Lenses that make a difference

[@shadowrevival]

Thanks for the great insight, I have found the perfect lens! 35mm YongNuo f2 df dsm! It has one ED glass on the front, 9 elements 8 group. I found the sample in flickr. (only have 43 pictures) and Oh my God, comparing it to the Zeiss distagon 2/35 ZF side by side in a large monitor, I honestly can't tell the difference... the microcontrast, while having modern sharpness at the center, it is honestly amazing!

[@GLu-qc6vn]

Thanks for this detailed run-down, Shaul. Watching your last few videos I'm taking detailed notes each time. Your knowledge and insights are presented like veins of gold, full of ore. ... (um, apologies in advance for quite a long comment) ... I've read and watched several other sources that touch on 3D pop, (though they don't usually mention "life-like dimensionality" -- the key *human value* underlying the phenomena). So far, they only contain partial observations, and unsystematic thought. IMHO, you are one or two orders of magnitude beyond them. From the first video I watched of yours, I've felt that your understanding is an integrated whole, based on deep experience, facts and science. Across several videos I've grown to understand and appreciate how all this arises from your humanistic aesthetic sensitivity. I'm deeply indebted to you. I've spent many enjoyable hours trying many lenses on 3 or 4 quite different camera bodies. Looking for dimensionality. I've shot nature or suburban scenes with various "types of pop," and also set-ups I've contrived to experiment with different colors, textures, layouts and lighting. I expanded my reading and my website photo viewing to focus on different (possible) drivers or creators of dimensionality in photos or paintings. As I wrote briefly a couple weeks ago, I've used your modeling formula to evaluate element layouts of nearly all of my lenses for which I can find design diagrams or helpful textual references. By now I've also identified and acquired 3 vintage lenses using the principles you've shared, and website photos from them. They indeed have turned out far more poppy than most lenses. ******** ******** ******** ******** ******** And now, I've begun a process that may yield insight, or may fail miserably from unbridled subjectivity. Based on your work, some art readings, and personal observations, I'm preliminarily identifying various different visual cues that tend to intensify perceived dimensionality in photographs. Often in a single photograph, several individual objects seem to pop forth via different sets of "pop-factors" or "dimensionality-drivers". (I don't have good language for this.) So far I've evaluated some low-thousands of objects in photos. I'm not seeking rigor yet, just trying to collect a lot of images and experiences -- all the while trying to observe and think about relationships of pop factors interacting. I've experimented looking with two eyes and just one eye. Sometimes when possible I cover up one or more pop factors and gaze at an object to see if I perceive a different level of dimensionality. I wrote some comments responding to two previous videos I watched of yours, for example about monochrome vs. (possibly) uniquely chromatic pop-factors. But I didn't publish them because my thinking seemed too much of a mish-mash and likely flawed. I've photographed for many years on and off, but I'm a newbie to 3D pop. I deeply appreciate the learning and full-on reorientation I'm gaining from you. I look forward to your upcoming videos, written comments, and lessons. - Gary

[@sneye1]

Thank you, Gary. I'm glad you find interest in those obscure topics. Will be interesting to learn more about your own observations. I think that the camera industry locked itself in a tragic situation: trying to differentiate "real" cameras from phone cameras, the state of the art equipment ends up creating results that look no different to the layman. At the same time the beauty of interesting optics is sacrificed. Maybe I should discuss the state of the industry in a dedicated video.

[@GLu-qc6vn]

@@sneye1 Thanks, Shaul, I'm very happy to share as I learn... and hear feedback too :-) . I'd treasure your thoughts on the industry, and its implications for the beauty of images we share. I think it will be uniquely valuable for people to gradually hear and consider into the future.

[@chuckhatcher5073]

Moving from Nikon DSLR to Nikon Z mirrorless, the two lenses I could not leave behind are the 28mm f1.4E and 58 f1.4G. I do not miss the AF fine tuning needed when using these lenses on DSLR. Another favorite lens is the DC 105mm f2, but it does not autofocus on Z bodies, so I prefer to use it (and the Micro 200mm f4) with a DSLR body. I cling to my D780, D850, and D500 cameras. All of these lenses are large and bulky, especially when adapted, which makes the lowly Z 40mm f2 so attractive to me for everyday use.

[@sneye1]

I find D series lenses are best suited to older DSLRs. It's the reason why I still hold on to a D700. I also have a knackered D780 which hosts those G primes, though lately I've been adapting them to Z to clear my head of those fine tuning issues.

[@viktorpaulsen627]

I have a Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM lens. I guess it does not have 3-D pop, or does it? It would have been so interesting to see comparison of such kind of lens with the most poppy one that you have.

[@sneye1]

Hi, you might be interested in watching the first three videos on this channel. Some comparisons there. I have many flat lenses. To me, they are mostly useful for scientific applications.

[@viktorpaulsen627]

@@sneye1 I have seen 7 of the 32 videos. I shall see all 32 before commenting further. Thanks.