Mild Rant - What the $%&^ Does "Lens is Too Clinical" Mean?

[k-hawinkler]

This thread turned out to be very interesting. Thanks everybody.
If you indulge me, here is an image of sunflowers I happen to like.

Question: How would you characterize the lens and its performance the image was shot with? TIA.

Thanks everybody for playing along. What you are describing and reacting to is an uncropped but slightly processed image with Capture One Pro.
It was shot WO with Nikon D800E and Leitz Telyt V 280/4.8 version III. I have two of these lenses, one was made in 1974, the other in 1975.
I also have a version II of this lens from 1965, but it doesn't perform quite as well.

Here

Telyt V 280/4.8 version III. Some observations - Customer Forum - Leica Forum

you can find an extensive discussion of this lens type we had in 2011.
In particular there is also a discussion about my own lenses and the problems they had when I bought them.
These Telyts certainly have their flaws.
I think one has to use them very judiciously to get the best out of them.
But they certainly get their use and I have no intention of selling them.

Now that I think about this, I really should put them to use on my A7r/2 cameras as well.

Thanks again for being good sports! :thumbs:

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

When folks say that old Leica lenses don't play well with digital, there is a lot to it. There are a couple of reasons for that, but the most important is that most Leica lenses are compact designs, placing the output pupil close to the sensor plane.

This caused no great problems with film, but causes a lot of issues with digital sensors. There are essentially three problems:

• Vignetting at the pixel level, the pixels tend to be deep
• Crosstalk, the light illuminates neighbouring pixels, too
• Astigmatism caused by the cover glass

It is interesting to see how Leica has approached these issues on digital.

• Added bar codes to the lenses to better handle vignetting and colour casts. These codes can be read from the EXIF-s and softare corrections can be applied.
• The cover glass was made very thin (0.5 mm), causing problems with weak IR filtration on the M8, on the M9 it was made thicker and the IR-filter got stronger.
• Leica tasked CMOSIS with developing a new sensor having shallow pixel pits and an specially design microlens array to better handle lenses with large beam angles.

Newer lenses are calculated to take the cover glass into account, of course.

3dkraft has shown this example using the Zeiss Biogon 2/35 on a Sony A7R:

Same shot using a Loxia 2/35 on the same A7R gave this image:

The Biogon and the Loxia share construction but the Loxia was modified to play well with digital sensors. Both images are from corners and at maximum aperture. The article is here.

So it is not about just lens quality but also about specific demands on the lens caused by new imaging technology.

Best regards
Erik

"Old fondler lenses don't do well on modern Leica digitals. Even Leica have moved away from those and have been designing better lenses."

Rarely do I want to reply 'that's just wrong,' but I guess I'll try it.

IMO if you made the point correctly it would be that Leica is now making lenses that optimize for higher resolution and contrast, period. But this doesn't for a moment imply that older fondler/Mandler lenses "don't do well on modern Leica digitals."

It only means that modern sensors and older fondler/Mandler lenses, when combined, offer the advantages/disadvantages of lower resolution, lower contrast, and other things you don't happen to value.

Kirk

View attachment 113325

Homage to August Sander; MM with Mandler lens – not quite as old as these two guys

 

[Annna T]

Plenty of lenses produce various effects that are difficult, time consuming or impossible to reproduce with PP.

Not to mention the serendipity which often occurs when using such lenses.

Clinically perfect lenses limit you to a subset of possible artistic outcomes.

Not to mention, PP is allowed no matter what lens is used. When I use my Noctilux, pushing the shutter is generally a prelude to PP as well even though I am starting from a vastly different place than if I use my 50/2 Summicron.

Step away from my 50 DR, I refuse to acknowledge superiority of your Uber Zeiss.

-Bill

I don't agree : I think that a neutral lens (what you name "clinical") would offer more flexibility than one with character : the character is there, not easy to make it disappear in PP.

 

[Annna T]

I am going to come down on the other side of this one.

Even highly connected super computers are unable to simulate any molecule much more complicated than a hydrogen atom.

