I think the recurring problem/disconnect on this topic over the years has emanated from some of us maintaining dogmatic attitudes about how the effect occurs, or whether it even exists.
The fact of the matter is, most of the thoughts provided in this thread and others aren't mutually exclusive. There's a multitude of factors that play into each of our subjective perceptions of images that have been produced by different individuals, with different methods, and with different tools.
I simultaneously believe that there is truth to much of what @RustyBug@ @gdanmitchell and jeffersoncasey@ have stated above, as I have personally found most of the factors they've pointed at to be part of the equation. But again, none of them are mutually exclusive.
The biggest point I want to echo though, based on relevance to the OP, is what @RustyBug@ stated. Lenses absolutely can play a major role in the production of this so-called "pop." What I have found to be true is that it isn't so much that the lens is solely responsible for producing the look, but that certain lenses are able to contribute to the making of said look much more easily under a wider variety of conditions.
Really, the question should be something more to the effect of, "which lens helps the most in making 3D pop in images?" - as it isn't the lens itself that is doing so.
All that being said, the two lenses that have still continued to consistently yield this look for me are the Voigtlander 40/1.2 and Sigma 35/1.2.
May 25, 2025 at 02:50 PM
Previous versions of JohnDizzo15's message #16821881 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
