That isn’t 3D pop,its a lovely image though. Brighten her face & use less foreground and more sky
All 1.2 lenses have 3D pop,1.4 too....
gunmetal wrote:
I'm still a fan of my Loxia 50 copy. I would be all over the CV 50, but I'm such a fan of the rendering of the L50. Not sure if it's "pop", "3d" or what. I just like it.
I've spent time trying to discover it in various lenses. Even when I have images that seem to demonstrate more of a 3D rendering, it is not apparent in the vast majority of other images I have taken with that lens. Here's the Sony Zeiss 55/1.8. I think the lighting contributes more to the effect and having the various points of interest all on the same plane from the lens, but I also have this too wide open (f/2) to achieve the kind of 3D that is better defined on the first page in one of the first posts (at least of this recent version of this thread).
KarmaKramer wrote:
That isn’t 3D pop,its a lovely image though. Brighten her face & use less foreground and more sky
All 1.2 lenses have 3D pop,1.4 too....
We were going for foreground bokeh with the taller wheat. But I agree that I could definitely lighten her face. If i'm understanding you correctly (and I understand very little about this, lol), aperture is what gives the lens 3D pop? I've always felt like my Batis lineup has quite a bit of pop, but they're mostly F2 with only the 85 being 1.8. Maybe I'm attributing just their color rendering to "pop"?
Aperture plays a major role, where you stand while taking the photo/framing also matters.“3D pop” to me isn’t about color. Zeiss “pop” is about color. The 3D part is about depth of field and bokeh. Both enhanced by 1.2 or 1.4 lenses. Compose a full length portrait at 1.2 or 1.4 allowing some foreground and you’ll see it.
gunmetal wrote:
We were going for foreground bokeh with the taller wheat. But I agree that I could definitely lighten her face. If i'm understanding you correctly (and I understand very little about this, lol), aperture is what gives the lens 3D pop? I've always felt like my Batis lineup has quite a bit of pop, but they're mostly F2 with only the 85 being 1.8. Maybe I'm attributing just their color rendering to "pop"?
KarmaKramer wrote:
Aperture plays a major role, where you stand while taking the photo/framing also matters.“3D pop” to me isn’t about color. Zeiss “pop” is about color. The 3D part is about depth of field and bokeh. Both enhanced by 1.2 or 1.4 lenses. Compose a full length portrait at 1.2 or 1.4 allowing some foreground and you’ll see it.
I strongly disagree. I actually think "3D pop" is reduced when DOF is too thin, because it doesn't look real and the background is not part of the image anymore.
To me, you get the most 3D pop from well corrected lenses at medium distance and medium aperture. The background should just be a little out of focus and the subject tack sharp.
Makten wrote:
I strongly disagree. I actually think "3D pop" is reduced when DOF is too thin, because it doesn't look real and the background is not part of the image anymore.
To me, you get the most 3D pop from well corrected lenses at medium distance and medium aperture. The background should just be a little out of focus and the subject tack sharp.
While my faster lens such as the 135mm GM and 35mm 1.2 Sigma have great 3D pop even my 200-600mm does okay when the background distance, subject and lighting all line up correctly.
I agree with this. I thought the Loxia 35 had a very real sense of depth and 3Dness stopped down to maybe f3.2-3.5. My Contax 35-70 had the same realistic sense of depth. Even stopped down past f3.4.
You can create a sense of pop with DOF and with various visual cues and elements (we had a thread about this where I and others cited painting techniques that illicit depth perception) with probably any lens. I imagine these cues in an image trump lenses technical considerations.
But the two lenses cited above always stood out for their ability to render a realistic sense of depth stopped down a bit. They’d always stand out and surprise when reviewing images.
It might be interesting to consider lenses that lack pop even at wide apertures to try to understand what differentiates them.
Makten wrote:
I strongly disagree. I actually think "3D pop" is reduced when DOF is too thin, because it doesn't look real and the background is not part of the image anymore.
To me, you get the most 3D pop from well corrected lenses at medium distance and medium aperture. The background should just be a little out of focus and the subject tack sharp.
Makten wrote:
I strongly disagree. I actually think "3D pop" is reduced when DOF is too thin, because it doesn't look real and the background is not part of the image anymore.
To me, you get the most 3D pop from well corrected lenses at medium distance and medium aperture. The background should just be a little out of focus and the subject tack sharp.
Agree. Shallow DOF is not required and in some cases it's a detriment to "3D pop". Aside from the lens' characteristics, I think that proper lighting is a more important factor.
Usually lenses with smooth focus transition zone do not have the greatest 3D pop. Is that your experience as well?
For me, 3D pop appears with light polarization in addition to subject isolation.
I'm not certain there is such a thing as one lens over another does it ALL the time.
Certain lenses probably more than others...
Then we don't have the same definition of "3D pop".
Fred Miranda wrote:
Usually lenses with smooth focus transition zone do not have the greatest 3D pop. Is that your experience as well?
Generally, yes, but I think it is because such lenses are often sharper than those with a smooth transition zone. The Zeiss 35/2 Distagon is a striking example of the opposite though, in that it has THE most 3D pop I've ever seen, and a very smooth transition (but not very smooth bokeh). I've been thinking of getting one again but since I now shoot the GFX it would be of limited use, even though it should do fine at 33x33 mm.
summarit-s 120
No significant "3d pop" there.
But most probably you have to somehow justify buying this expensive Leica stuff, so you of course try hard to see some "special rendering" :-)
