Very valuable information! You just talked me out of all the lenses I was considering lol. Nikon 24mm f1.4G has 2 ED elements, likely not much pop. Nor the 28mm f1.4 G. Zeiss 135mm f2 for f mount has APO in the name... And the Zeiss Batis 135mm f2.8 for Sony is also an APO design. Now looking at the Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4 or maybe more Voigtlander glass :)
Would you say these glasses meets your criteria of Highly poppy? While at the same time being a modern lens? Sony 35mm f/1.8 Zeiss (SEL35F18Z) has: LD/ED Elements: Includes one ED element. LD Glass Content: Approximately 7.1% (1 out of 14 elements). Average Group Complexity: 1.33 (14 elements in 11 groups).; The Sony 55mm f/1.8 Zeiss (SEL55F18Z) has: LD/ED Elements: Includes one ED element. LD Glass Content: Approximately 7.1% (1 out of 12 elements). Average Group Complexity: 1.33 (12 elements in 9 groups). I am planning to buy 3D Pop lens, would you say these glasses have it? its very convenient as I have E mount Sony body, while at the same time not wanting to hassle with manual lens. Thank you ! 🤗
@@sneye1 Thanks for the reply! Yeah I'm leaning buying the 55mm F1.8 Zeiss too! Considering buying that lens and the Sony FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS (Vario-Tessar T)*. it has: LD/ED Elements: Includes two ED elements. LD Glass Content: Approximately 10% (2 out of 13 elements). Note: Slightly over 10%, but performs exceptionally well. Average Group Complexity: 1.36 (13 elements in 10 groups). Hoping this also give slight 3d pop even though its a zoom lens 😅
I suspected something like this was the case. Been searching for so many years for a detailed technical explanation without the need to read an optical lens design book heavy in the weeds of mathematical explanation. Thank You so much. Also until very good glass coatings the number of lens elements was limited as too much light was lost by the reflection of each element. This probably limited the use of low dispersion glass due to the need for other corrective elements. I also wonder if newer designs because of coatings are using several low curvature elements instead of one high curvature element which is more costly to manufacture.
Hi, please note that I am a scientist, but not an optical engineer. This video describes a hypothesis based on a comprehensive study. Please do not confuse it with established theory. Highly curved elements should not be especially expensive to manufacture. It is corrective aspherical elements that are the tricky ones. There is some evidence that many of them are made of molded plastics to keep lens price down.
@@sneye1 The hypothesis seems plausable. I have an engineering background but I am not expert in lens manufacturing and not familiar with the equipment. My understanding is because of the complex curvature of aspherical elements molding is the easiest and affordable method to manufacture such shapes. Plastic is a highly moldable material vs glass. Minolta in one case I am aware used a hybrid molded plastic bonded to glass. I expect high curvature spherical glass to require more material removal and increased time (cost) to grind & polish and more difficulty maintaining tight tolerance specifications. Upon further thinking assembly cost of more elements would be another factor that needs consideration.
A fountain of ignorance shows how to know things without measurement. And ephemeral idea (3D pop) becomes a cult of ignorance and this place is the temple.
@@lxhk3595 How do you measure it? What is 3D about it? Now, depth of field exists. subject in focus exists, contrast exists. So what (besides these easily measured quantities) is 3D pop?
@@danncorbit3623 The reason why some lenses produce a more spatially realistic image is subtle. A friend of mine lost an eye as a child and still developed spatial perception. The brain renders an image based on various information and experience. These include natural tonal transitions, edge sharpness, sharpness transitions, and contrasts. Dimensional rendering is not necessarily measurable but "perceptible," even in direct comparison to "flat rendering" lenses with otherwise identical parameters such as subject, focal length, and aperture. The brain then effortlessly creates depth, and for flat lenses not. Try it out.
