Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk
Thread started 13 Nov 2017 (Monday) 03:15
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

The Death of Beautiful Rendition and 3D Pop on Modern Lenses

 
Ah-keong
Senior Member
Ah-keong's Avatar
Joined Apr 2016
Nov 13, 2017 03:15 |  #1

https://photographylif​e.com ...d-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses (external link)

Note: Since this is a rather controversial subject, I highly recommend that you read the whole article through, especially the last paragraph.

Summary

Let’s wrap up the above information into a simple summary: only buy classic low-element prime lenses with lead glass elements – everything else is junk, as proven by the image samples and comparisons in this article. Sell every modern lens you have (you should have no problems with this, as long as you keep stating that it is “sharp”), especially if it has more than 9 lens elements. Unless you want flat, lifeless images that lack 3D pop, depth, dimensionality, clarity, micro-contrast and tonality, you should never touch zoom lenses, especially superzooms – don’t trade beauty for convenience. Why bother spending all that money on modern lenses, when classic lenses from 10+ years ago are so much better in every way? Those corrective lens elements (especially plastic aspherical lens elements) are the work of the devil and should always be avoided at all costs. And lastly, don’t be a victim to modern day marketing – there is absolutely no need to buy expensive, high-end lenses. Aside from sharpness, they add nothing else to your images, period.

P.S. I hope our readers realize that this article is a satirical piece, aimed at poking fun at those individuals and websites that post nonsense information about lenses and their “unique” qualities. In an upcoming article, we will reveal some facts and hopefully put some of the above arguments to rest. If you had fun reading this article and you can relate to some of the terminology and claims used in the article, please share your thoughts below  :p


Canon 7D Mark II | BG-E16 | Canon EF-S 10-18mm | Sigma DC 18-35mm ART | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2,8L IS II
Canon Speedlite 430EX III-RT |
Olympus E-PL3 | M.Zuiko ED 7-14mm PRO
Manfrotto BeFree Travel Tripod |

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Capn ­ Jack
Senior Member
Capn Jack's Avatar
Joined Mar 2010
NE USA
Nov 13, 2017 06:39 |  #2

Cute article. Unfortunately, I've read posts in other forums where people actually write about physics as written in that piece and think they are writing truth!




LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
DaviSto's Avatar
Joined Nov 2016
Abuja Nigeria
Nov 13, 2017 07:00 |  #3

Capn Jack wrote in post #18495229 (external link)
Cute article. Unfortunately, I've read posts in other forums where people actually write about physics as written in that piece and think they are writing truth!

Yes ... an enjoyable read. It's worth skimming through the comments that follow. They are very revealing just in terms of showing how easily forum articles like this can be completely misunderstood by a significant proportion of readers. It might be attributable partly to the fact that a some readers are working in a second language and haven't yet reached the level where they can reliably pick up on irony, hyperbole, sarcasm, etc. (perfectly understandable). But I think it's more due to short attention spans and unwillingness/unreadin​ess to read carefully. After all, the article does state quite clearly that it is a lampoon and telegraphs this right from the start.

When all's said and done, some lenses do seem to me sometimes to render images with that special indefinable 'pop'. Others seem never to. It would be interesting to understand better why that is. Or is it all 'in my head' and a figment of my imagination?


Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,638 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 2 months ago by TeamSpeed. 4 edits done in total.
Nov 13, 2017 07:40 as a reply to DaviSto's post |  #4

I don't think there is a definitive recipe for this pop. Some folks are naturally drawn to certain aspects of an image vs others. So just simple subject isolation from the surroundings may not be the recipe for everyone. Color and contrast may play a part, sharpness of course, and then the subject material itself could help or hurt the pop. 3D pop is yet another artistic component in photography, IMO, meaning it is subjective, 10 different people may have 5 (or 10) different reactions to the same photo.

Does this have pop simply due to a blurred background? Does a B&W conversion add or remove from the pop?

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/The-Senior-Experience/Shelby/i-NRGmZnK/0/9f2642db/XL/5P1B3462bwproof-XL.jpg

Does this pop out? There is very little in focus though, so what makes it pop? Is it the eyes, just because we are drawn to the eye in photos?

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/The-Senior-Experience/Shelby/i-sc8mWcH/0/62a82fd0/O/5P1B3612proof.jpg

Is it the subject isolation on this, or perhaps the colors that play a part? Is it because there is no transition, he is in focus and everything else is completely out of focus, no transitional area? Does having no transitional area in the photo actually hurt the 3D pop? Always things I try to figure out when doing portraits... Interesting subject to say the least.

