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 :)
A fountain of ignorance shows how to know things without measurement. And ephemeral idea (3D pop) becomes a cult of ignorance and this place is the temple.
It’s crazy to think that this is the problem that those module8 tuners actually solve…. I collected a full set of the Zeiss ZF and Jena lenses for their pop, and it’s a night and day difference compared to my Sigma, Canon, or any other autofocus lenses. If you aren’t convinced by this approach, just rent lenses and test them for yourself. All he’s talking about is lens design, there’s no reason to get mad lol.
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?
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?
I use a Viltrox 13mm and I can confirm it's flat as hell. Big aperture wide angle lens with great autofocus but flat as hell. 4 low dispersion elements. Thinking of switching to a fujinon 14mm but the smaller aperture can result in a lack of depth of field...
Thanks for sharing good broadcast video about 3D-pop effects of lenses in photography. I just want to suggest, in a positive way, that you should carefully prepare the content you will discuss, please write down its topics and detailed sections on a piece of paper, or an electronic document. You can use a Scroll on a computer screen infront of you, next and behind the camera as a teleprompter, that help you easy tracking and follow your content, for what you'll say in the video. With that, you will present your content smoothly with full meaning continuously, attracting the listener, and more better than all your videos you speak very emotionally and without preparation, and have difficulty finding words to express the thoughts that appear in your head when you are talking about a content, causing your content to contain a lot of confused sounds of prolonging the vowels "Errrrrrr", "RRRRR", "Theeeeeee", "Uhmmmm" , "Arr"....... , that make audiences feel bored , tired, feel wasting time and feeling like you didn't prepare the content carefully early. Please refer to many other popular channels with thousands of subscribers or recent numbers of audiences, followers... as many authors and channnels as you can easy find them in TH-cam. Sorry if my comments may make you uncomfortable, but I just want to say in positive purpose, please also read my comment and think positively. the purpose of my comments is just to help you improve your next videos better and attract the audience more through the your useful content and shareable. Once again, thanks and best regards .
This is one of the best videos I ever watched on TH-cam about lens poppiness. Thank you for taking the efforts. I am eagerly waiting for your future videos
3d pop is such a buzzword. But shooting Cosina and Leica adapted lenses on my Sony I’d say this guy is on the right track. Micro contrast is more prevalent in all of the lenses he says have pop vs the likely more “sharper” lenses on the right. I agree without raw evidence of what he’s saying, most modern lenses of today have great sharpness but often lack “character” or its own uniqueness because of the extra low dispersion glass. It almost seems like older vintage lenses had much more style to their rendering rather than mathematical sharpness of their more modern models. The give and take is a less natural look to the human eye, but visibly sharper. I myself have no qualifications, just experience from wasting mass amounts of money on gear over the years. 😅
He just spent half an hour explaining his points. He did not force anyone to trust him. If he is a doctor or a car mechanic or whatever, are you then going to disregard everything he said? Maybe take some time and collect info from other sorces, do your own observations and tests and you will then decide if this man is to be trusted or not, if his theories are legit or not. Try to further the resoning. Personally when someone says they're to be trusted, I see that as a red flag.
I just want to know if you have any specialized knowledge within the camera/lens industry that would help improve credibility. I want to believe you, and just some additional information about your qualifications would be helpful. As it stands, you have few followers and very little views. All of this can just be hearsay and random opinion. Which is fine, but I am in the pursuit of truth.
Excellent video. Thank you. Camera Conspiracies sent me 😉
Same
@@koreanwonders 🙋♂
Same here
Same, now looking at vintage lenses
Same
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 :)
Nikon 24 f1.4 is highly poppy. I have it. So is the 35 f1.4.
As to 135mm, let me suggest the Carl Zeiss Jena 135 f3.5 Sonnar.
@@sneye1 Interesting! Ok, thanks for your suggestions!
For the Zeiss 135mm, there is a "zebra" version, or MC DDR version, does it matter which?
@cameraconspiracies Yes. The Zebra version is redioactive. Keep away..
@@sneye1 Ok :)
Yes.
listening on x1.75 playback speed is perfect
nope. x2 ist a must
Yes, good idea. Thanks...
yes indeed 😂
A fountain of ignorance shows how to know things without measurement. And ephemeral idea (3D pop) becomes a cult of ignorance and this place is the temple.
Thank you.