Thanks for sharing good broadcast video about 3D-pop effects of lenses in photography. I just want to suggest, in a positive way, that you should carefully prepare the content you will discuss, please write down its topics and detailed sections on a piece of paper, or an electronic document. You can use a Scroll on a computer screen infront of you, next and behind the camera as a teleprompter, that help you easy tracking and follow your content, for what you'll say in the video. With that, you will present your content smoothly with full meaning continuously, attracting the listener, and more better than all your videos you speak very emotionally and without preparation, and have difficulty finding words to express the thoughts that appear in your head when you are talking about a content, causing your content to contain a lot of confused sounds of prolonging the vowels "Errrrrrr", "RRRRR", "Theeeeeee", "Uhmmmm" , "Arr"....... , that make audiences feel bored , tired, feel wasting time and feeling like you didn't prepare the content carefully early. Please refer to many other popular channels with thousands of subscribers or recent numbers of audiences, followers... as many authors and channnels as you can easy find them in RUclips. Sorry if my comments may make you uncomfortable, but I just want to say in positive purpose, please also read my comment and think positively. the purpose of my comments is just to help you improve your next videos better and attract the audience more through the your useful content and shareable. Once again, thanks and best regards .
I don't know if you covered this in a previous video or have it written up somewhere but I'd be interested in hearing more about the data that you showed in 18:26 How did you measure '3D score actual'? Did you just judge the images by eye and score them from 1-4? How did you predict the 3D score? Was this based on the decision tree that you mentioned later? Can you show us the images?
Exsactly right! I have many old lenses that give character, and my Sony 24-70 GM gives me petfect sharp bland images. Good for events, but no exitement!
This is neither scientific nor anything close to reality. I've been shooting Sigma Art lenses -- the best rendering lenses I've ever had, and I had everything including Leica and Zeiss. Those are complex lenses with expensive SLD glass, very well corrected.
I suspect that simpler lens designs will produce better micro contrast and it is this that determines the "3D pop" in an image. Modern designs are typically much more complex than vintage designs, with the ideal of limiting image artefacts. I also suspect that modern photographers value sharpness more than pop. Lastly, coatings on vintage lenses are typically very bad in direct comparison to coatings on modern lens designs. I guess it comes down to what you value.
These days the only value proposition is this: does the image look distinctly different from what could be created by a phone? This is what stands behind the renewed interest in lens rendition. By the way, coatings have little effect. They do however affect colors and flares.
@@sneye1 colours and aberrations such as flares impact on an image. If the lens isn't giving accurate colour rendition, or has weird issues with flaring (like Canon's new RF200-800 lens on brighter highlight sections), then that is indeed an issue. I wouldn't call that little effect. As to phone vs camera lens - if you're solely judging a modern lens design on "3d pop" then that is a really limited judgment imho. Before watching your video, I'd never even heard of the term "3d pop" and I've been using a camera for nearly 40 years.
@@davepastern Who cares about what you never heard off, clearly you have missed quite a bit. I have to agree on the whole 3d pop thing. It`s the most important of all. If not just use your phone. 3D pop is what makes me make my works of art.
15:46 "abrupt transition from shadows to highlights" You are talking about contrast. I know of no lens (and I own several dozen lenses, from the latest and vintage) that can "abruptly" tone map the luminance of a scene into a high contrast image. Lenses that have poor coatings, prone to flaring, or have dirt, mold or oil residue or are badly scuffed will certainly reduce the contrast by raising the shadows (gamma). The problem here is there is no formal recognition of "3D pop" in optical engineering; this is the language of lay people. Even the term "subject separation", which likely means more to most people, is purely a subjective characterization of a 2D image. I looked at a few of your photos in Part 10, and none of them look 3D or "poppy" to me. Furthermore, attempting to correlate optical arrangement, # elements, # LD elements, to a rather nebulous evaluation criteria (subjective), especially when you consider focal length, aperture, subject and background distances and lighting, sounds like pseudo-science. At the very least, the test method would have to be better defined and conducted as a double-blind.
Thanks. I know all that. The issue here is the subjective, perceptual nature of the dependent variable. I am not aware of objective instruments that can measure it so I did my best to evaluate it in a blind test. The testing methodology is described in the second video on my channel. By the way, those practices are quite common in social science.
Dig me out this rabbit hole, cuz I am DEEP! haha great videos and explanations of lens characteristics, and all that comes with 3D Pop and dimensionality, micro-gradation and all that. Nice work.
What do you think about Lumix S Pro lineup? I love Lumix fullframe and I feel like the s pro 50mm 1.4 and 16-35 f4 are really good. Any experience with l mount glass?
