In my experience this isn't what micro-contrast really does for an image. Micro-contrast simply determines whether it's sharp and resolving fine details.
The things that make an image "pop" (in my understanding) isn't at the micro-level, it's at the macro-level, which can be due to any number of factors. I'll give some examples in a portrait context.
- Using a longer focal length from further away limits the background "clutter", better isolating the subject
- Using lighting to highlight the subject and diminish the background
- Using techniques such as the "clarity" slider in Lightroom to adjust midtone contrast - especially if you're using this selectively only on your subject
- Using shallow DoF to separate your subject from the background
IMO, seeking out lenses known for micro-contrast isn't going to influence the "pop" in your images more than those 4 factors will. For example, while the 75/1.8 indeed
is very sharp with great micro-contrast I posit that the reason it produces images that "pop" is because of the focal length (and the minimization of clutter that often comes with it) in combination with the very usable f/1.8 wide-open aperture and the shallow DoF it produces.
Yes you are entirely correct,
Its not a lens property and never was, its a compositional and lighting property, if all you take picture of is a flat field with absolutely nothing in it with overcast lightning, you will have, a "flat image"
But if you are taking picture of a narrow path surrounded by bushings and use a lens with good separation in good light, there will be "3D pop" effect that everyone keeps crying about, and its like you say because in EVERY Goddamn example people put forth, the lighting, separation, thats what makes it, not the lens itself.
Thats why modern photographers underestimate using a good flash these days.
And I see a lot of modern photographers just go complete ape with big toneh lens and wide open, blurring the background out completely, ruining any form of separation there could have been, thats why I been bigger fan of APS-C form factor, you can still shoot quite open with a lens but you wont have the overkill background toneh.
But for micro contrast its entirely different subject, the concept is very real and described in painful details mathematically decades ago before digital was even conceived of.
But I also find it difficult to replicate, because number one, I do not currently have lenses that I would at least consider having such a huge micro contrast ability that lets say I take the Sigma 16mm and compare to the Leica 15mm, will I see it? I have no idea, I own neither lens, I have bought the Leica a few days ago, I might get the Sigma.
Thats another thing, I see the micro-contrast very clearly on the Sony Alpha 900 with the Zeiss, but here is my biggest issue with this, is it the Colour Filter Array doing this, or is it the lens? Or a combination? Again I have no idea, I would need to test it.
Thats why I am asking, what do people here on DPReview Forum, consider the best micro contrast - m/43 lens, okay I got a few answers now, and a lot of recurring lenses that a lot of people seem to agree, yes these have the micro contrast, I buy a few of these and see for myself will they deliver? What should I compare to? Oh why not Sigma, everyone seems to consider Sigma to deliver zero micro contrast (LOL) despite Sigma having some of the simplest element designs there is in a modern lens.
In fact it also be interesting to acquire Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX for Canon EF since I own that very lens on Minolta A-mount, then I can compare Sony Alpha 900 to a Panasonic G9 with a pass-through adapter, or just rent a Canon R8, and see is it the sensor, or is it the lens.
Then all that remains, how do I even test the micro contrast LOL, I suppose a landscape would be the best in more golden light specially in autumn, or flowers.
No idea how you would test such a thing indoors in controlled light.