It’s crazy to think that this is the problem that those module8 tuners actually solve….
I collected a full set of the Zeiss ZF and Jena lenses for their pop, and it’s a night and day difference compared to my Sigma, Canon, or any other autofocus lenses.
If you aren’t convinced by this approach, just rent lenses and test them for yourself. All he’s talking about is lens design, there’s no reason to get mad lol.
Didn't hear about Module 8 before. It actually makes perfect sense. Thanks.
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 :)
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?
Upon actual thinking, this made no sense.
Thanks for sharing such informative content! Best regards from Sao Paulo, Brazil!
Useful information! For once TH-cam algorithm recommended something interesting.
A great video, thanks.
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?
Check the second video in my channel. The methodology is thoroughly explained there.
How do you calculate the average group complexity?
Divide the number of elements by the number of groups.
I use a Viltrox 13mm and I can confirm it's flat as hell. Big aperture wide angle lens with great autofocus but flat as hell. 4 low dispersion elements. Thinking of switching to a fujinon 14mm but the smaller aperture can result in a lack of depth of field...
Hi. Depth of field is hardly a consideration with wide lenses. Pop is. Go for it.
I am here for the image fidelity
that a 40mm nokton 1.4
Yes.
Thanks for sharing good broadcast video about 3D-pop effects of lenses in photography.
I just want to suggest, in a positive way, that you should carefully prepare the content you will discuss, please write down its topics and detailed sections on a piece of paper, or an electronic document. You can use a Scroll on a computer screen infront of you, next and behind the camera as a teleprompter, that help you easy tracking and follow your content, for what you'll say in the video. With that, you will present your content smoothly with full meaning continuously, attracting the listener, and more better than all your videos you speak very emotionally and without preparation, and have difficulty finding words to express the thoughts that appear in your head when you are talking about a content, causing your content to contain a lot of confused sounds of prolonging the vowels "Errrrrrr", "RRRRR", "Theeeeeee", "Uhmmmm" , "Arr"....... , that make audiences feel bored , tired, feel wasting time and feeling like you didn't prepare the content carefully early. Please refer to many other popular channels with thousands of subscribers or recent numbers of audiences, followers... as many authors and channnels as you can easy find them in TH-cam.
Sorry if my comments may make you uncomfortable, but I just want to say in positive purpose, please also read my comment and think positively. the purpose of my comments is just to help you improve your next videos better and attract the audience more through the your useful content and shareable. Once again, thanks and best regards .
Thank you. I am aware of the difficulty to watch my content or listen to it. Will address your good advice in a future video.
הידע שלך מדהים. תשקול לעלות תכנים בעברית .
This is one of the best videos I ever watched on TH-cam about lens poppiness. Thank you for taking the efforts. I am eagerly waiting for your future videos
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it. That said, this channel will be quite diverse in its topics. Please don't expect any more elaboration on pop.
What are your qualifications and why should anyone trust what you’re saying?
3d pop is such a buzzword. But shooting Cosina and Leica adapted lenses on my Sony I’d say this guy is on the right track. Micro contrast is more prevalent in all of the lenses he says have pop vs the likely more “sharper” lenses on the right. I agree without raw evidence of what he’s saying, most modern lenses of today have great sharpness but often lack “character” or its own uniqueness because of the extra low dispersion glass. It almost seems like older vintage lenses had much more style to their rendering rather than mathematical sharpness of their more modern models. The give and take is a less natural look to the human eye, but visibly sharper. I myself have no qualifications, just experience from wasting mass amounts of money on gear over the years. 😅
He just spent half an hour explaining his points. He did not force anyone to trust him. If he is a doctor or a car mechanic or whatever, are you then going to disregard everything he said? Maybe take some time and collect info from other sorces, do your own observations and tests and you will then decide if this man is to be trusted or not, if his theories are legit or not. Try to further the resoning. Personally when someone says they're to be trusted, I see that as a red flag.
My qualifications are irrelevant. Not expecting anyone to trust what is said. Judge for yourself.
I just want to know if you have any specialized knowledge within the camera/lens industry that would help improve credibility. I want to believe you, and just some additional information about your qualifications would be helpful.
As it stands, you have few followers and very little views. All of this can just be hearsay and random opinion. Which is fine, but I am in the pursuit of truth.
@@Labunga43Hi, Will address your concerns in a future video. Stay tuned.
Warning! This guy does not know anything about optics.