Hi, I do not have experience with Lumix S lenses. Try to look at their diagrams and apply the decision tree. I do have the Panaleica 15mm f1.7 for Micro 4/3. It is quite good.
The main considerations for me are maximum contrast, lowest spherical and chromatic aberrations, High sharpness and micro-contrast (which are related to aforementioned aberrations) and a flat focal plane. Oh and low coma and astigmatism off-axis. Some of the older slower macro lenses achieve this without many elements or more than 1 ED element. Samyang's 135mm f2 is outstanding stopped down a tiny bit. Nikon's old 60mm f2.8 af-d macro achieves it stopped down.
Love this creative photography lesson. Tired of relentless videos and lens reviews about sharpness, sharpness, sharpness. I take many of my sharp photos and desharpen them most of the time in post anyway - more pleasing to my eye. Lets create engaging images occasionally and not just factual representations all the time unless that is what is needed. Keep going - thanks 🙏🙏
It’s crazy to think that this is the problem that those module8 tuners actually solve…. I collected a full set of the Zeiss ZF and Jena lenses for their pop, and it’s a night and day difference compared to my Sigma, Canon, or any other autofocus lenses. If you aren’t convinced by this approach, just rent lenses and test them for yourself. All he’s talking about is lens design, there’s no reason to get mad lol.
Very interesting. I’m learning a lot from you sharing your knowledge. Thank you! A question: I recall thoriated glass achieves relatively low dispersion and a high refractive index. Is that correct? Do you consider the thoriated vintage lenses demonstrate 3D pop qualities? I really like the images produced by those lenses. The RUclips channel called ‘Simon’s Utak’ is a great source of information on those thoriated and other vintage lenses.
Hi, I am familiar with that channel. A great resource for M42 lenses. I do not have any thorium optics. In fact I have been careful to avoid them, so I can't really comment on their quality. Results I have seen from the Takumar 50/1.4 are pleasing, but other lenses in that category are just as nice.
@@sneye1 Thanks for your reply. Yes the radioactive qualities of those lenses is certainly an interesting feature! The measurements suggest they are harmless unless you ingest or inhale the glass (eg if it were smashed or ground into dust). But otherwise they are considered very safe. So I’m happy to own a few personally and keep them safely tucked away in my garage.
I use a Viltrox 13mm and I can confirm it's flat as hell. Big aperture wide angle lens with great autofocus but flat as hell. 4 low dispersion elements. Thinking of switching to a fujinon 14mm but the smaller aperture can result in a lack of depth of field...
This video really got me thinking, what kind of impact do filters have, uv, neutral density, vnds, do they add to dispersion? can they decrease or even increase pop, as they are usually not made from low dispersion glas? or do they just not matter at all?
Everything makes sense now, I checked my lenses and indeed those which I liked the best have the "most pop" by your formula, everything checks out. However, one thing I don't understand from theoretical standpoint - why does the group complexity matter. For example, why is it better to have 2 lenses in 1 group than just one thicker one or 2 lenses in separate groups?
@@sneye1 At least some manufacturer's lens diagrams show high refractive elements as well (if there are any). So if the rule of thumb is that high refractive elements increase 3d-pop whereas ED/LD elements decrease it, maybe it should be incorporated to the decision tree as well somehow. I mean, if all three different lens types are known, then there's no need to use group complexity as a proxy for high refractive lens count. I hope my rambling makes sense.
I was looking at the Sony 16-55 2.8 and the Sigma 18-50 2.8, the Sigma should have 1 LD element, roughly 11% LD glass and 1.3 group complexity, does the percentage ruin the pop or can it still be good? Also for the Sony, 3 LD elemements, 20%+ LD glass and 1.4 complexity will likely have no pop at all. The Sigma seems outstanding in its category or am I using your flowchart wrong?
@@sneye1 had this lens in the past, had a hunch that it just looked better but couldn't put my finger on it, the only criticism I heard from others was chromatic aberration, looking at the elements and your video as context it makes sense, we are trading more pop for some CA, thank you for looking at the elements
Just had a look. Both lenses contain five ED elements, but in the 50mm they are concentrated at the front while in the 35mm they are concentrated at the back. It means that the 50mm allows some dispersion to develop downstream. The 35mm does not.
