>>41552283d pop isnt even gearfaggotry, its fucking physics lmfao
and stop using that retarded word. its not ''3d pop'' its lens design. like literal glass element design and coatings at work. like actual physics that make the lens read light properly ''in a 3d manner'' or completely dull and 2dimensional shitty lens. like even lenses for the first ever cameras in 1840 had the retardedly called ''3d pop,'' and were talking about bare minimum, bare bones lenses that were fixed to and made for fucking cameras that took images on silver coated copper sheets, just over 200 years ago.
lenses got better and better going from 1850's through 1900's up to the point of early 1990's. almost all lenses (yes almost ALL lenses) made pre 1990's have the so called ''3d pop'' some more some less but almost all have it. no matter which lens you pick up, it will make beautiful life like images. its only in early 1990's that everything started going to shit. thats when the first obsession with sharpness and bullshit pixel peeping specs started and thats when manufacturers started adding more and more glass elements and more and more coatings and other bullshit.
by early 2010's, its already gotten so bad, to the point where a $50 zeiss lens from 1920 made better looking images than a fucking $5,000 Zeiss Otus lens. less sharp but better looking (more life like image.) lenses nowadays are so bad that you could say they literally take glass from binoculars, put it in a lens and call it a day. its the same shit. especially with greedy profit based manufacturers like tamron, sigma, samyang and the likes. were at the point where fucking yongnuo and tokina aka. one of the worst companies in everything and anything photography related, makes better lenses than some of the biggest 3rd party camera/lens manufacturers.
>pic related take with an ancient tamron 17-50 f2.8 ASPH that i got for $70$70 lens creating more ''3d pop'' like images than some of the 2015-2019 zeiss or leica lenses