In the art world, I have yet to see any PP representation of oil painting that is even somewhat convincing.

In photography, it is probably a closer call if someone has unlimited time, skill and computing power. But since I have none of those I will just use my lenses based on my artistic choices and get the results I like that way.

-Bill

Personally, I think that art is strongly influenced by the tools used. It doesn't make much sense trying to mimick oil painting with a digital camera or postprocessing. Innovative art is the one that takes full advantage if the new tools, not the one that tries to mimick the past.

 

[synn]

To me, a lens with "Character" is one that delivers a pleasing result out of camera in terms of rendering. This might include aberrations that profesisonal chart readers frown upon, but as long as I am not shooting flat test charts, this matters very little to me.

I have also found that most lenses with "Character" deliver images that might not be bleeding sharp out of the box, but sharpen/ cleanup pretty nicely in post. My favorite example is the Mamiya 50mm shift. I Don't need any image to be sharper than this.

(R. Click -> View image for 2048 px size)

The converse to this theory is that a "Clinical" lens can be "Softened" to look like it has character. Well, "Softening" has nothing to do with character. At least, not to me. The softening is only a side effect, but the rendering is what matters. Also, "Softening" alone doesn't define a lens with character. The Nikon 70-300 G for an example, is a BAD lens that incidentally, is very soft.

But the biggest difference of them all is that a lens with character makes me want to shoot more with it, while a clinically sharp lens stays in the bag until I really NEED it (Like my Nikkor 70-400 f/4).

 

[Hulyss Bowman]

Thanks. That doesn't define anything.
You simply replaced one word with three.
Could you please define those three words then? TIA.
I mean in terms of well defined quantities from optics.

No need to tanks me, I can't be more clear. Like humans, lenses can have character or not. How many women I know are too perfect and, vastly because of that, not attractive ? Some of my models are just pure jewels, physically and mentally speaking. Everything is proportioned, teeth are perfect, attitude is perfect... all is perfect. When all is perfect it start to be boring. It is why my best models aren't models, they are girls I spotted in the street, never attended to be model or whatever. Girls with some awkwardness, some imperfections, with sometimes surprising character. Those are my choice especially for creative work, like lenses, you see ? So at the end some "perfect" women can be pissed off because I do not choose them over a "normal" woman. Some "perfect" models doesn't even react, just facing a perfect smile. Some "perfect" models, too formatted by agencies might develop a sort of melancholia, very contained but perceptible. Here I can work and can break her back to emotions.

So clinical/surgical lenses are exactly bound to human counterpart. Going into samples or calculations isn't needed but just need to open those freaking eyes and sometimes guts, to FEEL something instead of mesurbating it

Someone who always clean, classify, calculate, organize is UTTERLY boring and depressing. A lens who always render the same, who correct every optical phenomenons, who have no "character" (what can be called "imperfections" by today or DxO standards...) is UTTERLY boring and depressing.

My choice will always go for non perfect people over perfect people. Same for lenses.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Oo

No need to tanks me, I can't be more clear. Like humans, lenses can have character or not. How many women I know are too perfect and, vastly because of that, not attractive ? Some of my models are just pure jewels, physically and mentally speaking. Everything is proportioned, teeth are perfect, attitude is perfect... all is perfect. When all is perfect it start to be boring. It is why my best models aren't models, they are girls I spotted in the street, never attended to be model or whatever. Girls with some awkwardness, some imperfections, with sometimes surprising character. Those are my choice especially for creative work, like lenses, you see ? So at the end some "perfect" women can be pissed off because I do not choose them over a "normal" woman. Some "perfect" models doesn't even react, just facing a perfect smile. Some "perfect" models, too formatted by agencies might develop a sort of melancholia, very contained but perceptible. Here I can work and can break her back to emotions.

So clinical/surgical lenses are exactly bound to human counterpart. No need going into samples or calculations but just need to open those freaking eyes and sometimes guts, to FEEL something instead of mesurbating it

Thanks for your post. I don't think I expressed a preference, certainly didn't mean to, for what you call clinical or character lenses. In fact I like to use all kinds of lenses. Frankly, I simply asked for a definition so that this discussion is based on solid ground and not quicksand.