3d pop is such a buzzword. But shooting Cosina and Leica adapted lenses on my Sony I’d say this guy is on the right track. Micro contrast is more prevalent in all of the lenses he says have pop vs the likely more “sharper” lenses on the right. I agree without raw evidence of what he’s saying, most modern lenses of today have great sharpness but often lack “character” or its own uniqueness because of the extra low dispersion glass. It almost seems like older vintage lenses had much more style to their rendering rather than mathematical sharpness of their more modern models. The give and take is a less natural look to the human eye, but visibly sharper. I myself have no qualifications, just experience from wasting mass amounts of money on gear over the years. 😅
He just spent half an hour explaining his points. He did not force anyone to trust him. If he is a doctor or a car mechanic or whatever, are you then going to disregard everything he said? Maybe take some time and collect info from other sorces, do your own observations and tests and you will then decide if this man is to be trusted or not, if his theories are legit or not. Try to further the resoning. Personally when someone says they're to be trusted, I see that as a red flag.
I just want to know if you have any specialized knowledge within the camera/lens industry that would help improve credibility. I want to believe you, and just some additional information about your qualifications would be helpful. As it stands, you have few followers and very little views. All of this can just be hearsay and random opinion. Which is fine, but I am in the pursuit of truth.
This is one of the best videos I ever watched on RUclips about lens poppiness. Thank you for taking the efforts. I am eagerly waiting for your future videos
Oh he does and let me tell you i have a set of 4 S line z nikon glass ihave adapted several ai-s and indeed som leica M glass for the Z7 11 and He got it right the lesser element glass has better microcontrast better tonality range and transition from shadow to midtones to highlights are way better .So the Z glass gives you sharper images with deeper shadows and no grdation of tones as do the lower element count lenses .I restore lenses Both new and old .So at some point in the future all this ed and apo will fade out of all bar longer tele lenses .This is well known in the restoration industry .Try it for yourself at all the same setting's on camera and lens Newer ed apo cant give that look we humans have evolved to interpet .
And what, pray tell , are your qualifications in the realm of optics that would lend any credence about optics to the point that your petty ad-hominem attacks against the creator of this video have any degree of validity? Go back your flat earth convention . You clearly appear to have about as much academic credibility as a toilet bowl.
My guess is, you're not into vintage lenses, or else, you'd understand what he's saying. Rather than disregard him, why not try a couple against your modern lenses to see if he's correct?
Very valuable information! You just talked me out of all the lenses I was considering lol.
Nikon 24mm f1.4G has 2 ED elements, likely not much pop. Nor the 28mm f1.4 G.
Zeiss 135mm f2 for f mount has APO in the name...
And the Zeiss Batis 135mm f2.8 for Sony is also an APO design.
Now looking at the Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4 or maybe more Voigtlander glass :)
Nikon 24 f1.4 is highly poppy. I have it. So is the 35 f1.4.
As to 135mm, let me suggest the Carl Zeiss Jena 135 f3.5 Sonnar.
@@sneye1 Interesting! Ok, thanks for your suggestions!
For the Zeiss 135mm, there is a "zebra" version, or MC DDR version, does it matter which?
@cameraconspiracies Yes. The Zebra version is redioactive. Keep away..
@@sneye1 Ok :)
Excellent video. Thank you. Camera Conspiracies sent me 😉
Same
@@koreanwonders 🙋♂
Same here
Same, now looking at vintage lenses
Same
This is what the photography really is! If You want know why old/simple glases are better than newer, this channel i s for you :)
Upon actual thinking, this made no sense.
Do you have side by side photos taken with these lenses with pop and those without?
Look at the first three videos on the channel. Some samples there.
Would you say these glasses meets your criteria of Highly poppy? While at the same time being a modern lens?
Sony 35mm f/1.8 Zeiss (SEL35F18Z) has:
LD/ED Elements: Includes one ED element.
LD Glass Content: Approximately 7.1% (1 out of 14 elements).
Average Group Complexity: 1.33 (14 elements in 11 groups).;
The Sony 55mm f/1.8 Zeiss (SEL55F18Z) has:
LD/ED Elements: Includes one ED element.
LD Glass Content: Approximately 7.1% (1 out of 12 elements).
Average Group Complexity: 1.33 (12 elements in 9 groups).
