"The flattening of modern lenses or the death of 3D pop"

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

Found this by coincidence: http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/10/4/the-flattening-of-modern-lenses-or-the-death-of-3d-pop

Basically the author states that a lens giving 3D pop should not have more than 9 lens elements

He gives plenty of examples ... especially here: http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/11/12/depth-vs-flat-lens-quick-comparison

Statements guys?

[arthurking83]

IMO:

Some people have too much time on their hands.

Not seeing what he's seeing.
While there are some rendering differences between the Nikkor 50 and the 50 Art, this is to be expected.
The background of the Art 50 is for sure a little different that the Nikkor 50 does, but I'm not really understanding what subject intertonality is supposed to mean.

I'm sure that if the two images were presented without info as to which lens shot which statue image, you'd get a 50/50 mix of opinions as to which one rendered more nicely.

[Frank Fremerey]

I have beent thinking about the validity of his claims before, came to no clear conclusion, said: "possibly irrelevant" and chose my lenses by what I like and what is emotionally appealing to me.

What I like? I like a little or a little more confusing magic, I like to shoot wide open and I get some  of that magic from "low counters" and some from "high counters", so do not count me in when it gets to this theory...

[richardHaw]

guy is probably thinking too much 

[Akira]

As big admirer of simplicity, I'm attracted to the lenses with simpler designs consisting of fewer elements.  No scientific reason.  It's rather spiritual.   

[Jack Dahlgren]

It is true that perceptual clues such as blur and reduction of contrast in objects further away do have an impact on how “real” an image seems to us. These things are often added to CGI to increase the sense of reality. So, if a lens does not exhibit those characteristics in a way that mimics our own imperfect eyesight, it may seem more or less real as a result.

However, the relationship between number of elements is somewhat spurious. In his example, a single element lens would be best - something which we don’t find true. His examples pit prime lenses against zooms, which is unfair to the zooms as they are optimized over a wider range of focal lengths.

I also find his statements to be not based in science, for example “Glass is a capacitor” and “light spirals into the lens”.

Use what you like and what helps you best tell your story. Don’t worry about element count.

[richardHaw]

I also find his statements to be not based in science, for example “Glass is a capacitor” and “light spirals into the lens”.

he got that from the angry photographer 

[Jack Dahlgren]

he got that from the angry photographer 

Who is that? Sounds more like the stupid photographer.

[pluton]

This guy's "theories" were discussed here, some time ago.  The conclusion then was about the same as you see now.  To me: Just another internet crackpot looking for attention/clicks.
Second thought:  the whole "3D Pop" thing is a meme that skilled but unscrupulous photographic marketers use to amaze and exploit the less-knowledgable into buying equipment that will do the creating for them.

[David H. Hartman]

The visual clues surely very a bit from one lens to the next but: It's up to the photographer to give or take a sense of 3D in a photograph.

Dave Hartman

---

Ken Wheeler? Isn't he the guy with all the tattoos who greats on the nerves even more than Ken Rockwell?

[Les Olson]

 And as one might expect from someone who admires Ken Wheeler, his account of the optics and the human visual system is gibberish. 

It is also gibberish from a photographic point of view.  A photograph is inherently and inescapably different from what we see because it is two dimensional, and because it is still, and has borders and depth of field (etc).  Being different from what we see is the whole point of photography, and being two-dimensional is part of the point.     

Of course, there is light reflection at every air-glass interface, producing flare and so reducing contrast and shifting colours.  However, modern coatings reduce that effect quite sharply, so it is flat wrong to claim that an older lens with few but uncoated elements will always have better transmission than a modern lens with twice or three times as many elements, some of which are coated. 

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

As big admirer of simplicity, I'm attracted to the lenses with simpler designs consisting of fewer elements.  No scientific reason.  It's rather spiritual.   

I'm with you on that Akira, me too and admittedly I have a faible for older, exotic and neglected lenses! ;-)

But to you all guys: happy to read your statements, as I was thinking I'm missing something, as I could no follow his claims at all based on his examples.

[chambeshi]

This chap undermines his thesis that microsaturation is inversely proportional to # elements and (relatively) simple lens design.
No less than 2 of the Zeiss Distagons have 15-16 elements (15 f2.8, 21 f2.8 ). The 25 f2 has 11, but uses an aspherical and 2 Special (ED equivalent?) elements. The 135 f2 APO has 11.... but then, he attributes the distinction of these lenses to the lead content of their elements (!)
And "Many Zeiss ZF/ZE Classic lenses have world leading micro-contrast and are perhaps the most premium lenses for dSLRs. The Zeiss OTUS and Milvus lenses have reduced micro-contrast in favor of resolution."
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world

But I understand the Distagons and Milvus differ only in the weather-proofing of the latter. Still the same optical designs and standards.
And a positive is this has brought more affordable (sort of!) Distagons in excellent condition into the Used market 

[David H. Hartman]

Something to muse: if a lens is too "perfect" does it lack character?

Dave Hartman

[gryphon1911]

Something to muse: if a lens is too "perfect" does it lack character?

Dave Hartman

I guess my follow up to that is, "does a lens in and of itself have character or just a different way of rendering?"  I never really place "character" on a lens, but I do on an image and the emotion or feel it evokes.

I've taken more to using manual focus lenses lately because I appreciate the rendering qualities of them.  Modern lenses are great, but I realized a while ago that I tend to post process those images to look more like what one gets from the old Nikon AI and first get AF and AF/D lenses.  I'm a firm believer in not only shooting in camera, but post processing before I call an image final.