Toine,
First, let me say that you've got a very nice image!
Paul has given a very simple explanation for the visual effect you (we)
observe. The further difference is (as Paul and a few others pointed out)
comes from the quality of the bokeh for the particular lens.
As you probably know, the lead (actually, lead oxide!) in the lens glass
raises its refractive index. This allows for thinner lenses for a given
focal length. However, glass with a higher refraction index has higher
dispersion that needs to be corrected to make the lens achromatic (i.e. to
minimize chromatic [and spherical] abberations).
So, the combination of these factors *can* affect the bokeh.
I've found this informative write-up on B&H website:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/understanding-bokeh
It gives a nice overview of what and how plays a role in the bokeh - with
some nice illustrations.
In particular, I didn't know that there are lenses with adjustable bokeh.
Now, I was curious about how much is known scientifically about bokeh.
It is clear that at least some lens manufacturers pay attention to it.
While I didn't do a deep comprehensive search in the scientific
literature, it seems, - not much seems to be published on that topic.
I've been able to find a few research articles adressing the theory and
theoretical calculation of the bokeh, but there are literally handful of
those. (And there was some research on how to fake bokeh, - I assume aimed
at creating "creative filters" for the phone-shooters.)
Of those, one paper I looked at was Viktor P. Sivokon, Michael D. Thorpe
Optical Engineering, 53(6), 065103 (2014).
https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.53.6.065103
(Sorry, it requires paid access. Feel free to contact me directly for
detail.)
They were able to model bokeh mathematically (analytically) and compare
to the actual bokeh produced by lenses with a reasonable accuracy.
Here is one of their results:
http://42graphy.org/misc/BokehCalculated-SivokonThorpe.jpg
Cheers,
Igor
Toine Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:56:03 -0700 wrote:
Yes I agree thats the main effect. However this guy even includes lead in
glass as a pop factor. The rendering of bokeh also adds to the effect.
Zooms have a busy bokeh.
https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses
I can hardly see the difference in his before after shot with the slider
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020, 18:46 Paul Stenquist, <[email protected]>
wrote:
What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And because
primes generally have a larger app wide open than zooms, they give you
more
control over DOF.
Paul
> On Sep 27, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Daniel J. Matyola <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> That certainly does "pop"!
>
> Dan Matyola
> *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
> <https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery>*
>
>
>
>> On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Toine <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That
>> should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today:
>>
>>
https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#&gid=1&pid=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit
>>
>> I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe
because
it
>> pops.
>>
>> Do I need new glasses?
>>
>> Toine
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