I am planning to buy 3D Pop lens, would you say these glasses have it? its very convenient as I have E mount Sony body, while at the same time not wanting to hassle with manual lens. Thank you ! 🤗
The Zeiss 55 is definitely poppy. The Sony - a little bit.
@@sneye1 Thanks for the reply! Yeah I'm leaning buying the 55mm F1.8 Zeiss too! Considering buying that lens and the Sony FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS (Vario-Tessar T)*. it has:
LD/ED Elements: Includes two ED elements.
LD Glass Content: Approximately 10% (2 out of 13 elements). Note: Slightly over 10%, but performs exceptionally well.
Average Group Complexity: 1.36 (13 elements in 10 groups).
Hoping this also give slight 3d pop even though its a zoom lens
😅
Very informative. The way everything is explained, so softly and patiently is adorable. Thank you.
Thanks. Many complain that it's too soft and patient 😉
@sneye1 ... when senior experienced and knowledgeable person speaks it is with care and caution. 🙏🏻
Useful information! For once RUclips algorithm recommended something interesting.
I suspected something like this was the case. Been searching for so many years for a detailed technical explanation without the need to read an optical lens design book heavy in the weeds of mathematical explanation. Thank You so much. Also until very good glass coatings the number of lens elements was limited as too much light was lost by the reflection of each element. This probably limited the use of low dispersion glass due to the need for other corrective elements. I also wonder if newer designs because of coatings are using several low curvature elements instead of one high curvature element which is more costly to manufacture.
Hi, please note that I am a scientist, but not an optical engineer. This video describes a hypothesis based on a comprehensive study. Please do not confuse it with established theory.
Highly curved elements should not be especially expensive to manufacture. It is corrective aspherical elements that are the tricky ones. There is some evidence that many of them are made of molded plastics to keep lens price down.
@@sneye1 The hypothesis seems plausable. I have an engineering background but I am not expert in lens manufacturing and not familiar with the equipment. My understanding is because of the complex curvature of aspherical elements molding is the easiest and affordable method to manufacture such shapes. Plastic is a highly moldable material vs glass. Minolta in one case I am aware used a hybrid molded plastic bonded to glass. I expect high curvature spherical glass to require more material removal and increased time (cost) to grind & polish and more difficulty maintaining tight tolerance specifications. Upon further thinking assembly cost of more elements would be another factor that needs consideration.
A fountain of ignorance shows how to know things without measurement. And ephemeral idea (3D pop) becomes a cult of ignorance and this place is the temple.
Thank you.
3d pop exists my friend. Open your mind.
@@lxhk3595 How do you measure it? What is 3D about it? Now, depth of field exists. subject in focus exists, contrast exists. So what (besides these easily measured quantities) is 3D pop?
@@danncorbit3623 The reason why some lenses produce a more spatially realistic image is subtle. A friend of mine lost an eye as a child and still developed spatial perception. The brain renders an image based on various information and experience. These include natural tonal transitions, edge sharpness, sharpness transitions, and contrasts. Dimensional rendering is not necessarily measurable but "perceptible," even in direct comparison to "flat rendering" lenses with otherwise identical parameters such as subject, focal length, and aperture. The brain then effortlessly creates depth, and for flat lenses not. Try it out.
The truth is out there!
Thanks for sharing good broadcast video about 3D-pop effects of lenses in photography.
I just want to suggest, in a positive way, that you should carefully prepare the content you will discuss, please write down its topics and detailed sections on a piece of paper, or an electronic document. You can use a Scroll on a computer screen infront of you, next and behind the camera as a teleprompter, that help you easy tracking and follow your content, for what you'll say in the video. With that, you will present your content smoothly with full meaning continuously, attracting the listener, and more better than all your videos you speak very emotionally and without preparation, and have difficulty finding words to express the thoughts that appear in your head when you are talking about a content, causing your content to contain a lot of confused sounds of prolonging the vowels "Errrrrrr", "RRRRR", "Theeeeeee", "Uhmmmm" , "Arr"....... , that make audiences feel bored , tired, feel wasting time and feeling like you didn't prepare the content carefully early. Please refer to many other popular channels with thousands of subscribers or recent numbers of audiences, followers... as many authors and channnels as you can easy find them in RUclips.
