The Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art is much superior to the Canon 85mm f/1.2... The Canon lens isn't sharp at all wide open...

Fun fact. Had that one forever, my first supermodel editorial was shot with the Vers. 1 on FILM...upgraded to Vers. II and with only occasional usage I decided to nerd up and get the Otus collection....
And my clients still don't care...but I agree, a nice 85 is a must have for the people/fashion/beauty/portrait crowd. Personally, I'd say stay within the camera universe, aka Sony GM, unless its a Otus etc.

The Sony 85mm 1.4 GM is lighter, but the Sigma is sharper wide open... Check LensRentals.com...

Who cares which is sharper wide open. I mean you can barely see the difference.
The GM is a work of art with a lot of character, compared to this boring Sigma thing.

You buy a f/1.4 or f/1.2 lens but "won't shoot wide open anyway"? Buy rather a lighter and cheaper f/1.8, or use a kit zoom lens...

To be honest in a way they are adapted. They are existing lenses for another type of system adapted for use on Sony.

The real question is: Would a design made specifically for mirrorless have been different? The answer is probably NO, as Sigma said that only lenses shorter than 35mm would get any advantage of having a specific mirrorless design...

So the E-mount version of the Sigma 85mm isn't more adapted than the Canon or the Nikon versions...

@brendon1000

Then the Canon version is adapted, too, as the lens was originally designed to fit within Nikon's flange distance. An extension was added for Canon, and the firmware changed to enable proper functionality. Same exact thing that was done for the Sony version.

Now if you want the true adapted version, that's the EF + MC-11 combo. The adapter translates EF to E, which reduces performance.

Only partially true BlueBomberTurbo. These Sigma lenses are DSLR lens and adapted for different mounts like Canon and Nikon. This is the most common method 3rd party lens manufacturers take including Tamron and Tokina along with Sigma.

However adapting an AF DSLR lens to a mirrorless camera is not common at all and Sigma has to completely rework the AF of the DSLR lenses to work with contrast detect AF. This is not an ideal situation and most reports of users buying these lenses is that the AF is a bit of a hit and miss.

@BlueBomberTurbo
Yes it is adapted, hence the longer body of the lens. When I said "King of adapted lenses" it wasn't a completely negative remark. It's just that Sony's ecosystem relies on 3rd party lenses more than it should be. That's not completely a bad thing but it is a "thing".

Sigma likes to deal with issues in the corners by pushing the corners outside of the imaging area. This makes the lens larger and that's what you get with Art series.

True but there’s less sharp and then there’s decentered. I don’t think decentered is acceptable especially at Sony lens prices. Fortunately these Sigmas look like a good choice and adapters have improved to the point where using Sony bodies and Canon lenses is a viable option.

@Fat

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/06/the-sony-fe-lenses-mtf-and-variance-summary/

I wouldn't be afraid of native lenses if I were you, Fat Fish, they're one of the draws of the system. The fast primes also have a programmable lens button and de-clickable aperture rings, as well as the more manageable size - compared to Sigma.

I can see lots of pop in the new Pentax fifty... but when you do that you get bashed because of the LoCA, so...

People and *shudders* reviewers just /want/ flat, surgically precise renderings, so it only follows that manufacturers have decided to oblige.

things pop more usually because of the lighting and with the larger aperture. Also the # or type of aperture shutter blades too. The smoother curve blade will give circular OoF bokeh quality. More blades would help, as hard edge can be seen more with less blades. This will give the OoF more edge to it.

facepalm

Look at a lot of Zeiss' most poppy lenses. Not the sharpest. Check out Thorsten Overgaard...

Fakebook?

@marc - It's a shame, isn't it? A fundamental lack of photography innovation by camera manufacturers led us into a bizarre megapixel race. But to get there we had to give up some color fidelity as weaker color filters were needed to support the tiny pixels of these new megapixel monsters.

Bad enough, right? Only now these high resolution cameras are also dragging down our lenses by forcing designers to trade away natural rendition for high megapixel sharpness!

In the past when you wanted high resolution images you bought a proper medium format camera. With its bigger pixels and larger sensor both the color fidelity and lens design weren't compromised. The essential problem today is the misguided attempt to squeeze medium format performance out of 35mm full frame photography. It's fool's gold, IMHO.

@Rishi - Don't just put your face in your palm, mate, there's enough sand beneath your feet to fit an entire head. LOL

@LensBeginner - I also noted a lot of 3D Pop in the Pentax 50mm review (and said so in the comments underneath). I even drew the association between the residual LoCA being uncorrected and the better 3D Pop of the lens.

Isn't it interesting that while we're able to notice these obvious macro image qualities, others can only see the Pentax 50's micro flaws when zoomed in at 100%?

