Hi guys,
There's been a lot of talk on the forums recently about the flat rendering from multi element complex glass, I've followed the forums with the image examples of how noses are rendered flatter and general reduction in 3D (ness) with modern complex designs.
Micro contrast seems also to be one of the "buzz words" that must be used when describing a lens's characteristics along with colour rendition, what in the end is it's real definition?
I've seen plenty of faults over the years from glass, but most are the more straight forward shortcomings, like soft corners and strong bokeh fringing, distortion and harshness in OOF areas. I'm seeing a lot less in my current glass excepting from the FF AFD series which still has that ninties era of IQ (mainly soft corners, halos and lower contrast wide open)
As for 3D ness, I'm not seeing this issue of different depth renditions that many including "The Angry Photographer" are raving about from... Sigmas, Otuses, and other more exotic designs.(maybe because I've none of them)..
So what are your views, is anyone seeing this phenomenon, or is it just a lot of nonsense?
(Views from Klaus (when he's back from utopia) and Marcus would be nice)
I'd just ask, is there a real physical difference in the lens, resulting in a subjective difference in the output? I watched one of "The Angry Photographer" videos previously, and what a waste of time. Pure unsubstantiated opinion. Zero information. I wouldn't mind if at any point he say why. I was going to do a comparison of assorted 50mm lenses from through the ages but never got around to it... sun is actually out today, kinda, so I might have a go this afternoon.
My only suspicion in this area is that the better technical images possible now lack a character from the flaws in older lenses.
Oh, you're probably referring to that "article" by a guy called Yannick something... Frankly, I'd just call that pseudo-scientific clickbait because his "conclusions" were dubious and his examples - to these eyes - were either running counter to his narrative, or cherry-picked to prove his point (which they didn't do very well) - like choosing a photo of Asian model to illustrate the point of "flat face rendering" by a modern lens (Sigma 35 AFAIR), or choosing different shooting angles to fit the "conclusions" better (in the case of the 105mm).
If that guy liked the old (and, as the testing by PZ and other sites, clearly proves, less sharp) lenses, he could've just said that. But inventing a theory and trying to pass it as fact is, to put it mildly... a monumental waste of time on the part of everyone involved, so to say.
It's that "character" argument again that we often hear from people dissing the modern designs and/or trying to validate their love for old, flawed glass (as if opinion ever needs validation... to me, that speaks of inherent inferiority complex)... but cranked up to eleven.
I think, the internet as a superconductor of stupidity does again it's multiplying work. I agree on your opinion about "Theoria Apophasis", popo, (someone with this kind of Alias doesn't want to be connected with it, no?). A lot of his rants are funny at best in the first 20 seconds, after that he starts repetition loops. I liked the one when he asked "what were they smoking over at Nikon this time?"
3Dness or not has also to do something with lighting. It's like the first attempts with a new D800 and finding out that some rules are no longer valid - like the shutter speed related to the focal length. It is related, but not as before. Some flaws of VR or AF-accuracy due to assembly problems were also new.
So, getting new lenses and high resolution sensors forces also some changes in the workflow, I suspect.
That nose rendering article was pure garbage, the lighting were so different on each image, you could not possibly draw any conclusions from it.
/troll mode on
Want to experience 3D Pop first hand? Shoot a subject in backlight and pull the shadows and add some clarity. Subject will stand out from the background in a way that your brain will thinkg it's a 3D image. Of course, you need a lens that is sharp (microcontrast) to begin with and pulls off an image with enough contrast in backlit situation for this to work. If your lens can pull it off, it means it has some pretty good optics to begin with. Zeiss T* lenses are known for their performance in such conditions, so people mistake that for having the 3D "Zeiss Pop". It's actually just good performance in backlit conditions which you wouldn't get with another lens. Even Zeiss were talking in an interview that photographic style changed a lot in the past years due to new, better designed glass enabling photographers to shoot in lighting conditions where it wasn't possible to get a good image before.
/troll mode off
You see, it almost made sense for a moment.
Jokes aside, yes I find a few lenses to have a better, more 3D rendering. I can't quite put my finger on how it's made but somehow almost all of them carry the Zeiss badge, including some CZ Jena lenses.
Quote:I agree on your opinion about "Theoria Apophasis", popo, (someone with this kind of Alias doesn't want to be connected with it, no?).
I don't understand what you mean there. The forum name I use here (and elsewhere) is purely for historic reasons and was given to me during my early online gaming days. Only much later on did I find out there were other associations with it.
Misunderstanding, sorry: Originally I wrote "I agree on your opinion about "Theoria Apophasis" (someone with this kind of Alias doesn't want to be connected with it, no?)".
Then I got a message that somebody (obican) wrote a text and posted it, before I could answer to your post. For me, it was necessary to put in your name, but the sentence in brackets I wrote about "Theoria whatever-Greek-no-one-understands-anyway, called
The Angry Photographer". That part has nothing to do with your Alias.
Bag packed with a 5D2, 3x50mm lenses, and a 70-300. The sun is out so gonna get some photos... was debating waiting until a little later but the sun is quite low already
So maybe I will have a 50mm comparison later, as well as something for the seasonal thread.
Quote:Oh, you're probably referring to that "article" by a guy called Yannick something... Frankly, I'd just call that pseudo-scientific clickbait because his "conclusions" were dubious and his examples - to these eyes - were either running counter to his narrative, or cherry-picked to prove his point (which they didn't do very well) - like choosing a photo of Asian model to illustrate the point of "flat face rendering" by a modern lens (Sigma 35 AFAIR), or choosing different shooting angles to fit the "conclusions" better (in the case of the 105mm).
If that guy liked the old (and, as the testing by PZ and other sites, clearly proves, less sharp) lenses, he could've just said that. But inventing a theory and trying to pass it as fact is, to put it mildly... a monumental waste of time on the part of everyone involved, so to say.
It's that "character" argument again that we often hear from people dissing the modern designs and/or trying to validate their love for old, flawed glass (as if opinion ever needs validation... to me, that speaks of inherent inferiority complex)... but cranked up to eleven.
Indeed he's one of the main protagonists, I followed that thread where as you say, a Sigma lens was used to take an image of an Asian lady with her corresponding petite nose, followed by an image of a "Pinocchio look alike" taken using the AF35 F2D lens, all this to show "conclusively" the true 3D rendering of this large hooter from the 35mm F2D.
This was obviously spotted by Ken Wheeler (TAP) who came dashing in to sit at his video table gushing with "How he found proof" of his claimed theories, that Sigma and Otus lenses were just crap!
The overall reception of Yanneck's post was generally derisory, excepting a few faithful believers claiming that "if you are blessed with their vision, it would be easy for you to see, and the fact that if you can't see it, just means that you are in no position to pass judgment" a clever way of sowing doubt in the uncertain!
The latest from TAP is with the Nikor AF-S105mm F1.4, where without any more evidence than two or three shots published on Flickr, he was capable at a stoke of condemning the lens as
"junk, crap" and when overnight one of the images was modified he construed that as a "NIkon conspiracy/coverup" as Nikon knew he was right.
My guess is he sits at home after dark doors double bolted fearing a knock on the door from the Nikon heavies! 
He tried a lot to invite them invading his house with tanks and heavy artillery, but I think, after they watched this Sumo guy living in his cramped mess and wearing the same t-shirt over weeks, Nikon will be worried about their tanks.