Low Element Count Lenses, 3D pop, and Micro-contrast -- My Theory

[michaelwj]

Here is an interesting article... A couple quotes that supports my original position

"...adding additional elements, each designed to correct for specific aberrations, lens manufacturers can minimise their effects.
[...]
Adding additional elements isn’t a perfect fix. Every time light is transmitted from one lens to another a little bit of light is lost. The more elements in a lens, the more light and colour information that is lost in transmission. There is a trade off between correcting for optical aberrations and preserving information.

[...]
3D Rendition and Micro-Contrast
Older lenses have far fewer elements than modern lenses. These makes them more prone to optical aberrations and, in particular, it means they often have very soft edges. On the other hand, they can have some incredibly pleasing characteristics. Unlike resolution or sharpness, these characteristics are a lot more difficult to measure with a chart. "

Micro-contrast is the small amounts of tonal and colour variance between details on a subject. It’s an incredibly subtle effect but it is often what sets excellent glass—like Leica, Zeiss, Canon L series, medium-format or large-format lenses—apart from cheaper lenses. Micro-contrast is what gives areas of consistent colour a realistic and accurate texture. It is among the first detail to be lost when light passes through too many elements. "

Worth a read
Here Is What to Look For When You Buy Photography Lenses
https://photography.tutsplus.com/tu...or-when-you-buy-photography-lenses--cms-27047

The source you cite has no authority on these matters, and describes themselves as a photographer, adventurer, and man of mystery.
They are incorrect. The number of elements has nothing to do with “micro-contrast” or “3D pop”. I will say again, correlation does not equal causality.

The Zeiss Biogons and Distagons both have huge numbers of elements in heaps of groups, yet are often thrown in the “3D pop” and “micro contrast” heap.

 

[teddy]

Back to the 3D or 'pop' look; some really poor lenses are great for this. Curvature of focus, naturally poor lenses quality (edge blur), maybe even (as above say) 'under-correction of some optical faults,' less sophisticated quality of the glass maybe in the end encourage 3D and 'pop.'

This is what I've been saying. Astigmatism, curvature of field, vignetting and myriad combinations of all. This is a factor on the "3-D Pop".
Such a simplistic idea to the solution, but because it's banal - I get no feedback... A good thread anyhow.

 

[cboy]

Dont know what people are on about here. Lens manufactures are purposely boring us with clinical lenses? Seriously have you checked out the SL lenses have amazing 3d depth to them despite having numerous glass elements. How much elements is too much? Perhaps the lens designers here can tell me. Peter Karbe noted that the best lenses are those that are able to higly resolve at the lower contrast area of a scene ... https://youtu.be/G_Rgs8otVC0

 

[pluton]

"3D Pop", or what I think people mean when they write the term, comes from lighting and composition. Yes, some lenses are flat and low contrast, others give a more snappy rendition. We've known this for 100 years.
The term Microcontrast, which by it's construction actually translates as 'extremely small contrast', is a now-worthless term here on the forums because there are at least two separate and incompatible definitions being used. Many think it means the clear rendition of extremely small details, but many others blather on about the separation of tones and colors. Which is it?

 

[gavinlg]

Dont know what people are on about here. Lens manufactures are purposely boring us with clinical lenses? Seriously have you checked out the SL lenses have amazing 3d depth to them despite having numerous glass elements. How much elements is too much? Perhaps the lens designers here can tell me. Peter Karbe noted that the best lenses are those that are able to higly resolve at the lower contrast area of a scene ... https://youtu.be/G_Rgs8otVC0

It's kind of like the Sigma Art lenses which are technical masterpieces, but 'something' about they way they draw is obviously quite flat to me. In the same way, the (what I would call) golden era lenses of the 70s/80s/90s with relatively simple optical formulas and leaded glass may not be as technically sharp, but 'something' about the way they draw has a depth I don't tend to see with the Sigmas.
I originally rejected this idea but have in the last few years after going through tens of dozens of lenses have come around to it. A really good example is the Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 Nokton vs a sigma 50mm f1.4 art.

"3D Pop", or what I think people mean when they write the term, comes from lighting and composition.

Yes, 100%. But there's definitely differences in lens rendering too. My subjective view is there's a sweet spot between under corrected and technically perfect where rendering is most natural.

The term Microcontrast, which by it's construction actually translates as 'extremely small contrast', is a now-worthless term here on the forums because there are at least two separate and incompatible definitions being used. Many think it means the clear rendition of extremely small details, but many others blather on about the separation of tones and colors. Which is it?

They could quite easily be the same thing, given they're at the least somewhat interrelated definitions. I think it's fairly obvious that designs like the Contax/kyocera era lenses (Contax G and Contax SLR lenses) have a noticeably higher microcontrast (wether that be in separation of tones or clear rendition of details) than the equivalent OM zuiko lenses of the same period, for instance.