I definitely can understand your reaction to perfection. I have a similar reaction when it comes to music. I prefer recordings of life performances with their imperfections rather than perfected studio recordings.

Nevertheless, it would be useful IMHO if this community could agree on a definition of a term that gets thrown around all the time.

Thanks again for stating your view so clearly.

Now, is there anybody willing to propose a draft definition for "Clinical" that we then could iterate and hopefully come to a common use of the term?

BTW, I like the image. Thanks.

 

[Vivek]

But I do see lipstick on the straw.:grin:

That caught my eye and I am glad that the lens/camera combo could capture it.

 

[Hulyss Bowman]

I do not think we will ever agree for a definition of "clinical/surgical" in term of optical design. I mentioned Heliar and planar design because they are not telecentric designs and thus, induce some "flaws" on digital sensor. Like politic we might try to do a sort of serious pool and then make a GetDPI lexical dictionary. The majority will win. I think we are enough with big experience to make such a glossary.

I spoke only on my POV, as I mostly shoot living things. For nature and architecture, a surgical lens is better, IMHO. The problem is some bizarre ppl even start to classify the level of clinicalness inside the already existing family of clinical lenses.

Edit: To start with, we can start to say that the more a lens is telecentric and the more she contain aspherical/FLD/SLD elements, the more she is supposedly "clinical". My opinion is it have a lot to do with lens design and optical formula (obviously ).

So my primo definition might be : The more the corrected, the more the clinical.

 

[synn]

Generally, I find that modern lenses are highly corrected and therefore, more clinical. However, as Hulyss says, this is a highly personal matter and it is unlikely that there can be a universal definition. For some, that clinical perfection IS character. For others, like me and Hulyss, the "Flaws" are what makes the images special.

 

[dandrewk]

I suggest to anyone who feels a "clinically perfect" image can't be post-processed to mimic an image from a "character lens" do a bit more homework. There's a lot more latitude than simple softening an image. There are many excellent LR/PS plugins that can make subtle adjustments based on a myriad of options. All of this can be done without having the image scream "MANIPULATED!".

Yes, there is a learning curve, and if you aren't technically inclined you may struggle a bit. But after awhile it becomes second nature, and I've gotten good at knowing what needs to be done when I first view the image.

All of these steps merely manipulate image data that is -already there-. A lens that has certain characteristics that may be seen as "flawed" (for lack of a better word) can NEVER be "fixed", because you can't fix what isn't there in the first place.

Photography is all about the photographer, and has been from the start. The digital age hasn't changed that, but it has changed -everything- that happens after the shutter is released.

 

[synn]

Think of it as the difference between a David Gilmour solo and a Michael Angelo Batio solo.

 

[k-hawinkler]

I do not think we will ever agree for a definition of "clinical/surgical" in term of optical design. I mentioned Heliar and planar design because they are not telecentric designs and thus, induce some "flaws" on digital sensor. Like politic we might try to do a sort of serious pool and then make a GetDPI lexical dictionary. The majority will win. I think we are enough with big experience to make such a glossary.

I spoke only on my POV, as I mostly shoot living things. For nature and architecture, a surgical lens is better, IMHO. The problem is some bizarre ppl even start to classify the level of clinicalness inside the already existing family of clinical lenses.

Edit: To start with, we can start to say that the more a lens is telecentric and the more she contain aspherical/FLD/SLD elements, the more she is supposedly "clinical". My opinion is it have a lot to do with lens design and optical formula (obviously ).

So my primo definition might be : The more the corrected, the more the clinical.

Thanks again. I agree with that. I think it's a good start. I am thinking we may spell out next at some level of detail what those imperfections are that got corrected almost to perfection, like all kinds of aberrations, distortions, etc. Thanks again.

Anybody else wants to chime in? Please do. TIA.

