Not sure how you can wholesale discount the lens as having any contribution to the rate of transition change. Do you know something that none of the lens designers know?
I personally did a shootout between three different 28mm lenses, tripod based, same lighting and there was indeed a difference that was posted / shared more than a decade ago. The lenses in that shootout were the Oly 28/2.8, Nikon 28/2.8 AIS and C/Y 28/2.8 (iirc).
The ONLY variable was the lens ... and the lenses each drew differently.
Also, it should be noted that there were other shootouts where folks were able to take the native results from two different lenses and tweak them in post, so they were much closer in resemblance. The salient point being that if folks made changes in pp to minimize the difference ... then, the difference had to exist, based on the lenses.
I appreciate the point that the human physiological response to dimensionality cues is predicated upon a variety of factors. But, I won't wholesale discount the lens as not having any contribution to those physiological response factors ... i.e. rates of transitions, etc. ... being integral to different lens designs / designers.
We can agree to disagree, if you like ... but, the lens IS PART of the optical projection path. There was a time that I had a collection of "3D producer" lenses that I liked using (adapting to the EF platform) that spanned multiple mfr's. When I moved off the EF platform, I thinned the herd, in favor of native mount lenses (vs. adapterville). My present lineup is built around a slightly gentler transition rate approach.
May 26, 2025 at 03:00 PM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #16822433 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
