyBug wrote:
... those who genuinely want to discuss optics, as it pertains to the subject (i.e. the intent of the thread) ..
I can promise you, that I'd really love to know the answer to this matter, if there is one! Always happy to learn.
... those who genuinely want to discuss optics, as it pertains to the subject (i.e. the intent of the thread) ..
I can promise you, that I'd really love to know the answer to this matter, if there is one! Always happy to learn.
Nov 09, 2026 at 04:43 PM
p.167 #19which lens has the most 3D POP?
RustyBug wrote:
I'd say it is one of the more divisive threads ... those who genuinely want to discuss optics, as it pertains to the subject (i.e. the intent of the thread) ... and those who have spent a decade exercising their efforts to incessantly impede, derail, deflect and mock the conversation (interlopers), moreover than trying to help develop and foster an increasing understanding of optical influence.
There is a genuine problem of separating the optical influence from the effects of post-processing.
The latter (i.e., how an image was processed) is almost never disclosed.
Therefore, how one can tell whether we see the lens "rendering" in a posted photo, or the result of post-processing?
The optical influence can be easily completely distorted and overwhelmed in post.
Furthermore, for a discussion of optical influence, one would like to see images of reasonably good quality, whereas many posted examples here (and elsewhere) were resized to 1-2MP.
Thus, the problems you mentioned are less due to the ill-will of those who "impede, derail, deflect and mock the conversation."
I believe the principal problem is that it is nearly impossible to say anything certain about the optical influence by viewing the examples posted in this thread.
I don't mind divisive threads, as long as there are no personal insults. Critical comments are also not a problem, when these are offered in a non-personal and objective way.
Hodie wrote
Is the consensus here that this thread is the stupidest one on FM yet we all can't help ourselves? ... those who genuinely want to discuss optics, as it pertains to the subject (i.e. the intent of the thread) ... and those who have spent a decade exercising their efforts to incessantly impede, derail, deflect and mock the conversation (interlopers), moreover than trying to help develop and foster an increasing understanding of optical influence.There is a genuine problem of separating the optical influence from the effects of post-processing.
The latter (i.e., how an image was processed) is almost never disclosed.
Therefore, how one can tell whether we see the lens "rendering" in a posted photo, or the result of post-processing?
The optical influence can be easily completely distorted and overwhelmed in post.
Furthermore, for a discussion of optical influence, one would like to see images of reasonably good quality, whereas many posted examples here (and elsewhere) were resized to 1-2MP.
Thus, the problems you mentioned are less due to the ill-will of those who "impede, derail, deflect and mock the conversation."
I believe the principal problem is that it is nearly impossible to say anything certain about the optical influence by viewing the examples posted in this thread.
I don't mind divisive threads, as long as there are no personal insults. Critical comments are also not a problem, when these are offered in a non-personal and objective way.
Nov 09, 2026 at 04:49 PM
p.167 #20which lens has the most 3D POP?
ruthenium wrote:
I'd say it is one of the more divisive threads ... those who genuinely want to discuss optics, as it pertains to the subject (i.e. the intent of the thread) ... and those who have spent a decade exercising their efforts to incessantly impede, derail, deflect and mock the conversation (interlopers), moreover than trying to help develop and foster an increasing understanding of optical influence.Furthermore, for a discussion of optical influence, one would like to see images of reasonably good quality, whereas many posted examples here (and elsewhere) were resized to 1-2MP.
About resizing images for posting here. On the other site I post frequently on (DPR) It's not unheard of to post full size 100mp images. I normally downsize images to 24mp for posting there though as that still preserves enough detail to pixel peep. Now here if I post images that size they fill the entire screen and the 5mb limit is tough to meet. I've also read of people complaining of posting large images.
I hate saying "look here at how awesome the image quality is!" and then post a tiny image with a lot of compression. I'm not sure what is considered acceptable here
RustyBug wrote
Hodie wrote
Is the consensus here that this thread is the stupidest one on FM yet we all can't help ourselves? ... those who genuinely want to discuss optics, as it pertains to the subject (i.e. the intent of the thread) ... and those who have spent a decade exercising their efforts to incessantly impede, derail, deflect and mock the conversation (interlopers), moreover than trying to help develop and foster an increasing understanding of optical influence.About resizing images for posting here. On the other site I post frequently on (DPR) It's not unheard of to post full size 100mp images. I normally downsize images to 24mp for posting there though as that still preserves enough detail to pixel peep. Now here if I post images that size they fill the entire screen and the 5mb limit is tough to meet. I've also read of people complaining of posting large images.
I hate saying "look here at how awesome the image quality is!" and then post a tiny image with a lot of compression. I'm not sure what is considered acceptable here
Nov 09, 2026 at 04:59 PM