Some of them are distinctly banal and, well, flat. Others seem to exhibit, at least to some extent, this very loosely defined thing that people think of when they hear the term “pop” applied to photographs.
There is essentially no visible correlation in the images here between what lens was used and that quality. That’s because, for the 100th time or so, that quality comes very little, if at all, from which brand or model of lens was used, and a whole lot from other things that are well understood, have been by photographers for a long time and by painters for even longer.
If you want your photographs to “pop,” the way to make that happen is not to buy some expensive or unusual or ancient lens. It is to pay attention to things like:
1. Composition.
2. Light
3. Color and tonality relationships
4. Use of selective focus
5. Application of techniques such as vignetting
If you fail to address these things, using that fancy-schmancy rare 1937 SuperPopagon (G Series) 44.78mm f/1.025 Manual Only cinelens isn’t going to make your photographs “pop” in any meaningful or even visible way. (We’ve seen plenty of evidence of that in this thread. Learning about how we see, about color and light and composition, developing your post-processing (optical/chemical and/or digital) skills and aptitudes will.
Not that repeating these truths one more time will do anything to end this godforsaken thread…
… so do prattle on about those magical lenses, and do continue to post photographs that don’t remotely demonstrate the magical lens qualities that apparently only the elect and true believers can see. ;-)
Aug 22, 2026 at 01:09 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #17093402 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