There's an apt saying to use here... they can't see the forest for the trees.

"I even drew the association between the residual LoCA being uncorrected and the better 3D Pop of the lens."

Ah, so given the significant residual LoCA uncorrected on this Sigma 85 Art lens, the association between LoCA and '3D Pop' you're patting yourself on the back for (with no actual scientific rationale or explanation whatsoever) would then suggest this Sigma Art has great '3D Pop', right?

Right? Oh wait, you just said this lens doesn't have '3D Pop'. So now you've contradicted your own unfounded and unproved hypothesis.

No worries, I'm sure you'll come up with another one. Like 'a lens has 3D Pop if its has uncorrected axial CA and its brand name doesn't start with Sigm--!'

It's so hard being part of the misunderstood minority! I feel you.

"being brutally optimized for sharpness, even at wide aperture, and not being optimized for a natural rendering, means here: 3D Pop, and life-like images."

So much 💩.

Sharpness prevents pop and lifelike images?

Why do people make stuff like that up?

fPrime is known for un-scientific discussions regarding 3D-pop. Pseudo-science at its best. Using the word 3D-pop and delving into the realm of pseudo-science without clearly defined metrics etc. allows even scientifically untrained people to sound like lens-experts.

@fPrime of course if you want to follow 3D pop to the ultimate conclusion then it's back to film. I see much more 3 dimensional qualities in my film images. There's a presence and feeling of light in the films images that just aren't there in digital. Film gracefully handles highlights too. I spent some time on rangefinderforum over the last few weeks. There are a few dedicated film threads, those images are just alive, may not be have that technical sterile perfection of digital but what a refreshing feeling.
Makes me tempted to sell of all my digital Cr*p and go back to film completely.
To be honest if I could have a permanent darkroom set up I would have done it years ago.

"since already the 90s or so are being brutally optimized for sharpness, even at wide aperture, and not being optimized for a natural rendering, means here: 3D Pop, and life-like images."

How does a less sharp lens equal more "3D Pop, and life-like images" and less "natural rendering"??

Thematic, you don't have a clue. Old MF primes from the 70s - 80s, you have to stop them down to F8, F11 for good corner to corner and edge Sharpness.

FYI, they're not sharp being wide-open, means F1.4 to F2.8 here - if you don't know - you're simply not being old enough. Sigma Art primes are rendering more flat, for instance, my Planar 50/1.7 C/Y does give me a lot of 3D Pop.

And if you don't see it - check your eyes at your local eye specialist, you might need to get glasses. It's way dumb, to say this is BS.

Have fun!

Marc

@marc
For a fast fifty I'd say f/5.6 is enough, in fact some if not most peak there, and are a little less sharp at f/8. Personal experience.
Nitpicking aside, I agree with your assessment.

@Marc Petzold: These are the statements I meant before. What does "more flat" mean? Define it scientificallt, such, that it is possible to compare different lenses even when used for different situations. Define 3D-pop. If you don't do it, every statement is just pseudo-science, allowing different people to see different things in an image, as the terms are just to vaguely defined to lead to a clear and definite result and people here debate over it forever, to no avail.

marc petzold = making 💩 up.

You got caught.

@HFLM subjects that should be round such as faces seem to be rendered flatter as in lacking in shape. Objects that are clearly in the foreground appear to be on the same plane as objects that are behind them. It may seem that some spacial depth clues appear to be missing. Thats my understanding of many seem to mean when they refer to lenses that seem to render flatly.

I find it to be an interesting subject, there are plenty of samples around the net to look at, some have noticed it with movie lenses too and there are some videos on youtube showing examples.

I can't say I agree with all the samples I've seen but some lenses clearly seem to render with a more 3 dimensional look than others.

It may be due to optical correction or coatings or both or just the way the lens transitions from in focus to out of focus through the scene. Certainly lighting plays a huge part too.
I don't think we really understand enough about how the brain interprets a 3 D object rendered to a 2D photo.

@Rishi - First off, I didn't say the Sigma 85 ART has no 3D Pop. I said that any 3D Pop it has virtually disappears unless it's shot wide open.

Secondly, no one said that 3D Pop hangs only upon uncorrected LoCA, it's merely related. Over-corrected lenses in general kill 3D Pop. This includes heavy correction for corner sharpness wide open, spherical aberrations, and coma, etc. Don't over-simplify.

Third, none of us have an anti-Sigma bias. Sigma are merely the best example of over-correction for wide open sharpness. As Marc Petzold has stated above, almost EVERY lens manufacturer has been forced to optimize lenses for sharpness over rendition. Nikon has released flatter optics like the 105E and most of their normal G primes. Canon has done the same with the 35L Mk II which has noticeably less 3D Pop than the 35L Mk I. Leica have released modern APO lenses that are sharper even as many still prefer their older pre-asph versions. Even Zeiss now have their flatter Otus an Milvus lenses.

face-palm x100

About the worst explanation possible.