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/The-Senior-Experience/Hayden-Senior-Shoot/i-4cMnV2V/1/b2b56685/L/5P1B3938proof-L.jpg

Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
joedlh
Cream of the Crop
joedlh's Avatar
Joined Dec 2007
Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
Nov 13, 2017 08:55 |  #5

Who is the Angry Photographer who is reputedly so well-known in the photographic community? This is the first that I've heard of him. One guy who wrote a criticism called him Ken Wheeler. That guy mentioned a Flick url, but one that I found was labeled Sean Knight.


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​texternal link
Editing ok

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,638 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Nov 13, 2017 09:21 |  #6

http://www.engdahlphot​ography.com ...27/the-angry-photographer (external link)


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
53,509 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
Nov 13, 2017 10:12 |  #7

This article is a joke, right? What an idiot. I can't believe I wasted 10 minutes reading the article.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,638 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Nov 13, 2017 10:23 |  #8

Did you "read especially the last paragraph"? Of course it was in jest, and was poking fun at other sites and individuals that constantly take the extreme view that only old or high end primes can produce the 3d pop, and is showing that you can can produce visually appealing and even 3d-ish shots with zooms and newer glass.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
kf095's Avatar
Joined Dec 2009
Canada, Ontario, Milton
Nov 13, 2017 10:27 |  #9

Beateful is very subjective term. Personally, I'm finding nothing beateful about old SLR film era lenses on DSLR. For example old Zeiss SLR lenses are nothing special on modern DSLR, yet, it has fan boys for it. But I had modern Zeiis 50 lens in EF mount and electronic aperture control. It was rendering very nicely, amazing colours and 3D was more often than 50L did for me. But 50L is also great lens on rendering not flat.
Even 24 2.8 EF-S pancake is great.

I think, if it is zoom lens, nothing special is expected. Old, modern doesn't matter.

It also seems to depend on the sensor. Leica could handle old lenses without issues, even non Leica old FSU. Sony FF seems to be in the opposite.

It also depends on application. I use modern primes on rangefinder film cameras and some of them are 3D and not flat.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
kf095's Avatar
Joined Dec 2009
Canada, Ontario, Milton
Nov 13, 2017 10:35 |  #10

joedlh wrote in post #18495311 (external link)
Who is the Angry Photographer who is reputedly so well-known in the photographic community? This is the first that I've heard of him. One guy who wrote a criticism called him Ken Wheeler. That guy mentioned a Flick url, but one that I found was labeled Sean Knight.

Rangefinder forum has him as one of the mentors for short period of time. He was chosen because of his popularity on youtube , I guess, but not happened on RFF. Was removed from the board. I was trying to watch his videos. But it is not for me. I find better info on forums from regular photogs, not media stars :)


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
53,509 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
Nov 13, 2017 11:10 |  #11

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18495385 (external link)
Did you "read especially the last paragraph"? Of course it was in jest, and was poking fun at other sites and individuals that constantly take the extreme view that only old or high end primes can produce the 3d pop, and is showing that you can can produce visually appealing and even 3d-ish shots with zooms and newer glass.

I dumped out before the end.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
arthurbikemad
Member
arthurbikemad's Avatar
71 posts
Joined Sep 2016
Post has been last edited 2 months ago by arthurbikemad. 2 edits done in total.
Nov 13, 2017 11:20 |  #12

I shoot with the 85/1.2ii (Canon), I do NOT have the 85/1.4IS loaded in my shopping basket! ;-)a

Honest :twisted:

It will not have the pop of the 1.2! :rolleyes:

It can't have right? :cry:


The 35/1.4ii I have of late is a true Canon master, can it get any better in a "modern" 85, and with a tiny aperture of f1.4? I mean can it, Canon seem to think it needs IS too, I mean IS, IS makes images soft right?? lololol :lol::lol::lol:




LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Nov 14, 2017 04:38 |  #13

gjl711 wrote in post #18495445 (external link)
I dumped out before the end.


The OP here even quoted the article, including the last paragraph, in the section of the post entitled Summary. So you didn't even need to follow the link to know that it was satire.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Ah-keong
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Ah-keong's Avatar
Joined Apr 2016
Nov 14, 2017 19:28 |  #14

Think the trend is towards sharpness and clinical finishing....

from Canon Rumors....
https://www.canonrumor​s.com ...808.0;attach=163490​;image (external link)


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Canon 7D Mark II | BG-E16 | Canon EF-S 10-18mm | Sigma DC 18-35mm ART | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2,8L IS II
Canon Speedlite 430EX III-RT |
Olympus E-PL3 | M.Zuiko ED 7-14mm PRO
Manfrotto BeFree Travel Tripod |

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,638 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Nov 14, 2017 19:45 |  #15

Been that way since I joined in 2004.... Every discussion seemed to center around sharpness of a lens or the sensor for as long as I remember.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

5,838 views & 11 likes for this thread
The Death of Beautiful Rendition and 3D Pop on Modern Lenses
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00099 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is ciao1968
854 guests, 445 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017