 

[mjr]

I agree with Hulyss, but also think the term clinical has too many variables, maybe it's not that a specific lens is too clinical, maybe it's the scene that doesn't suit the rendering. All lenses have a different signature that's what attracts us to one or another, it can't possibly be universal as we all see and desire different things from our equipment and our images.

I think as photographers we are also not necessarily the best judges of what works in an image, we can sometimes be caught up in the technical, the sharpness, rendering, things like that and forget about the image as a whole, the content and what inspires us. For example, it's very personal but I happen too really like the way Hulyss for one, shoots his images, they tend to be warm, inviting and I would like the images regardless of the lens he uses, I actually can't look at some other images, some "street" for example, there is nothing I personally like about them, I don't care what lens is used or what camera, the subjects are so far away from what I like that it's irrelevant. I guess that is what drives what we produce or strive to produce in images.

One thing I think is also overlooked is consistency, I like the fact that it doesn't matter which lens I chose from my lineup, they all render extremely close to each other, I am just picking the angle of view rather than picking a style I like when I chose a lens, that's important to me but may not be a consideration at all to others.

Anyway, there are enough lenses around in different mounts for us to chose what we like and avoid what we don't.

Mat

 

[Vivek]

I do not agree with that ("definition") . By extension of that ("definition"), Petzval lens design should been the preferred one during the film era. It was not.

 

[pegelli]

Let me try: A photographer will (or might) call a lens clinical when it gives a rendering that doesn't emotionally express what he had in mind when taking the picture due to the fact it's "too clean" or "too perfect".

Since this is an opinion and subject to personal taste this cannot be exactly defined, measured or tested.

It's the same with bokeh. You can have harsh bokeh, swirly bokeh, nervous bokeh, smooth bokeh and most people will recognize these in a picture.
However there is no definition of bad or good bokeh, since this depends on the preference and taste of the observer.

So the parallel to the degree of clinicalness (new word?) is similar, you can recognize a clinical capture from one with a lens with more aberrations, however whether that is good or bad is a matter of taste and is entirely up to the observer (incl. the photographer) and will even be different for different subjects.

 

[k-hawinkler]

I do not agree with that ("definition") . By extension of that ("definition"), Petzval lens design should been the preferred one during the film era. It was not.

Thanks Vivek. What would your definition of clinical look like? TIA.

 

[Vivek]

Thanks Vivek. What would your definition of clinical look like? TIA.

Something that is non photography related (also the term "sterile").

 

[k-hawinkler]

Let me try: A photographer will (or might) call a lens clinical when it gives a rendering that doesn't emotionally express what he had in mind when taking the picture due to the fact it's "too clean" or "too perfect".

Since this is an opinion and subject to personal taste this cannot be exactly defined, measured or tested.

It's the same with bokeh. You can have harsh bokeh, swirly bokeh, nervous bokeh, smooth bokeh and most people will recognize these in a picture.
However there is no definition of bad or good bokeh, since this depends on the preference and taste of the observer.

So the parallel to the degree of clinicalness (new word?) is similar, you can recognize a clinical capture from one with a lens with more aberrations, however whether that is good or bad is a matter of taste and is entirely up to the observer (incl. the photographer)

Thank you. Great points. I think we are making progress. The more we can flesh this out the better. Thank you again.

Anybody else ready to chime in? TIA.

 

[mjr]

To add, I think we as creative people have the option to make the most of our lenses by changing the way we shoot or the way we frame an image to reflect what we want from the shot, regardless of the lens characteristics, here are some examples, not art, just from my garden.

I can position myself to get a less busy background and isolate the subject for example..



I can shoot in to the sun to create a busy background..



Or I can go somewhere between the two..



My point being that with the same lens I can create what I want, I find this lens fairly neutral, I can bring in what I want. Now obviously these are just messing around, I'm not producing for a client I'm just learning how my lenses work so I'm not making a statement here, I'm just experimenting. I happen to love that I can shoot old people and increase the texture and depth and I can shoot young people and give a soft glow, a lot is just down to how you want to make use of it.

Mat