@Stujomo - Thanks for the comments on film having more 3D Pop punch, I don't doubt that this may well be true. Think about it, the subtle shifts in a subject's color tone help confer its shape and form to our brains, right?

Well remember that film records light directly whereas digital passes light through an RGGB CFA requiring de-convolution via a 3x3 conversion matrix in order to form an image. Unfortunately some "problem" hues simply don't map correctly with a simple 3x3 matrix. As a result certain films can probably capture subtle color gradations more faithfully than modern digital sensors can.

It's also well established that the higher the pixel count goes in CMOS, the weaker the CFA must be, and the thinner and more muted the saturated colors of a scene imaged with it become. Even CCD enthusiasts can detect a loss of color pop and hue discrimination in files from their CMOS cameras. If you then compare film's color discrimination against CMOS the gap may be even greater.

@Thematic - have fun, kiddo. I don't feed the trolls. Always the same kind of guys, lowprofile, and just bashing around...it's a shame, DPR becomes a second german c't heise forum. Why you hide your real identity under a pseudonym? think about it - and that's exactly how you do write, you feel so secure, and you don't deserve your stuff being answered, whileas you're trolling around.

@HFLM - Go and ask Zeiss yourself about "Lens Contour"..if you don't understand it. I don't feed you trolls, my time is more precious, sorry. ;-)
Hint: The answer is in the link....

@fprime - even Zeiss writes about "Medium Format" IQ out of Full Frame nowadays, read it here:

https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en/article/a-lens-class-of-its-own/

Good Night!

Marc

@PhilDunn - You asked "How does a less sharp lens equal more "3D Pop, and life-like images" and less "natural rendering"??"

It basically works like this. A lens achieves peak sharpness at an aperture where its optical aberrations and diffraction effects are equally minimized. Wide open diffraction isn't a concern but aberrations are a big problem. Closed down aberrations are less of a concern but diffraction becomes a problem. Hence most lenses peak in sharpness around f/5.6 or f/8.

Normal prime lenses can be built with as few as three elements and render beautifully at f/8. The problem is that we want lenses that we can use at f/1.4 and f/1.8 as well.

When companies like Sigma add a dozen additional elements to the design of a prime they are attempting to correct for aberrations and soft corners wide open. While on the surface this sounds brilliant, the additional glass differentially absorbs the transmission of blue wavelengths which degrades microcontrast and dulls image depth.

@Fprime: You should write Star Trek technobabble ...

Chief O'Brien: "Well, I'd have to get in the biofilter bus and patch in a molecular matrix reader, that's no problem. But the wave form modulator would be overloaded without the regeneration limiter in the first aid circuit."

Data: "Hmm, interesting."

"While on the surface this sounds brilliant, the additional glass differentially absorbs the transmission of blue wavelengths which degrades microcontrast and dulls image depth."

Microcontrast is a BS pretentious made up term, and a sharper lens can not logically have dull image depth. On the contrary, it improves the things you and Marc have been mentioning.

I own two Sigma DPM cameras. You know why those cameras to this day produce by far the most "3D Pop" of any camera made at 1:1 native resolution? Three reasons. One, they use a unique filter that captures by far more resolution per area of sensor than any sensor made. Two, the lenses on those cameras are fantastically very sharp. Three, low enough noise to not occlude too much of the above. With the true X3 Foveon sensor in those cameras, that means being stuck at the base ISO of 100. That’s it. Nothing more.

@Stujomo

"if you want to follow 3D pop to the ultimate conclusion then it's back to film. I see much more 3 dimensional qualities in my film images"

🧐🤨😣

"There's a presence and feeling of light in the films images that just aren't there in digital"

That's pretentious illusory mumbo jumbo that film evangelists love to go on about.

"Film gracefully handles highlights too"

Unfortunately to this day I'm scanning a lot of my old film, and while one can debate the mathematics involved between between digital and film in that regard, I see nothing in today’s digital cameras that causes me to notice any discrepancy in that department.

"There are a few dedicated film threads, those images are just alive..."

Putting aside the competency of the photographers involved, no doubt due to the wonders of digital image editing technology. Back in the film only days you would get crap 💩 in comparison to what film shooters can get today by scanning and editing in your favorite image editor.

Weird people are making stuff up and seeing things that are not there, to escape from reality. That's all.

@ PhilDunn if all you got was crap back in the film days then thats down to you, many of us were, still are are capable of making excellent quality prints in the dark room. No scanning or digital or digital editing needed. Latitude in the highlights is excellent with negative film.