Sorry if my comments may make you uncomfortable, but I just want to say in positive purpose, please also read my comment and think positively. the purpose of my comments is just to help you improve your next videos better and attract the audience more through the your useful content and shareable. Once again, thanks and best regards .
Thank you. I am aware of the difficulty to watch my content or listen to it. Will address your good advice in a future video.
Is the voigtlander 40mm Ultron f2 poppy? (nikon mount)
Never used it, but should be. Take a look at lots of sample photos to make sure.
I don't know if you covered this in a previous video or have it written up somewhere but I'd be interested in hearing more about the data that you showed in 18:26
How did you measure '3D score actual'? Did you just judge the images by eye and score them from 1-4? How did you predict the 3D score? Was this based on the decision tree that you mentioned later?
Can you show us the images?
Check the second video in my channel. The methodology is thoroughly explained there.
Exsactly right! I have many old lenses that give character, and my Sony 24-70 GM gives me petfect sharp bland images. Good for events, but no exitement!
This is neither scientific nor anything close to reality. I've been shooting Sigma Art lenses -- the best rendering lenses I've ever had, and I had everything including Leica and Zeiss. Those are complex lenses with expensive SLD glass, very well corrected.
I suspect that simpler lens designs will produce better micro contrast and it is this that determines the "3D pop" in an image. Modern designs are typically much more complex than vintage designs, with the ideal of limiting image artefacts. I also suspect that modern photographers value sharpness more than pop. Lastly, coatings on vintage lenses are typically very bad in direct comparison to coatings on modern lens designs.
I guess it comes down to what you value.
These days the only value proposition is this: does the image look distinctly different from what could be created by a phone?
This is what stands behind the renewed interest in lens rendition.
By the way, coatings have little effect. They do however affect colors and flares.
@@sneye1 colours and aberrations such as flares impact on an image. If the lens isn't giving accurate colour rendition, or has weird issues with flaring (like Canon's new RF200-800 lens on brighter highlight sections), then that is indeed an issue. I wouldn't call that little effect.
As to phone vs camera lens - if you're solely judging a modern lens design on "3d pop" then that is a really limited judgment imho.
Before watching your video, I'd never even heard of the term "3d pop" and I've been using a camera for nearly 40 years.
@@davepastern Who cares about what you never heard off, clearly you have missed quite a bit.
I have to agree on the whole 3d pop thing. It`s the most important of all.
If not just use your phone. 3D pop is what makes me make my works of art.
@@brugj03 been photographing things for near 40 years. Haven’t missed this “3D poo”
@@davepastern Cant miss what you don't know about.
I am here for the image fidelity
Yes.
15:46 "abrupt transition from shadows to highlights" You are talking about contrast. I know of no lens (and I own several dozen lenses, from the latest and vintage) that can "abruptly" tone map the luminance of a scene into a high contrast image. Lenses that have poor coatings, prone to flaring, or have dirt, mold or oil residue or are badly scuffed will certainly reduce the contrast by raising the shadows (gamma). The problem here is there is no formal recognition of "3D pop" in optical engineering; this is the language of lay people. Even the term "subject separation", which likely means more to most people, is purely a subjective characterization of a 2D image. I looked at a few of your photos in Part 10, and none of them look 3D or "poppy" to me. Furthermore, attempting to correlate optical arrangement, # elements, # LD elements, to a rather nebulous evaluation criteria (subjective), especially when you consider focal length, aperture, subject and background distances and lighting, sounds like pseudo-science. At the very least, the test method would have to be better defined and conducted as a double-blind.
Thanks. I know all that. The issue here is the subjective, perceptual nature of the dependent variable. I am not aware of objective instruments that can measure it so I did my best to evaluate it in a blind test. The testing methodology is described in the second video on my channel. By the way, those practices are quite common in social science.
Dig me out this rabbit hole, cuz I am DEEP! haha great videos and explanations of lens characteristics, and all that comes with 3D Pop and dimensionality, micro-gradation and all that. Nice work.
What do you think about Lumix S Pro lineup? I love Lumix fullframe and I feel like the s pro 50mm 1.4 and 16-35 f4 are really good. Any experience with l mount glass?
Hi, I do not have experience with Lumix S lenses. Try to look at their diagrams and apply the decision tree. I do have the Panaleica 15mm f1.7 for Micro 4/3. It is quite good.
