For me, it varies depending on what focal length range and look we are talking about.
On the wide end, the Sigma 20 Art does a really good job of it. For normal-ish FL, the Voigt 40/1.2 is the one that yields the most for me. Lastly, the Sigma 105 Art on the longer end also does a pretty good job of creating that look in certain scenarios.
More often that not, the lens is only a part of the equation. I think it is equal parts lighting and post processing as well.
Now I'm not going to say it's the poster child for 3Dness....but I feel there is at least a little bit of it shining through, not as much as Olafs though....
Of the many lenses that I have shot, the Zeiss 2/25 ZE has the most microcontrast pop. No shots to share (sorry, on my phone in a train). I don't consider subject isolation due to shallow depth of field to be the same thing as pop.
There seems to be two types of 3D as commonly understood: longitudinal separation, a thin and strong focal plane giving way to a field of bokeh (a.k.a. 'POP'); and 'full or near full' DOF imagery. The first is far more common in these days of fast 'great wide open' lenses being pushed so heavily by the industry. In times gone by, more photographers cared for both of these kinds of depth. The shift in design intent seems to have happened around 2010 and gathers pace each year, and you see it reflected in the FE image thread.
Fred asked for modern lenses in reigniting this thread, and it's interesting that several comments already refer to older lenses. Olaf's images are from a *very* old lens. I don't like using any modern lens for full DOF 3D needs, except Voigts, which are 'new old' photographic lenses. Besides bokeh shots, modern lenses excel at flat plane work, like murals and are not too bad for close objects/people or motifs with implied depth, like buildings shot at 45 degrees, or have pathways etc. as leading lines to direct the eye. Wide angles have an optical 'push' to 3D, via extreme AOVs.
Here are two documentary short tele images with no leading lines or good light to save them - from a nice modern Sony lens and a nice modern Zeiss lens, both shot at landscape apertures, and utterly lacking in 3D despite the huge terrain, several kilometres front to back. Using these alongside CY lenses, I realised I had to stop doing that (for artistic work anyway).
scrappydog wrote:
Of the many lenses that I have shot, the Zeiss 2/25 ZE has the most microcontrast pop. No shots to share (sorry, on my phone in a train). I don't consider subject isolation due to shallow depth of field to be the same thing as pop.
Exactly. Pop has nothing to do with shallow DOF. Micro contrast is what leads to the POP.
I dont think it's just zeiss than can give 3D pop, although I have several, but pretty happy with what the Canon 24-105 can do, but more important, I always felt the 50D had beautiful color rendering
I thought the Loxia 35 had a great look at f2.8 to f4 or so... very three dimensional look in that range. These are just some casual pics of my kids with the L35 at f2.2 and f3.2 (I thought the sweet spot for this lens was around f3.2 - all cleaned up and nice bokeh and 3D look for family pics).
darrellc wrote:
I thought the Loxia 35 had a great look at f2.8 to f4 or so... very three dimensional look in that range. These are just some casual pics of my kids with the L35 at f2.2 and f3.2 (I thought the sweet spot for this lens was around f3.2 - all cleaned up and nice bokeh and 3D look for family pics).
And now, after so many years, finally the answer to the original question of this thread:
This lens I happen to have which I either spent that much money for (shhh, don't tell my wife!) or I hunted for on Ebay for 2 years or I simply somehow happen to like most.
Its been a while since the original thread and I have learned some things and forgotten others. The one lens that I still remember being most surprised and impressed with is the Zeiss 21/2.8 classic that I owned for a while. It rendered beautifully.
There is also something special about the Leica 28/1.7 on the Q. Even if there is quite a bit of post processing in camera before the image even hits lightroom.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Looks like Brenizers. If I'm wrong, what lens is doing that with a single exposure? lol.
Yes, these are multi-row-panoramas. Unfortunately I don't know any wide angle lens where the entrance pupil is large enough to create a similar look with a single exposure...
I believe it is not only the lens itself which might lead to some 3D pop but also its focal length and the size of the sensor or film plane which make a difference. Sometimes hard to distinguish between simply shallow DoF und 3D look (both merge into each other I guess). So far I personally found the best 3D look from my 6x7 or 6x6 medium format photos especially when using a tele lens wide open (for example the Hasselblad-Zeiss 180/4 Sonnar CF T* lens). The photo below is taken recently with Kodak Porta 160 film (120 format) with an aperture of f/8.