"There's a presence and feeling of light in the films images that just aren't there in digital"
That's pretentious illusory mumbo jumbo that film evangelists love to go on about.
Why do think that is, they are surely not making it up are they, myself I've got for more money tied up in digital gear than film, I shoot far more digital than film, film is a pain the ass to work with compared to digital. Yet I can open my eyes and still see it.

"if all you got was crap back in the film days then thats down to you,"

Read more carefully what I wrote. I said "back in the film only days you would get crap 💩 ***in comparison to*** what film shooters can get today by scanning and editing in your favorite image editor."

"Latitude in the highlights is excellent with negative film."

Expose either medium properly you'll be fine with either.

"Why do think that is, they are surely not making it up are they,"

Make up something that none of them are capable of defining? Yes.

"myself I've got for more money tied up in digital gear than film, I shoot far more digital than film, film is a pain the ass to work with compared to digital. Yet I can open my eyes and still see it."

See what?? 🧐 All I see with film is inferior image quality and 😖😫😡🤬 💰💰💰🤮

...and you call yourself "american"? Shame on you, Phil!

Ansel Adams would turn inside it's grave, if he would read -just- your crap, as you like to name it.

From your attitude, and the flag as icon you must be living in texas, clearly. no offense.

@PhilDunn When you shoot film it adds colourations to the image, its not possible to shoot on film without adding something. Film is not a transparent medium. It stamps it character all over the image. This is really what film shooters love, the look of film. It's simply what the film adds to the image that leads to a look or a feeling.
It's rather like turntable/vinyl lovers they love the sound of vinyl, but a turntable is not transparent far from it. It adds colourations to the sound that many like and find pleasing.
Scanning film (much like digitally recording from vinyl) retains or preserves a lot of those colourations.

Digital editing is great one of the best parts of the digital process. For many scanning does allow them to retouch and produce potentially higher quality from their film images but I can't say that I saw more cr*p before.

There is certainly more cr*p around today than there ever was but thats mainly because digital has made every shot free in a sense.

"...and you call yourself "american"? Shame on you, Phil!"

What does me being American have to do with the topic and my comments in this article?

And who the heck are you, as a foreigner, to judge an American on his or her Americanness?

"Ansel Adams would turn inside it's grave, if he would read -just- your crap, as you like to name it."

Most other photographers were not like Ansel Adams. Ansel Adams wasn’t an it. I don’t call what I write crap.

If what I have said is crap then it should be easy for you to refute. What's stopping you from doing so?

"From your attitude, and the flag as icon you must be living in texas, clearly.

Don’t pretend to know my country and culture well or you’ll continue making yourself look foolish. Myself, the flag of my country, and where I live have zero relevance to the topic and anything I have said.

"no offense."

🤥 At least be honest if you wish to turn the discussion into a personal attack.

"When you shoot film it adds colourations to the image,"

Color is not a defining characteristic of film. Color profiles, on the other hand, are defining characteristics of particular types of films. That's nothing film specifically relevant about that in the digital era where most anyone can achieve whatever colors they want.

"Film ... stamps it character all over the image. This is really what film shooters love, the look of film. It's simply what the film adds to the image that leads to a look or a feeling."

I'm sure I could fool any film shooter into thinking a set of digital camera prints taken and edited a certain way came from film.

A feeling? That's the problem with most film evangelists, they try and reason with their feelings.

"scanning does allow them to retouch and produce potentially higher quality from their film images but I can't say that I saw more cr*p before."

Then your memory is either faulty or you never lived through the period.

I have the Nikon and the Sigma, and I find the Sigma, sharper, more clinical, what ever that means.

@onlyfreeman - There's been lots of testing between older prime lenses and modern ones here and elsewhere online. One good place to start is this blog by Yannick Khong:

https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics

@Sion F - I'm sorry, but who are these Star Trek character's you speak of... O'Brien and Data?

I only know Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty, Sulu, Chekov and Uhura... you know, the classics of Star Trek. They are kind of like my classic lenses from the 1960's, not the Sigma lenses of the flaccid next generation. 🤣

@PhilDunn - "Microcontrast is a BS pretentious made up term"

You may believe what you like but Zeiss have officially acknowledged microcontrast as have most online photography resources like Thom Hogan, Lloyd Chambers, and Nasim Mansurov.

Being a Sigma DPM owner, have you ever asked yourself why the Foveon sensor is built with the blue layer on top and the green and red layers below? It's because the fragile blue wavelengths are absorbed before the green and red wavelengths in silicon. The same thing happens in glass.

Lest HFLM or anyone else attempt to suggest my arguments are based on pseudo-science, here's my definitive scientific explanation of how glass differentially degrades blue light. Note that it was vetted by an actual analysis of the AFS 70-200/2.8G VR II by the engineers of that forum.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59213992

And with regard to the Sigma Foveon sensor... yes, it has high pixel acuity but it takes more than sharpness and acuity to drive 3D Pop. 🙈

@fPrime
Can your pseudo-science describe what's the difference between micro-contrast and normal contrast (and what's a 3D Pop), without talking about feelings and nostalgia?
My theory is that some people (purists?) just want to differentiate between the lens contrast and the post-processing contrast, as if there is an original state of it in digital (there isn't), so they made up this micro-woo-woo thing. While others are calling microcontrast the old lens "look" caused by aberrations and all kinds of imperfections of the older lens design.
Normal people are fine with calling the contrast - contrast, aberrations - aberrations. Trust me, it's easy to be normal. At least try it sometime, for a change.

@ecka84
Since there's a difference between the contrast between extremes, and the subtle difference between similar tonal gradations, it makes sense to use two different terms for large and small tonal differences.

A lens could render a scene in a very contrasty way, and yet have troubles rendering subtle changes in color.

@echa84
Oh come on please... where did I say "everything"?
Take at least the pain to read what what I wrote.
"subtle tonal gradations" is way more letters to type.

Ok, now I'm sure that you're just trolling...
Have a nice day.

@PhillDunn
All color films have their own color pallet, Velvia is somewhat different to Astia one being saturated and contrasty with the other being more neutral. Kodak had negative films for portrait/wedding shooters, black and white films also have their own spectral response. TriX in Rodinal is somewhat different FP4 in D76.

"I'm sure I could fool any film shooter into thinking a set of digital camera prints taken and edited a certain way came from film."
Yes I'm sure you could, so could I, however having to edit the digital images in a certain way to fool people into believing that it is shot on film really confirms that film has a look that is different from usual digital image.
It's a look that some people prefer, thats why they shoot film in the first place.

"All color films have their own color pallet"

I said that. Why are you repeating back to me something I said?

"Yes I'm sure you could...however having to edit the digital images in a certain way...confirms that film has a look that is different"

The only editing I would be doing is essentially no editing. Shoor high ISO RAW, no luminance reduction (modest color is fine, such as what is default in Adobeware) and very modest sharpening with no masking. Adobe default amount is fine. If you want to go further clip the highlights or shadows and print to traditional photo paper. I have fooled every photographer I shown such prints. High ISO RAW already looks strikingly similar to film.

"It's a look that some people prefer, thats why they shoot film"

Most people that shoot film today are a handful of film era veterans and hipsters and other young people with a fleeting interest. The film era veterans are mostly crippled by nostalgia but denial and ignorance affects most of them.

@PhilDunn "Most people that shoot film today are a handful of film era veterans and hipsters and other young people with a fleeting interest. The film era veterans are mostly crippled by nostalgia but denial and ignorance affects most of them."

Or maybe they just prefer the results and get more enjoyment from it.
Some people prefer classic cars and motorcycles over modern ones.
Some prefer vintage Hifi over modern equipment.

"There's been lots of testing between older prime lenses and modern ones here and elsewhere online."

And yet not one of these 'tests' is controlled. In fact the Yannick Khong article you point to tries to make its case by takes a portrait of someone with a small nose taken with a 'modern' prime and compares it to a portrait of someone with a larger nose taken with an older prime, then concludes that the older prime has more '3D Pop' because the nose is 'more 3D' and 'less flat'.

That's not just wrong, it's irresponsible.

"Secondly, no one said that 3D Pop hangs only upon uncorrected LoCA, it's merely related."

There is no evidence of this.

"Over-corrected lenses in general kill 3D Pop. This includes heavy correction for corner sharpness wide open, spherical aberrations, and coma, etc. Don't over-simplify."

Proof? A/B studies? Theoretical explanations?

'Don't over-simplify'? You're the one, without evidence, correlating # of elements with flatness, yet I'm oversimplifying?

So any chance of a real test by DPR? :)
Now that would be something!

While there are many reasons some images can have more 'pop' than another, there is no evidence that there's any simple correlation between optical correction and/or # of glass elements and 'pop'.

A fast aperture shot will tend to have more separation of subject/background, or 'pop'. Funny then that '3D poppers' say 'this lens shot wide open has pop, but not stopped down'. Well, yes, of course.

A greater ratio of background-to-camera vs. subject-to-camera distances will tend to increase separation or 'pop', unless the background is so far away that it's completely blurred and nearly invisible, in which case the image will lose a sense of depth. Funny I'll often find '3D poppers' complain about pop for a lens, only to point to images where the subject and background aren't that separated with depth. That has nothing to do with the lens.

One wonders why '3D poppers' seem to refuse to do a controlled, double blind A/B study. Perhaps the results are feared?

@Rishi - "And yet not one of these 'tests' is controlled."

Well, equally irresponsible is it to suggest that Yannick's illustrative article on 3D Pop is the sum of his work. You should have been able to easily navigate to the A/B tests on his site, no?

https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/11/12/depth-vs-flat-lens-quick-comparison
https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/3/7/sigma-art-vs-nikkor-afd-part-1
https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/5/25/vintage-50mm-relevancy-tests-in-2016
https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/6/8/life-after-autofocus-comparing-a-set-of-superior-50mm-lenses-of-the-f-mount

Yannick has done more A/B tests on the topic of 3D Pop in three years than DPR has done in a more than a dozen. I submit to you that the reason for this is that none of the DPR lens reviewers are well versed in the subject nor able to test for this rendering quality.

I can test lenses for 3D Pop on Canon and Nikon if you need. At least I know what I'm doing:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/57829038@N08/

I believe venerable forum member Marianne Oelund already did a study right here in our forums. Didn't change a thing for the 'believers', who will attribute 'flatness' to # of lens elements when in fact every single case where a subject might actually conceivably be rendered somewhat flat, the real cause is explained by any of a number of other factors, like lighting, subject/background distance ratio, focal length, composition, etc.

What's disturbing is that they'll tend to state as dogma this correlation, with no conceivable underlying reason whatsoever. No ray diagrams, for example. And even when they try, it makes no sense:

• Less blue light due to extra elements robs the image of depth? How?
• More elements lead to loss of contrast compared to older lens designs? Even though modern lenses have far better AR coatings so as to actually measure, on an optical bench, as having higher contrast (10 lp/mm MTF) than older designs?

I'd love to understand the underlying motivation?

I have seen those, & no they're not double-blind, or even blind, A/B studies.

They're also entirely unconvincing, not to mention not well-controlled (focus, lighting, etc.). Also you can't test different focal lengths and then say the shorter focal length has more depth - for the same subject magnification, longer focal lengths render subjects flatter. This has nothing to do w/ # of elements.

We haven't tested it because even the believers can't show us even one example that would make us stop and think 'maybe there's something here', not to mention provide a plausible explanation.

The reality is there is only a vanishingly small few of you constantly trumpeting this unproven, unfounded correlation. In our forums, your constant interjection borders on trolling, & convinces nearly no one.

"I can test lenses for 3D Pop on Canon and Nikon if you need. At least I know what I'm doing: https://www.flickr.com/photos/57829038@N08/"

I'm sorry - what is that photostream supposed to show me?

@Rishi - "I believe venerable forum member Marianne Oelund already did a study right here in our forums."

As good as she is at producing lens metrics Marianne has yet to ever post a photo with strong 3D Pop on here. Why would you ask a person who has never proven a photographic skill to then test that skill for you?

The only thing Marianne has done is create tests specifically for the purpose of debunking the notion of lens-driven 3D Pop. I've noted all the problems with each including improper test scenes of close subjects with little depth (figurines and books), mixing lenses of vastly different focal lengths and then attempting to use different lens apertures for roughly equivalent DOF's, and cropping and editing the test images extensively while never sharing the RAW files post testing.

When I gave her detailed instructions for conducting a proper 3D Pop test she vanished.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59051076

So whose afraid of testing? Not the "3D poppers" for sure.

@Rishi - "We haven't tested it because even the believers can't show us even one example that would make us stop and think 'maybe there's something here', not to mention provide a plausible explanation."

So I take it you didn't see any 3D Pop in my photostream? Well, then this is the core problem. If you are so blindly insensitive to the provided examples and claim you don't see any 3D Pop then there is no way for us to fairly discuss anything.

It's no wonder that you say my forum posts on 3D Pop are "constant" even though they are actually once in a blue moon. You just see any post on the topic as terrible heresy. Well, you can't write off all 3D Pop proponents as a fringe minority when in a reality most photographers love when 3D Pop presents itself in their images.

The truth is that people are keen to learn about this skill and the gear that helps produce it. Voices like mine point them forward even though you personally may not understand. Diversity of thought is good, no?

"Or maybe they just prefer the results and get more enjoyment from it. Some people prefer classic cars and motorcycles over modern ones. Some prefer vintage Hifi over modern equipment."

When people publicly declare they prefer something based on misinformation then it’s fair that they be challenged.

@fPrime
Your micro-woo-woo heroes show you different images with different sharpness and contrast levels (like stopped down primes vs wide open zooms) and even different exposures (possibly due to the T-stop differences) and call it microcontrast magic and 3D pop'ness. The difference is barely noticeable and most likely you could fix it in photoshop, which would save you a lot of time that you spend on spreading this woo-woo nonsense on the Internet.
I don't know what's worse - charlatans or people searching for "snake oil" suppliers. You are made for each other.

@ecka84 - If it's all snake oil then why does Nikon lens designer Haruo Sato say:

"Another reason for the revival of old lenses is the growth of the networked society. SNSs and websites can be viewed in an instant by just about anyone anywhere. Information can be shared immediately. People can share their thoughts—"That is a great lens!" or "I'd like to try this lens...". Lens rendering, bokeh, and three-dimensional reproduction characteristics are being discussed and debated somewhere every day."

https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0065/index.htm

You see, young ecka84, it is in actuality you, Rishi, and HFLM who are out of step with what lens designers, the proponents of 3D Pop, and many working photographers believe. We are the mainstream... you are the fringe.

@HFLM - First of all it's spelled "hubris", not "hybris". Second, I've got a record of successful 3D Pop images so I have a legitimate basis for my viewpoint. Marianne has zero accomplishments in this arena. What I have is called confidence not hubris.

Now, if you believe I'm flat wrong and Marianne Oelund has posted a photo with strong 3D Pop, then link to it.

Ready... Go!

None of your photos in the photostream you linked to have any more '3D Pop' than what I'd expect from any other lens with that focal length / aperture.

One mention by one lens designer about 'three-dimensional rendering' of an isolated subject at 200mm somehow validates all your claims about '3D pop' and its correlation to # of elements and undercorrection of aberrations?

Lens experts and lens designers actually disagree with you (we actually get to speak to them). Marketing people would be your friend, though. If that puts us in the fringe, then that's exactly where we'd like to be.

@Rishi - Let's agree to disagree about how easy it would be to duplicate the 3D Pop in my Photostream with modern lenses. Suffice to say that if it were as simple as you suggest, then people would get this level of 3D Pop all the time with their modern gear... but they don't.

Also, nice attempt to limit Haruo Sato's comments on 3D Pop to the 28-200 at 200mm. No, he's actually talking about old lenses in general here. Need a more specific example? He thinks the Nikon 85/1.4G is sharper but has less three dimensional rendering than the older 85/1.4D:

https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/621449.html

Now, I'm happy you think the random lens designers you bumped into at CP+ validate your viewpoints on 3D Pop. (Like I'm sure, given your attitude, that you even asked them about 3D Pop, lol). Unfortunately they are NOT on the record and so you don't have any leg to stand on here. Please come back to the discussion when you have some real proof to present, not just hearsay.

@fprime: You shouldn't be that over-confident. It is not deserved. Only pseudo-science, i.e. stuff collected from the web, put together, singling out parameters seemingly supporting your point, neglecting others, wrong use of scientific language, some stuff that is well known taken out of context, no theory based on scientific principles linking the claims to all relevant parameters (as many observed in the forum discussion you linked to already and in which you responded like being a Nobel laureate).
The vague subjective terms like 3D pop and microcontrast are not even defined. Not doing so and not connecting these definitions (subjective!) to the input variables is a big fail. Instead some graphs and images are shown and taken as proof. You don't even realise your flaws, you are instead sure to be right, a true believer. In my opinion you became someone I would characterise as a fanatic. Doesn't make sense discussing with you. 100eds of comments from others didn't change anything.

@HFLMecka84thematic - The reason you guys struggle arguing against me is that you fight with slander, derision, and ridicule. It's nice that you think my responses sound like they're Nobel laureate level, but against your steady stream of facepalms and poop emojis almost anything would appear erudite.

I know you're all annoyed that you can't quote any lens expert to offset the comments made by Nikon's Haruo Sato. Nor can you make a 3D Pop expert out of Rishi or Marianne Oelund as neither of them have proven their ability to shoot it yet. It kind of leaves your side lacking in evidence to back up any of your opinions.

I'm sure you'd love to see the definitions and theories behind how 3D Pop works. I've actually written a fair bit about these in the lens forums over the years. Unfortunately with its length and image restrictions the comments section makes it impractical to repeat here.

Given your combined trolling notice that Marc and others have already left. I'll probably be next.

@fPrime: The thing I observe here is similar to what I see in climate science. To many non-experts think to be educated enough to challenge scientific consensus or build their own theories, even though not grasping basic science.

Reading over many of your "theories" I couldn't find any scientifically sound attempt to explain this "phenomenon" of 3D pop. You base it on subjectivity, not scientific principles. You quote out of context. You are obviously no trained scientist. More problematic is, that you don't understand the criticism scientists had on your "theories", or, worse, you simply ignore it. If you are so sure, why not submit an article to an optical engineering journal, including peer review? Should be no problem for you, right?

''While on the surface this sounds brilliant, the additional glass differentially absorbs the transmission of blue wavelengths which degrades microcontrast and dulls image depth''

fPrime, this was already discussed in a thread where you failed miserably. When you add blue filter in front of a lens, there is actually LESS contrast, and blue filter is not blue because it blocks blue light like you tried to sell us.

BTW your flickr photostream is a disaster, it really hurts my eyes. Where you trying to post 3D pop examples? Well, you failed miserably, again.

I s3e many Canon and Nikon users making plastic and unnatural colors. It has nothing to do with the camera.

Sony neon greens as usual.

The colors look very „Adobe“ to me. Capture One usually gives much better results, and CO is free for Sony cameras. It’s not Sony‘s fault.

@adegroot, Becksvart - A lot of people must like oversaturated colors, because Ken Rockwell has the #! photography blog in the world. He actually makes money with his photography.
While were on the subject of oversaturated colors, check the website of one of the greatest living photographers, Pete Turner, he was using oversaturation long before it become popular.

It’s like the silly Hershey's argument, as if Hershey's has only one type of chocolate. 🍫

J A C S: Canon doesn't do any better when it comes to greens, and the ironic thing is Sony JPEG color now looks more like Canon 5D Mark III/6D II than Canon's own high-end DSLRs. See here.

Be careful not to ascribe to Sony what can easily be explained by poor Adobe Camera Raw camera matching profiles.

That said, Sony greens would benefit from more warmth, and yellows need to be more orange-shifted and less green, in our opinion. Sony Reds are now on par with the much coveted Canon 5D Mark III reds. But overall, the a7 III colors look closer to Canon's old color than the 5D IV.

For Sony Raw, use Capture One.

@Rishi - It is only ironic if you think that Sony has not learned from or looked at Canon colors. I do not think that any camera company does anything in a vacuum. Imitation is the best form of flattery.

Sony has learned a few things regarding colors, that is for sure. But not from Canon ... PhaseOne. Or so would be my bet, because these two for sure have worked together to get CMOS working for the MF crowd. Also, in an interview with a Sony guy here at DPR they said they will focus more on stuff besides DR, and if you followed/tried their different cameras over the years one thing I noticed was their meddling with getting colors better. Note that I don't use Adobe software and their crappy profiles; basing color comparisons on that is just bound to fail. Sony's JPG OOC look very good (neutral) to me; making things punchier is easy, getting things neutral is actually not that easy.

That's not 'busy bokeh'. That's 'not as defocused as I'd have liked, probably because relative distance of subject vs. background isn't very high'.

And, yes, ACR color profiles for Sony Raws need a lot of work. I'd recommend Capture One if converting Sony Raws.

That is a silly comment. How should he edit it? To your taste or my taste.

If you are buying this lens and using jpgs, you are wasting your money or don't care about the final result.

Trungtran that’s a really limited viewpoint. Of course the raws will offer better quality but the Sony jpeg output is plenty useable. All-or-nothing viewpoints just show intolerance. Really? If someone uses a jpeg then they don’t care at all about what’s going on?

These are not Sony colors. These are all Raw conversions in ACR, so they're Adobe's colors for Sony Raws. Adobe color for Sony Raws is, at this point, known to be pretty notoriously poor. Sony JPEG colors are far more pleasing (though could still use some work in our opinion).

I'd recommend Capture One for converting Sony Raws.

It is the SAME lens for DSLRs, now in E-mount. I guessed you missed the memo. But feel free to throw all mirrorless cameras under the bus because some lenses quickly adapted are merely "just as big" as those of DSLRs.

There IS nice 3D pop... Nicer than I've seen with most medium format pictures, and especially in the night concert pictures. It's something about the foreground being very clear and contrasty, but the background being very smooth and blurry. If the foreground person in not sharp enough, or if the background bokeh is "busy", the effect didn't work. This lens is sharp and contrasty, but with beautiful soft bokeh.

Dan is not a button-pushing monkey, he's a true artist so we expect his pictures to have layers of subtext. Nevertheless that photo is a good lesson about how sometimes a photographer can capture an instant in time that doesn't accurately reflect the reality of the situation.

This couple was probably goofing around, having fun but if you take it out of its context you could interpret it in several different ways—especially because it doesn't fit the usual template we expect to see in a couples portrait.

Study the woman's eyeline and the expressions on both their faces. The way their body language has been captured is also a little unexpected. Lot of different stories you could tell with that arrangement.

But that's the thing about real art, it doesn't convey the artist's thoughts as much as it is a mirror held up to the viewer's soul. What you see in the photo reveals who you are.

You can't be serious.

@Jor

The woman has a pierced nipple - clearly visible through her top. Now you can be offended by that as well.

Don’t forget the weight and size benefit with native GM 85mm-lens. For me that’s the main reason to avoid these Sigma’s DSLR-lenses.

The 85GM? No, it is buttery smooth. A gem.