The main considerations for me are maximum contrast, lowest spherical and chromatic aberrations, High sharpness and micro-contrast (which are related to aforementioned aberrations) and a flat focal plane. Oh and low coma and astigmatism off-axis. Some of the older slower macro lenses achieve this without many elements or more than 1 ED element. Samyang's 135mm f2 is outstanding stopped down a tiny bit. Nikon's old 60mm f2.8 af-d macro achieves it stopped down.
Thanks. Most macro lenses are near perfect, which makes the image they produce very clean. Some CA is needed for good rendering of depth, I think.
Love this creative photography lesson. Tired of relentless videos and lens reviews about sharpness, sharpness, sharpness. I take many of my sharp photos and desharpen them most of the time in post anyway - more pleasing to my eye. Lets create engaging images occasionally and not just factual representations all the time unless that is what is needed. Keep going - thanks 🙏🙏
I'm with you. Nobody ever complained about my photos not being sharp.
It’s crazy to think that this is the problem that those module8 tuners actually solve….
I collected a full set of the Zeiss ZF and Jena lenses for their pop, and it’s a night and day difference compared to my Sigma, Canon, or any other autofocus lenses.
If you aren’t convinced by this approach, just rent lenses and test them for yourself. All he’s talking about is lens design, there’s no reason to get mad lol.
Didn't hear about Module 8 before. It actually makes perfect sense. Thanks.
Thanks for sharing such informative content! Best regards from Sao Paulo, Brazil!
Very interesting. I’m learning a lot from you sharing your knowledge. Thank you!
A question: I recall thoriated glass achieves relatively low dispersion and a high refractive index. Is that correct? Do you consider the thoriated vintage lenses demonstrate 3D pop qualities?
I really like the images produced by those lenses. The RUclips channel called ‘Simon’s Utak’ is a great source of information on those thoriated and other vintage lenses.
Hi, I am familiar with that channel. A great resource for M42 lenses.
I do not have any thorium optics. In fact I have been careful to avoid them, so I can't really comment on their quality. Results I have seen from the Takumar 50/1.4 are pleasing, but other lenses in that category are just as nice.
@@sneye1 Thanks for your reply. Yes the radioactive qualities of those lenses is certainly an interesting feature! The measurements suggest they are harmless unless you ingest or inhale the glass (eg if it were smashed or ground into dust). But otherwise they are considered very safe. So I’m happy to own a few personally and keep them safely tucked away in my garage.
I use a Viltrox 13mm and I can confirm it's flat as hell. Big aperture wide angle lens with great autofocus but flat as hell. 4 low dispersion elements. Thinking of switching to a fujinon 14mm but the smaller aperture can result in a lack of depth of field...
Hi. Depth of field is hardly a consideration with wide lenses. Pop is. Go for it.
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing.
This video really got me thinking, what kind of impact do filters have, uv, neutral density, vnds, do they add to dispersion? can they decrease or even increase pop, as they are usually not made from low dispersion glas? or do they just not matter at all?
Hi, filters will have a much greater effect on dispersion when mounted behind the lens (some adapters allow slotting filters).
@@sneye1 So in the front of the lens their effect is rather negligible?
I think so, but it needs evidence. Never use filters myself.
Everything makes sense now, I checked my lenses and indeed those which I liked the best have the "most pop" by your formula, everything checks out. However, one thing I don't understand from theoretical standpoint - why does the group complexity matter. For example, why is it better to have 2 lenses in 1 group than just one thicker one or 2 lenses in separate groups?
Hi, it's to do with the glass type. Doublets typically contain a high refractive index element.
@@sneye1 At least some manufacturer's lens diagrams show high refractive elements as well (if there are any). So if the rule of thumb is that high refractive elements increase 3d-pop whereas ED/LD elements decrease it, maybe it should be incorporated to the decision tree as well somehow. I mean, if all three different lens types are known, then there's no need to use group complexity as a proxy for high refractive lens count. I hope my rambling makes sense.
I was looking at the Sony 16-55 2.8 and the Sigma 18-50 2.8, the Sigma should have 1 LD element, roughly 11% LD glass and 1.3 group complexity, does the percentage ruin the pop or can it still be good? Also for the Sony, 3 LD elemements, 20%+ LD glass and 1.4 complexity will likely have no pop at all. The Sigma seems outstanding in its category or am I using your flowchart wrong?
