3D Pop Lenses - Are Older Better?

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
fPrime Senior Member • Posts: 2,537
Re: Scientific test?

Mr Garibaldi wrote:

tbcass wrote:

rurikw wrote:

For those who respect scientific method I guess the matter could be settled with a few tests. Sets of photos taken with different lenses but otherwise identical judged by a randomly chosen group of people who are asked to rank them in order of 3d appearance. Then check for correlations: do any lenses get consistently lower/higher 3d points? How does that correlate with age/number of elements/presence of thorium or lead etc. Could such research be kickstart financed?

The problem with that is how do you define 3D? On a 2D photo it would mean different things to different people. To me 3D is a compositional thing and has nothing to do with lens quality or something as esoteric as microcontrast. To my eyes the following photo has a 3D look and it was taken with a far from exotic Tamron 70-200 USD lens.

When Pentax introduced their very nice 77mm f/1.8 LTD lens, one of the things they were pimping was its 3 dimensional rendering. I recall that they indicated the effect was from slightly undercorrected spherical aberration.

Indeed, its Flickr page bears that out. The overcorrection of aberrations is the bane of 3D Pop, spherical or otherwise.  The aim to under-correct also helps the FA 77F1.8 (115mm equivalent) preserve an element count of 7 where the latest 105mm design for Nikon is somewhat of a bloated pig at 14.


 fPrime's gear list:fPrime's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Nikon D1X Nikon D200 Nikon D700
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow