Lenses can enhance the effect, some to a surprising amount.
I shot each of the pairs below with different 28mm M42 lenses a few seconds apart with the same aperture, shutter speed and focus point.
I stood in the same place for each shot. One lens is obviously wider than the other despite their both being labeled as 28mm. Other slight framing differences are due to handholding. None are cropped.
Shot on Fuji Neopan Acros II B&W film, developed by my local lab.
Some exposure adjustments during negative conversion to correct the fact that one of them lets in about a half stop more light at the 'same' aperture. Aside from that, they all got the same additional processing in LR (minor adjustment to black point, straighten) and dust removal/output sharpening in PS.
1st in each pair: Bushnell Automatic 28mm f/2.8
2nd: MC Macro Revuenon 28mm f/3.5 - my copy, at least, is a clear contender for the MOST POP
Thank You, Heron.
Folks can dismiss what to call it, how to label, etc. But, your samples clearly show that the variance in the A : B is the lens contribution. I've never dismissed the contribution of the other attributes (i.e. lighting, etc.), but I've always maintained that different lenses render the rate of transitions differently and bring their own level of contribution to the party.
If the naysayers cannot see the differences in your A : B and want to find some reason to discount the variance in your optics ... well, we'll see.
Btw, it kinda looks like you forgot to use Scott's "special lighting".
I'm guessing most of the naysayers won't have anything to say about my examples, since that would require a reassessment of their loudly proclaimed belief that lenses have a negligable effect on 3D POP.
Nov 19, 2025 at 10:12 AM
Previous versions of OregonSun's message #16931904 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