The sigma should be quite poppy then. Just to make sure, have a look at as many sample photos as you can.
@@sneye1 thank you for the swift reply, fascinating youtube channel!
Had a look too. Indeed, the Sigma 18-50 seems somewhat better than average for a modern zoom.
@@sneye1 had this lens in the past, had a hunch that it just looked better but couldn't put my finger on it, the only criticism I heard from others was chromatic aberration, looking at the elements and your video as context it makes sense, we are trading more pop for some CA, thank you for looking at the elements
הידע שלך מדהים. תשקול לעלות תכנים בעברית .
A great video, thanks.
Great video. I feel the voightlander 50mm f2 apo has decent 3d pop but the 35mm f2 apo not so much
Thanks. Interesting observation. I have not tried either. Will have a look at their diagrams.
Just had a look. Both lenses contain five ED elements, but in the 50mm they are concentrated at the front while in the 35mm they are concentrated at the back. It means that the 50mm allows some dispersion to develop downstream. The 35mm does not.
@@sneye1 thank you I learned a lot from this video . That does make sense to me!
Hi, a video about your observation coming up.
How do you calculate the average group complexity?
Divide the number of elements by the number of groups.
that a 40mm nokton 1.4
Yes.
I celebrated two birthdays before the end of this video.
What are your qualifications and why should anyone trust what you’re saying?
3d pop is such a buzzword. But shooting Cosina and Leica adapted lenses on my Sony I’d say this guy is on the right track. Micro contrast is more prevalent in all of the lenses he says have pop vs the likely more “sharper” lenses on the right. I agree without raw evidence of what he’s saying, most modern lenses of today have great sharpness but often lack “character” or its own uniqueness because of the extra low dispersion glass. It almost seems like older vintage lenses had much more style to their rendering rather than mathematical sharpness of their more modern models. The give and take is a less natural look to the human eye, but visibly sharper. I myself have no qualifications, just experience from wasting mass amounts of money on gear over the years. 😅
He just spent half an hour explaining his points. He did not force anyone to trust him. If he is a doctor or a car mechanic or whatever, are you then going to disregard everything he said? Maybe take some time and collect info from other sorces, do your own observations and tests and you will then decide if this man is to be trusted or not, if his theories are legit or not. Try to further the resoning. Personally when someone says they're to be trusted, I see that as a red flag.
My qualifications are irrelevant. Not expecting anyone to trust what is said. Judge for yourself.
I just want to know if you have any specialized knowledge within the camera/lens industry that would help improve credibility. I want to believe you, and just some additional information about your qualifications would be helpful.
As it stands, you have few followers and very little views. All of this can just be hearsay and random opinion. Which is fine, but I am in the pursuit of truth.
@@Labunga43Hi, Will address your concerns in a future video. Stay tuned.
This is one of the best videos I ever watched on RUclips about lens poppiness. Thank you for taking the efforts. I am eagerly waiting for your future videos
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it. That said, this channel will be quite diverse in its topics. Please don't expect any more elaboration on pop.
Warning! This guy does not know anything about optics.
Oh he does and let me tell you i have a set of 4 S line z nikon glass ihave adapted several ai-s and indeed som leica M glass for the Z7 11 and He got it right the lesser element glass has better microcontrast better tonality range and transition from shadow to midtones to highlights are way better .So the Z glass gives you sharper images with deeper shadows and no grdation of tones as do the lower element count lenses .I restore lenses Both new and old .So at some point in the future all this ed and apo will fade out of all bar longer tele lenses .This is well known in the restoration industry .Try it for yourself at all the same setting's on camera and lens Newer ed apo cant give that look we humans have evolved to interpet .
And what, pray tell , are your qualifications in the realm of optics that would lend any credence about optics to the point that your petty ad-hominem attacks against the creator of this video have any degree of validity? Go back your flat earth convention . You clearly appear to have about as much academic credibility as a toilet bowl.
My guess is, you're not into vintage lenses, or else, you'd understand what he's saying. Rather than disregard him, why not try a couple against your modern lenses to see if he's correct?