Tell-tale signs of 3D-pop lenses

Very valuable information! You just talked me out of all the lenses I was considering lol. Nikon 24mm f1.4G has 2 ED elements, likely not much pop. Nor the 28mm f1.4 G. Zeiss 135mm f2 for f mount has APO in the name... And the Zeiss Batis 135mm f2.8 for Sony is also an APO design. Now looking at the Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4 or maybe more Voigtlander glass :)

listening on x1.75 playback speed is perfect

Excellent video. Thank you. Camera Conspiracies sent me 😉

Very informative. The way everything is explained, so softly and patiently is adorable. Thank you.

This is what the photography really is! If You want know why old/simple glases are better than newer, this channel i s for you :)

Do you have side by side photos taken with these lenses with pop and those without?

Thanks for sharing such informative content! Best regards from Sao Paulo, Brazil!

A great video, thanks.

Upon actual thinking, this made no sense.

Very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

I don't know if you covered this in a previous video or have it written up somewhere but I'd be interested in hearing more about the data that you showed in 18:26 How did you measure '3D score actual'? Did you just judge the images by eye and score them from 1-4? How did you predict the 3D score? Was this based on the decision tree that you mentioned later? Can you show us the images?

Very interesting. I’m learning a lot from you sharing your knowledge. Thank you! A question: I recall thoriated glass achieves relatively low dispersion and a high refractive index. Is that correct? Do you consider the thoriated vintage lenses demonstrate 3D pop qualities? I really like the images produced by those lenses. The YouTube channel called ‘Simon’s Utak’ is a great source of information on those thoriated and other vintage lenses.

What do you think about Lumix S Pro lineup? I love Lumix fullframe and I feel like the s pro 50mm 1.4 and 16-35 f4 are really good. Any experience with l mount glass?

I suspected something like this was the case. Been searching for so many years for a detailed technical explanation without the need to read an optical lens design book heavy in the weeds of mathematical explanation. Thank You so much. Also until very good glass coatings the number of lens elements was limited as too much light was lost by the reflection of each element. This probably limited the use of low dispersion glass due to the need for other corrective elements. I also wonder if newer designs because of coatings are using several low curvature elements instead of one high curvature element which is more costly to manufacture.

How do you calculate the average group complexity?

Everything makes sense now, I checked my lenses and indeed those which I liked the best have the "most pop" by your formula, everything checks out. However, one thing I don't understand from theoretical standpoint - why does the group complexity matter. For example, why is it better to have 2 lenses in 1 group than just one thicker one or 2 lenses in separate groups?

Yes.

I am here for the image fidelity

Useful information! For once Youtube algorithm recommended something interesting.

I suspect that simpler lens designs will produce better micro contrast and it is this that determines the "3D pop" in an image. Modern designs are typically much more complex than vintage designs, with the ideal of limiting image artefacts. I also suspect that modern photographers value sharpness more than pop. Lastly, coatings on vintage lenses are typically very bad in direct comparison to coatings on modern lens designs. I guess it comes down to what you value.