I do believe that Leica like Zeiss lenses are particularly capable of rendering 3D, but again it's got nothing to do with the number of lens elements. It's the philisophy of the two companies to aim at high end optical products (that you have to pay for too). Also with leaving AF out of the equation they can focus much more on the optics themselves, thus producing some of the very best lenses.
In this sense Leica and Zeiss and in my opinion also Voigtlander are more consistent than others in producing lenses that are capable of exceptional micro contrast, color reproduction and smooth bokeh, that among others are key components that make the 3D illusion work.
Still there are plenty of other lenses out there, that will also produce stunning results.
Quality of manufacturing in and of itself isn't the key component to the 3D-ish. There are plenty of Leica & Zeiss lenses that DO NOT render the effect. If you study the optical design relationships between the entrance & exit pupils, you'll find that there is a trend in how much ratio is involved. That coupled with transition rates along the mtf curve.
I studied all the data sheets of the Zeiss lenses that seemed to exhibit the 3D more strongly vs. those that don't ... back over the year long thread on the matter. Borrowing from that, I then looked at some non-Zeiss lenses and noted that they had similar relationships between the entrance / exit pupil ratios.
So, it's not a simple matter of just making better lenses ... BUT, you also have to make excellent lenses with the intent in design to afford those transition rates. Not all lenses (even great ones) are designed the same regarding transition rates / zones. That said, I do think that Zeiss probably designs some of their lenses more aggressively in this regard than others ... but, they don't have a corner on the market, either.
Learning where those transitions exist in a given lens, then harnessing your composition to that is key to taking advantage of it, imo. Yes, other attributes (perspective, lighting, spatial relationships, etc.) contribute also.
The author himself writes: P.S. I hope our readers realize that this article is a satirical piece, aimed at poking fun at those individuals and websites that post nonsense information about lenses and their “unique” qualities. In an upcoming article, we will reveal some facts and hopefully put some of the above arguments to rest. If you had fun reading this article and you can relate to some of the terminology and claims used in the article, please share your thoughts below
- which means he basically makes fun of people who believe that a low number of lens elements is a key feature to 3D rendition, Yannick Khong being the prime example that I know of.
I do believe that Leica like Zeiss lenses are particularly capable of rendering 3D, but again it's got nothing to do with the number of lens elements. It's the philisophy of the two companies to aim at high end optical products (that you have to pay for too). Also with leaving AF out of the equation they can focus much more on the optics themselves, thus producing some of the very best lenses.
In this sense Leica and Zeiss and in my opinion also Voigtlander are more consistent than others in producing lenses that are capable of exceptional micro contrast, color reproduction and smooth bokeh, that among others are key components that make the 3D illusion work.
Still there are plenty of other lenses out there, that will also produce stunning results.
Quality of manufacturing in and of itself isn't the key component to the 3D-ish. There are plenty of Leica & Zeiss lenses that DO NOT render the effect. If you study the optical design relationships between the entrance & exit pupils, you'll find that there is a trend in how much ratio is involved. That coupled with transition rates along the mtf curve.
I studied all the data sheets of the Zeiss lenses that seemed to exhibit the 3D back over the year long thread on the matter. Borrowing from that, I then looked at some non-Zeiss lenses and noted that they had similar relationships between the entrance / exit pupil ratios.
So, it's not a simple matter of just making better lenses ... BUT, you also have to make excellent lenses with the intent in design to afford those transition rates. Not all lenses (even great ones) are designed the same regarding transition rates / zones. That said, I do think that Zeiss probably designs some of their lenses more aggressively in this regard than others ... but, they don't have a corner on the market, either.
Learning where those transitions exist in a given lens, then harnessing your composition to that is key to taking advantage of it, imo. Yes, other attributes (perspective, lighting, spatial relationships, etc.) contribute also.
Jun 30, 2020 at 09:29 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #15268486 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
